Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive 5

hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine
The FDA warned doctors against prescribing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine for the treatment of the coronavirus except in hospitals and research studies. The FDA said it was aware of “serious heart problems” associated with the use of the drugs and researchers recently cut a chloroquine study short after patients developed irregular heart beats and nearly two dozen died. Scientists cited a “primary outcome” of death and said the findings should “serve to curb the exuberant use” of the drug. Trump, however, has regularly touted the drugs as a potential “game changer,” saying at one point: “What do you have to lose? I really think they should try it.”
 * https://apnews.com/21249a99b29d7b2c8648acb1f01a9812
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/24/coronavirus-latest-news
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-24/fda-issues-safety-warning-on-drugs-trump-has-touted-for-covid-19
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-warns-against-use-of-chloroquine-outside-of-clinical-trials-11587745979
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-fda-warning-hydroxychloroquine-treating-covid-19
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/fda-issues-warnings-on-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-after-serious-poisoning-and-death-reported.html

See X1\ (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 8
 * Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 7
 * Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 7
 * Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 5

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommends against using a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients because of potential toxicities. Trump, however, has suggested the combination might be helpful.

The malaria drug widely touted by Trump showed no benefit – and more deaths – in a U.S. veterans study. About 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. About 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too.

Trump brushed off questions about hydroxychloroquine after weeks of touting the anti-malarial drug as a potential “game changer” against the advice of his own public health officials. On 21.April, a new government study suggested that the drug didn’t offer any benefit in fighting COVID-19 and that its use was correlated with more deaths. When asked about the study conducted by the V.A., Trump responded: “I don’t know of the report. Obviously, there have been some very good reports, and perhaps this one is not a good report. But we’ll be looking at it.” X1\ (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/22/trump-fox-news-suggest-caution-hydroxychloroquine-studies-after-one-undercuts-their-case
 * https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-brushes-off-questions-drug-hes-touted-performs/story?id=70285600


 * Do add it. People have been reported to have ingested bleach because of Trump's suggestions. Mgasparin (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah not really for this article. Like not even a little. PackMecEng (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree with you on this one (the rest I'm not that interested in arguing over). The chloroquine stuff has been quite extensively reported by RS, and shows how Trump's language is at odds with the medical establishment. You'll have to do better than just say "no" to convince me that it shouldn't belong here. Mgasparin (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Related Rick Bright retribution
The director of the federal agency responsible for developing a coronavirus vaccine was removed after pressing for rigorous vetting of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat the coronavirus, which Trump has repeatedly embraced. Dr. Rick Bright cited “clashes with political leadership” as a reason for his abrupt dismissal as the director of the HHS's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, as well as his resistance to “efforts to fund potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections.” Dr. Bright said that science, not “politics and cronyism” must lead the way, adding that he believed he was removed from his post because he insisted that “the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the COVID-19 pandemic” be put toward “safe and scientifically vetted solutions, and not in drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit.” He was assigned a narrower job at the National Institutes of Health.
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/rick-bright-trump-hydroxychloroquine.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-live-coverage.html
 * https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/21/rick-bright-out-at-barda
 * https://www.axios.com/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-vaccine-doctor-02f1430c-6c44-43fc-abab-56f2716c6d5a.html
 * https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/politics/rick-bright-barda-trump-coronavirus/index.html
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-treatment-vaccine-doctor-says-worry-about-trump-idea-led-to-ouster.html
 * https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/politics/read-whistleblower-vaccine-development/index.html

X1\ (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps mention it in a sentence or two, it doesn't need its own section. Mgasparin (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't need to be in this article. PackMecEng (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

blaming the W.H.O. / China, add?
X1\ (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Riley Beggin Trump says WHO didn’t share early information about Covid-19. A new report shows that’s not the case. A Washington Post report finds the Trump administration was given inside information from WHO during the early days of the pandemic. April 19, 2020, Vox.com
 * https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-own-officials-depended-on-who-to-fight-coronavirus-then-he-turned-against-it
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/americans-at-world-health-organization-transmitted-real-time-information-about-coronavirus-to-trump-administration/2020/04/19/951c77fa-818c-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html
 * https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/19/politics/white-house-world-health-organization-coronavirus

Also see Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 8

Trump ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to find out whether China and the World Health Organization initially hid what they knew about the coronavirus pandemic as it emerged. The White House sent a specific “tasking” to the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency seeking information about the early days of the outbreak, specifically what the WHO knew about two research labs studying coronaviruses in Wuhan, China. The CIA received similar instructions. “Understanding the origins of the virus is important to help the world respond to this pandemic but also to inform rapid-response efforts to future infectious disease outbreaks,” a White House spokesperson said. X1\ (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-asks-intelligence-agencies-find-out-whether-china-who-n1194451

The Trump administration pressured U.S. intelligence agencies to provide evidence supporting White House claims that the coronavirus outbreak originated in state-run laboratory accident in China. Trump – without offering any evidence – said he had reason to believe that the outbreak originated from a lab in China, saying “we should have the answer to that in the not-so-distant future.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, however, reported that intelligence agencies concur “with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified.” The White House, meanwhile, have been exploring retaliatory measures against China, including suing for compensation, which would involve stripping China of “sovereign immunity” or cancelling debt obligations to China. WaPo, NYT, WSJ, AP, Politico, Guardian, Axios, ABC News, CNBC,

X1\ (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, add it. It has been extensively covered by RS. Mgasparin (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems rather undue also. PackMecEng (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump pointing to WHO, add?
&/or at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States or ...? X1\ (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Jessica McDonald, Rem Rieder, D'Angelo Gore, Robert Farley, Lori Robertson and Eugene Kiely FactChecking Trump’s Attack on the WHO April 15, 2020 FactCheck.org


 * Yes, again for the same reason as above. Mgasparin (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems rather undue same as above. PackMecEng (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

China doing it to get Trump
Trump claimed that China’s handling of the coronavirus is proof that Beijing “will do anything they can” to make him lose his re-election bid in November, adding he believed China wants Joe Biden to win to ease the pressure on U.S.-China trade relations. Trump provided no evidence for why China would deliberately mishandle an outbreak that killed more than 4,600 of its citizens, but said he was considering ways of punishing Beijing. “I can do a lot,” Trump said, without going into detail. He added: “There are many things I can do.” China, meanwhile, rejected Trump’s assertion, saying they had “no interest” in interfering in internal U.S. affairs. X1\ (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-china-exclusive/exclusive-trump-says-china-wants-him-to-lose-his-bid-for-re-election-idUSKBN22C01F
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-30/trump-says-china-s-virus-response-tied-to-wish-for-him-to-lose
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/30/trump-claims-china-will-do-anything-to-stop-his-re-election-as-coronavirus-row-escalates

Dr. Fauci, contradicting both Trump and Pompeo, said the best scientific evidence shows that the coronavirus did not originate in a Chinese laboratory. “If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now,” Fauci said, the scientific evidence “is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated.” Fauci added that he doesn’t subscribe to the theory that someone found the virus in the wild, brought it into a lab, and then allowed it to escape and spread to the rest of the world, saying “Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species.”

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “We don’t know” where the coronavirus began, but “the weight of evidence is that it was natural and not man-made” and “that it was probably not intentional[ly]” released from a Chinese lab. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, however, insisted that “there is significant evidence that this came from the laboratory,” but conceded that “We don’t have certainty […] We’re all trying to figure out the right answer.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the U.S. intelligence community, and the “Five Eyes” international intelligence alliance have all said that the coronavirus “was not manmade or genetically modified,” suggesting that it “evolved in nature,” and likely originated in a Chinese wet market as a result of “natural human and animal interaction.”

X1\ (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In context:

75% of Americans rated Dr. Fauci’s response to the coronavirus outbreak “excellent,” while 44% said the same of Trump.


 * Yes, add it. Just try to keep the detail reasonable. Mgasparin (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not yet. PackMecEng (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than to avoid recentism, may I ask why you oppose these inclusions? Mgasparin (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is still an ongoing event with every source talking about every aspect of it right now. That makes it nearly impossible to determine what will have lasting significance. We also cannot just dump everything in either as that fails weight, npov, and possibly blp. Currently the virus section is ballooning precisely because of things like that and it needs to wait. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The boy(s) who cried the most wolves anyone has ever seen
For context:

A four-page DHS intelligence report claims that the Chinese government “intentionally concealed the severity” and how contagious the coronavirus was from the world in early January in order to stock up on the medical supplies needed to respond to the virus. The report says Chinese leaders attempted to cover their tracks by “denying there were export restrictions and obfuscating and delaying provision of its trade data.” The report also says China refused to inform the WHO that the virus “was a contagion” and says its conclusions are based on the 95% probability that the changes in China’s imports and exports were outside of the normal range. Separately, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that there’s “enormous evidence” to support the theory that the coronavirus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, not a nearby market. No evidence was offered by Pompeo to back up the assertion. While the Wuhan Institute of Virology was studying bat-borne coronaviruses at the time of the first known outbreak nearby, there has been no evidence showing it possessed the previously unknown strain. Trump, meanwhile, promised a “conclusive” report on the Chinese origins of the coronavirus outbreak. 

X1\ (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not. Mgasparin (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC) On second thought, it probably is a bit much for this article. Mgasparin (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, seems like overkill. PackMecEng (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Obamagate
There has been a ton of searching for "Obamagate" in the last few days. We have no good place for those searches to land. The term is currently a redirect, but there is no good target for it because (to the extent we even know what it is about) it seems to be about something we have no article for. There is a discussion about what to do with it here. Nobody seems to think it is ready for a separate article. I am proposing to add an "Obamagate" section to this article, one paragraph long, and then target the redirect here. My proposed section:
 * In May 2020 Trump began using the term "Obamagate" to accuse former president Barack Obama of "the biggest political crime in American history, by far!" He refused to explain what the alleged crime was, telling reporters "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody." The main allegation appears to be that Obama orchestrated the FBI investigation into Mike Flynn, who was slated to become Trump's national security advisor. The investigation was actually triggered because of Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador; Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about them. But the Obamagate accusation says there was no legitimate reason to investigate Flynn and that he was entrapped as part of a larger plot to destroy Trump's presidency.

Regardless of the outcome of the RfD, is it OK with people here if I add this? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with it being here as long as all significant views are included if it ends up in the article. Everything is speculation at this point, not unlike what we were dealing with regarding Russian collusion. As long as it is presented in proper perspective; i.e. WP:RECENTISM; breaking news involving POV speculation. What we do know factually is that NBC's Meet the Press had to issue an apology for cutting short a video clip of AG Barr. Based on what I've seen so far of the Obama allegations, neither side has presented any factual information nor has the media, at least not anything I've seen that would warrant inclusion beyond compliance with WP:REDFLAG. Atsme  Talk 📧 23:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Adding that I'm of the mind that this BBC article is as reliable as it gets. 00:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks OK to me. I would suggest, since this is a "veracity" article, adding a sentence about how especially unverifiable this particular statement is.--Pharos (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Refusing to say what the crime was" is pretty much the definition of unverifiable. I haven't seen any sources fact checking or debunking the claim (if that's actually what he was trying to say; I think it's his echo chamber that came up with that explanation of what it's supposed to be about). But if we can find a Reliable Source fact-check or debunk, or a throw-up-their-hands comment about how impossible it is to fact check, we could add it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. I added that the investigation was "actually" triggered. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The proposed version is giving way too much credence to Trump's vision that this is an actual issue, and not the reality, i.e. that the president's preferred narrative is devoid of supporting evidence, and an effort to delegitimize the first black president and everything he accomplished. How to Understand ‘Obamagate’ (The Atlantic), “Obamagate” Is Niche Programming for Trump Superfans (New Yorker), Trump Administration Struggles To Explain What’s Criminal About 'Obamagate' (Forbes), Trump allies push 'Obamagate,' but record fails to back them up (NBC News).
 * Trump's quotes should be trimmed or snipped entirely, and refocus this on the falseness of the -gate assertion. Zaathras (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. Wikipedia cares about facts. The site should not have anything on that can even be read as giving the slightest shred of legitimacy to the claims of lunatic charlatans like trump. As with the WalkAway campaign (which i still don't believe deserves it's own article), debunking the lie is the only thing deserves mentioning. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional sources, Zaathras. They will be useful. As for the Trump quotes, I think they are very important to include. The extreme hyperbole, combined with the refusal to say what he is talking about, are a form of debunking in themselves IMO. But maybe I should provide less detail about the allegations, since the narratives are coming from sources other than Trump, and the actual allegation seems to vary from day to day. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

These seem relevant: - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exjerusalemite (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia does report on the statements of lunatics and charlatans if those statements are notable, even if having an article about lunacy is seen by some as giving it legitimacy. Examples are our articles on Death panels and the Stab-in-the-back myth.  Furthermore, while we don't express opinions, we report facts about opinions.  That the President of the United States is pushing this opinion makes it notable, and the fact of his advocacy is an important fact about it, so I strongly agree with MelanieN that quotations from Trump should be included.  In fact, I would add at least one quotation from a Trump media sycophant in support of this propaganda move, because it's notable and worth reporting that Trump's charge has been picked up and repropagated by others. JamesMLane t c 17:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, those are definitely relevant, thank you. One has Trump himself sort-of explaining what he is talking about, although his accusations are unfocused and all over the map. Also relevant that Fox News has taken up the cudgel, while cutting back on coronavirus coverage. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do add a brief and pointed account of this new schtick. (Gossip, from however on high it's fabricated, shouldn't warrant its own article.) Some other sources:
 * https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/05/14/the-misrule-of-law
 * https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/obamagate-is-niche-programming-for-trump-superfans
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/explainer-obamagate-200512195136837.html
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attacks-on-obama-meant-taint-biden-surrogate-wapo-2020-5. 02:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindenfall (talk • contribs)

Take 2
OK, taking into account the comments here and the additional sources people have provided, here's another version of what could be put into the article: On May 10, 2020 - one day after former president Barack Obama criticized the Trump administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic - Trump began tweeting about "Obamagate," accusing the former president of the "biggest political crime in American history, by far!" When asked what the crime was, he refused to reply, telling reporters "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody." Trump's allies later suggested that the "crime" involved the FBI launching an investigation into incoming national security advisor Mike Flynn. That investigation was actually triggered by intelligence reports about Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador. The FBI interviewed Flynn four days after Trump took office; Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during that interview. Trump has continued to promote the term Obamagate; he has been vague about what he means by it but has said that "people should be going to jail for this stuff." He suggested that Senator Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should call Obama to testify about the "crime", but Graham declined. Better? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I have added it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

However - I hate to say it but I’m afraid we may eventually need an article. Trump and the far-right have pressured Congress to promote this stuff from a meme to a full blown (conspiracy) theory worthy of congressional investigation, and Flynn’s lawyers are citing it in an effort to get his case dismissed. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur with JamesMLane. Wikipedia has become a standard reference for ascertaining fact, for sifting untruths from fact. Even with the Obamagate notion problematic (particularly with Trump just giving innuendo, "You know..."), it has gained such circulation, that people are going to come to Wikipedia for a resolution to this issue. Thus, Wikipedia plays an important role here.Dogru144 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC on page creation for Obamagate
Discussion can be found here.Casprings (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

on medical supplies to nurses in Oval office there to be honored, add?
On National Nurses Day:

Trump contradicted nurses who said that some parts of the country were experiencing shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), calling the supply of PPE “sporadic” but “manageable.” Trump shot back, “Sporadic for you, but not sporadic for a lot of other people,” adding that the country is “now loaded up” with a “tremendous supply to almost all places."  Sophia Thomas is the president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, who works at the Daughters of Charity Health System in New Orleans.

In context:

See Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 8 and Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 7 and Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 7 etc ...

X1\ (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, add it. You know, you don't have to ask permission to add sections.  Just be bold! Mgasparin (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This talk page is just starting to look like your news feed. Most of it just news of the day stuff. Wait to see if there is lasting significance. PackMecEng (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am doing is finding what is lasting significance. X1\ (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
If this is relevant, I'm not pro-Trump, I'm not American, and I don't know much about American politics either, but I wonder if this page fully complies with NPOV. Isn't it taken from biased news and doesn't it sound strongly anti-Trump? The current lead paragraph explicitly says that Trump has made numerous false statements instead of stating that someone thinks he did. The original lead looks much more neutral in my opinion.

The current lead says: "Donald Trump has made many false or misleading statements, including thousands during his presidency."

The original lead said: "Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has made a number of controversial statements which some observers have described as misleading. Others maintain that these statements are accurate, and that these claims are political bias."

I support rewriting the lead to something closer to the original one for the seek of neutrality. The rest of the article also needs rewriting. - Munmula (talk), second account of  Alumnum 03:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that the current occupant of the White House has lied, on numerous occasions and about numerous topics, is widely documented by reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Do not try to fix Wikipedia, let it burn. 71.83.26.180 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The original lead did not even last 24 hours. It had no consensus, obviously.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag added
NPOV tag added due to (1) the redirect of the "Obamagate" page to this page, and (2) this recent blog post by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, which appears to concern this page in particular: Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol, what nonsense. A single ex-editor's even one that claims to be a "cofounder"? what a silly backstory this guy has) opinion does not justify an article tag. Zaathras (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He is a co-founder and you can learn more about his biography on his article. I support the inclusion of the NPOV tag because the article is clearly biased. - Munmula (talk), second account of  Alumnum 03:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that, and you get support by nothing but trolls and IP editors, and the tag is removed in a week, tops. :) Zaathras (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. (1) The redirect for the Obamagate page is being discussed here in an RfC, we're not going to keep the tag while the RfC runs. (2) If this is a problem with the first sentence, I'd suggest starting an RfC. (3) Are there any other specific issues about this article you would like to raise, ?  starship .paint  (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead cites several newspapers that are agreed to be generally trustworthy. These publications have, however, an overt and long-term conflict with Trump. They can also be argued to favour the policies of the Democratic Party or alternatively those of the pre-Trump Republicans, i.e. there is arguably a political bias. Can they be expected to act in an encyclopedic, neutral manner in this particular case? Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - WP:NPOV does not mean neutral sources. As you can see from Neutral point of view: - and the clear weight of opinion is that Trump is a tremendous, huge source of misinformation, like never before in U.S. politics.  starship  .paint  (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am dreadfully sorry, but we have to include pro-Trump sources in order to achieve a balance in articles on Trump controversies. Our job is not to convey the narrative of one side of the political spectrum, however tempting that may be. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - as long as it's not a WP:FALSEBALANCE, and follows RS. Using right-leaning reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal is okay. For factual claims, leave the opinion pieces out. Using right-leaning unreliable sources like OANN is not okay.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Purge of watchdogs and accountability
Do we have such list ?? There are sources: Yug (talk)  11:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same. Here's another good summary of the situation:
 * We really do need to point out the PATTERN somewhere, as many of these articles do. Probably not at this page though. Probably not at the Trump biography, and "Presidency of Donald Trump" is just timelines, and "resignations and dismissals" is also all details, so not the place for the big picture. Maybe we do need a separate article. What would it be called? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it remind me of historic "night massacres" when a presidents suddenly fires large amounts of public officiers, but in slow motion and hidden by various synchronous distractive scandals so the news cycle cannot focus on. The Flynn inquiry drop barely made it to the front page of New York Times. It also reminds me the more-or-less ongoing Turkish purges (for which I'am a core editor), where non-AKP officials including +30% of the national judges have first been MASSIVELY dismissed then CONTINUOUSLY dismissed from their public offices, despite unreplaceable training, experience and skills. We should have a place to document this. And in all faireness, it would be interesting to document previous administration's behavior to verify if the current trend is abnormal or just a media obsession for a "natural" renewal of public resources. Maybe a list of hight cases dismissal first ? Yug  (talk)  08:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The classic example in US history is the Saturday Night Massacre, in which President Nixon wanted to fire the special prosecutor who was investigating him, but the Attorney General and then the Deputy Attorney General both resigned rather than carry out Nixon's order. So the result was the AG, DAG, and special prosecutor all gone in one night. There was an enormous, very negative public reaction and helped lead to Nixon's resignation just as he was about to be impeached. That is undoubtedly a history Trump is well aware of, which is why he is firing the IGs one at a time rather than all at once. And he's following another American political tradition: the Friday Night News Dump, where an unpopular action or piece of bad news is released late on a Friday night to escape press attention. I am wondering about a separate article just about the IG firings. I'd rather have it be a section in an article (notability is arguable) but I can't think of what article it would fit into. What he is doing is systematically, and semi-secretly, removing anyone who has criticized him and has oversight or investigative power over his actions. Let me give it some more thought. I am glad to have you to discuss it with. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In searching articles about Trump, I find that we already have some similar articles, such as 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys and Dismissal of James Comey. And several articles about previous president carrying out controversial dismissals. That does suggest that an article 2020 dismissal of inspectors general could find a place here. I may start working on one. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started working on a draft. It's a complex article and will take a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just about finished it. I'll post it tomorrow. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Here it is: 2020 dismissal of inspectors general. Please feel free to add to and improve it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the article !
 * Was this discussion intended to be somewhere else (I have been out over two weeks, and attempting to do some catching-up)? X1\ (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what was intended by putting it here. I just responded here where it had started, discussed it with the person who had started it - and, as you can see, discussed it increasingly with myself, as I talked myself into what needed doing. Now we do have a logical place for such discussions! but we didn't then -- MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

September 11 attacks, why section rm?
I have been out a couple of weeks, and still attempting to catch-up, patience; so why was the section below removed? On September 11, 2001 after at least one of the World Trade Center towers were destroyed, Trump gave a telephone interview with WWOR-TV in New York. He said: “40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest — and then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second tallest, and now it’s the tallest.” Once the Twin Towers had collapsed, the 71-story Trump Building at 40 Wall Street was the second-tallest building still standing in Lower Manhattan, 25 feet shorter than the building at 70 Pine Street. At a Columbus, Ohio rally in November 2015, Trump said "I have a view -- a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center." He added "and I watched those people jump and I watched the second plane hit ... I saw the second plane hit the building and I said, 'Wow that's unbelievable." At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan, more than four miles away from where the World Trade Center towers once stood. X1\ (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This looks like good material that should be in this article. But when was it removed? I looked back through several months of history and couldn't find it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed it. They didn't even give a reason for removing it. I have restored it. It is clearly pertinent. Let them come to the talk page if they think it should be removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This should be kept. More examples pre-presidency add temporal balance.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Chart regarding COVID-19 cases and comments by Trump
In the interest of neutrality, a comment needs to be added under the chart showing the number of COVID-19 cases and related comments by the President. The number of cases called out on the X-axis are directly related to how widespread testing is and are therefore subjective (i.e. the number of cases tested don't necessarily correlate to the actual number infected. Number of deaths with COVID as the primary or secondary cause of death would be a more easily verifiable data point.

Lastly, the Presidents comments are shown but needs to be balanced with what the leading medical experts were saying at the time (e.g. Dr. Fauci).

It's fine to list comments by the President as long as context is provided in the interest of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:4380:230:D00C:BE45:90CE:EBC (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The point of the graph is to portray how the President reacted to the number of cases. He attempted to wave it off as nothing much, but the more cases that were confirmed, the more he swayed over to admitting the danger of the pandemic.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Archive timing
Changed to 7 days as this page is receiving a lot of attention lately.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to 14 days.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Who watches the Watchers?
This Wiki on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump reads like a partisan political hit piece. The sources quoted are the "fact checkers" for the mainstream media. Almost all conservatives and many independents question the neutrality and accuracy of their judgments of veracity. I observe a clear leftist bias in what they consider true or not. In fact, to the extent that I wouldn't be surprised if political leanings were the primary factor in their judgment of veracity. This Wiki page ought to be taken down since it hasn't been verified by neutral observers. 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Jobardu (talk)
 * Just because the press doesn't bow at his feet doesn't make them unreliable and it doesn't make this article a hit piece. Praxidicae (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You realize that at least half the country knows what a joke the "press" is, right? You know, the clowns you call "reliable sources"... 71.83.26.180 (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Using "clowns" on this very topic, is, well...  starship .paint  (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This entire page is a disaster. The coronavirus section is a truly exceptional mess. How is saying "we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine" with regards to the coronavirus a lie? Does "we have it under control" mean "nobody is going to get the virus"? Who can objectively decide what "under control" is? Does it mean less than 1% of the population will get the virus and 0.03% will die from it? Does it mean the supply chains will not break down? How is "we are very close to a vaccine" a lie? What is "Close"? Some vaccines take years, if this one comes out within a year is it still a lie? How is saying the "curve is flattened" a lie? Wasn't the whole purpose not to overwhelm hospitals and the flattening of the curve referred to that? The "most testing per capita" "lie" uses an NPR article that shows the quote where Trump is clearly talking about testing per capita on a daily basis ("It's over 100,000 tests a day. And these are accurate tests, and they're moving rapidly, which is more than any other country in the world, both in terms of the raw number and also on a per capita basis, the most.") but then fact checks it against the total combined tests per capita, not daily. The "lie" about the mortality rate is the most obscene listing. How is personally saying your belief the mortality rate is lower because people may end up going to work and getting over without ever being tested a lie? This is especially egregious when you consider that this has all but been confirmed. A study found the US mortality rate is 1.3% (https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/us-covid-19-death-rate-is-13-37-study-finds). The researcher also makes the same assertion as Trump's "lie" "The 1.3% rate calculation is based on cumulative deaths and detected cases across the United States, but it does not account for undetected cases, where a person is infected but shows few or no symptoms, according to researcher Anirban Basu. If those cases were added into the equation, the overall death rate might drop closer to 1%, Basu said."

I don't understand what the falsehood meant to be asserted in the Michael Flynn/Obamagate section is? What is the falsehood, that Trump thinks Obama did something illegal? Who cares? Is the fact he feels that way a lie?

The biggest problem with this entire article is that it is riddled with statements that are vague or opinion statements being classified as demonstrably false. IJoinedToCommentThis (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The statements Trump has made on coronavirus is very notable in terms of his dishonesty. While most topics may be impossible to publish due to controvery, Trump's statements on coronavirus have very clearly gone against what virtually any expert of the field has said. Scientists have never said that we have it under control, that we are close to a vaccine, and that nobody is going to get the virus. His statement you refer to that the curve was flattened wasn't a lie, but it was very misleading, which is made very clear and objectively in the article. And while the topic of whether the US mortality rate of coronavirus is lower than reported may need to be avoided, the context of the statement is that Trump only has a hunch. He completely ignored any scientific evidence he was given, and called it a hunch, without giving any evidence to back it up. This is another misleading claim Trump has made on the pandemic.


 * The majority of his statements on the coronavirus have been indisputably trying to mislead the public. The topic on why he is misleading the public may be impossible to discuss without breaking neutrality, but the fact is, he has purposely tried to decieve the public, and it is impossible to deny from a neutral standpoint.


 * As of Obamagate, regardless of whether Trump has lied on the subject, I believe, cannot be neutrally discussed. However, it is undeniable that he has tried to avoid what crime Obama committed. He addresses the matter very vaguely, while making such a big deal about it. He is delibrately trying to avoid the truth behind the matter, which makes the Obamagate a notable topic in regard to the veracity of his statements.


 * You seem to be fixated on this article being about Trump's lies. That is certainly not the case. Veracity refers to the truthfulness of his statements. In addition to lies, misleading and inaccurate statements are also considered untruthful, and are therefore notable.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brigading this talk page with asinine comments about your feelings isn't going to change anything...this is Wikipedia, not the Fox News comment section and you're going to need to provide specific statements as to what is "false" if you want anyone to take you seriously. Praxidicae (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The speed of your reply shows you clearly did not read a word I said. How about instead of the ad homonym personal attacks you consider what I actually wrote. The neutrality of this article has been disputed. I raised multiple concerns regarding the neutrality of the article based on the following: 1. Questioning how a vague opinion statement such as "we have it under control" can ever be interpreted as a false statement. This can never be proven right or wrong. There is no clear criteria laid out as to what "under control" is. 2. Pointing out how the article fact checking the lie about "the most tests per capita" uses quote regarding DAILY tests per capita and fact checks it by using data of combined tests per capita. 3. The "lie" about his personal belief (again, how can an opinion be a lie?) on the mortality rate percentage being confirmed by a medical study. 4. Highlighting that there is no basis for inclusion of "close to a vaccine" being a lie. Again, there is no criteria for what "close" is or is not. All accounts are showing that the vaccine is entering second and third stages of clinical trials at record rates. 5. Asking for clarification what the falsehood being asserted in the Obamagate section is if the entire section only deals with his opinions. IJoinedToCommentThis (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No, your original comment doesn't take more than two minutes to read for people who read academic discourse on a daily basis. The only way the Covid-19 situation would be under control is if the gov't was aiming for it to spread throughout and kill significant portions of the populace -- something no legitimate source is currently suggesting.  Mortality rates aren't a matter of belief and thinking they are would suggest a fundamental incompatibility between your thought processes and the site's foundational principle of verifiability.  Claiming that someone did something when it's demonstrably false doesn't become a non-lie by saying it's a "feeling."  The material in this article cites professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, which is what this site is based on (not propaganda).  You're not asking legitimate questions, you're just wasting our time. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"The only way the Covid-19 situation would be under control is if the gov't was aiming for it to spread throughout and kill significant portions of the populace"


 * While I might agree with that, that's clearly an opinion, not a fact. "Under control" is a vague phrase and subject to interpretation. We can't base our articles on such subjective statements. Politics are a contentious and strongly divided issue, and we must present all sides of the debate and a neutral description of the situation. I've edited this and other parts of the article to conform with a impartial POV while maintaining the references. - Munmula (talk), second account of  Alumnum 00:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source which states that COVID-19 is "under control" in the United States? If so, cite it. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any argument among reliable sources that it isn't "under control." Your bold edits have been reverted; per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, it's incumbent upon you to gain consensus for your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to read WP:YESPOV, which states in pertinent part, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. It does not appear to be contested among reliable sources that COVID-19 is not "under control" in the United States, and thus that claim is false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

My point regarding the timing was not about the speed it takes to read the text itself, but the fact I included references to outside media (the NPR article, the mortality rate study) which clearly were not referenced, considered and replied to in a two minute window. The reply time indicated to me that the user was clearly not seeking to engage in a substantive discussion about the questions raised. It seems some users are more interested in disparaging anyone who questions the article's neutrality with personal attacks or by dismissing concerns without addressing substance. I would respectfully ask you to proceed in future discussion/debate with a professional attitude.

The issue at hand is not whether or not the level of death and infection in the United States is acceptable or a success/failure of the US government. It is a question as to whether or not a statement using vague terminology can be conclusively called false or misleading without one inevitably applying their own subjective standard to what "under control" is or is not. Even if we found some sort of reliable way to measure what standard can apply to "under control" is the statement considered false even if COVID-19 was "under control" the day the statement was made?

COVID-19 is an evolving matter. Your claim that mortality rates are something that "can not be a matter of belief" is flawed in this instance considering 1. the data regarding mortality was limited and subject to rapidly change at the time of the statement 2. the statement concerned projecting the true mortality rate of the virus when more information becomes available 3. the logic behind believing the true mortality rate was lower is currently being proven by the expanded universe of scientific evidence. If Trump had stated "the data says the mortality rate is 1%" this would be a verifiable lie. Claiming that while the limited data in an evolving situation of a brand new disease may say one thing now, assumptions about asymptomatic infections leading you to believe the true mortality rate is lower (a fact which now appears to have borne out to a larger, more reliable dataset) can not be an outright lie. If someone said "3% of the apples harvested this year are green. But there may be an entire orchard of apples we have not looked at yet and considering that, it will probably be closer to 1% by year's end" is that a verifiable lie or just a possibly flawed prediction which may or may not end up coming to fruition?

No one has addressed the potentially misleading fact check by NPR. Trump statement: "It's over 100,000 tests a day. And these are accurate tests, and they're moving rapidly, which is more than any other country in the world, both in terms of the raw number and also on a per capita basis, the most." Nowhere does this statement reference the total number of US tests or claim total tests are the most per capita. It is clearly in reference to the "100,000 tests a day" statement. Is there a reliable source that indicates that the figure of 100,000 tests a day is a false figure or not the most per capita on a rate of daily testing?

The article claims that on Feb. 25 that Trump comment "We’re very close to a vaccine" is false because "none was known to be near production." CNBC article from that day (Feb. 25, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/us-health-officials-say-human-trials-on-coronavirus-vaccine-to-start-in-6-weeks.html) which references a vaccine heading towards human trials and quotes Fauci saying "“We are on time at least and maybe even a little bit better,” regarding vaccine. Boston Herald article from the same day also goes into further detail on the status of the vaccine: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/02/25/cambridge-based-modernas-coronavirus-vaccine-shipped-to-nih-for-testing/# With this in mind, the statement "when none was known to be near production" is clearly false. IJoinedToCommentThis (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) "on a per capita basis, the most" - it's right there. (2) when vaccines haven't even started human trials yet, they aren't near production for the public. These human trials take time. Your second source says submitted a potential coronavirus vaccine for federal testing. Again, that's not production.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I realize I am a little late, but I would like to address the argument that Trump's claims about coronavirus are not falsifiable because they are subjective and non-specific:

The coronavirus section is a truly exceptional mess. How is saying "we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine" with regards to the coronavirus a lie? Does "we have it under control" mean "nobody is going to get the virus"? Who can objectively decide what "under control" is? Does it mean less than 1% of the population will get the virus and 0.03% will die from it? Does it mean the supply chains will not break down?

The president himself offered an objectively false claim that characterized exactly what he meant by having the virus "under control." On February 26th, President Trump said at a press conference:

"...when you have 15 people [known to have the virus], and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done."

I realize Trump's manner of speaking makes this quote sound like a hypothetical, but in context, it is very clear that he was making claims about the current state of affairs. The trajectory of new cases of COVID-19 in the United States would continue to increase after he made that statement. It has been months and we are still nowhere "close to zero" new cases. Bensonius (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough conspiracy theory
You recently created (or at least edited) an item about Trump's promotion of the claim that Joe Scarborough had something to do with the death of his staffer (note: not an intern), and in particular that her death was the reason he resigned (clearly disproven, since he had announced his resignation several months earlier). I would like to discuss whether we should even have this item. He only started pushing this in the past few days, as part of a war of words with Scarborough - although he had apparently he called attention to it as long ago as 2017. My hesitation about including it is for several reasons: one, it does not have an article, as is the case for most of the items listed here (although we could pipe a link to Joe Scarborough; I certainly am not suggesting that it deserves an article). Two, he has only started pushing it in the last few days and might drop it before it becomes a major enough story for inclusion. Three, our posting it here may be a BLP problem, by giving unwarranted publicity to this claim with its severely damaging effect on a living person (her widower). What do people think? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just fixed the title case (and broke the link, somehow, but the article exists). It is a crap article and section, though. No conspiracy mentioned, just a murder allegation, kind of libelous (presidential immunity aside). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The President of the United States accused a citizen of murder, without any evidence, and told his followers to dig into it...and that doesn't deserve a section?Casprings (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It deserves a less crappy section. Either mention the supposed conspiracy theory or don't call it that. Article seems undue, too soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump accuses people of crimes, including murder, every day and twice on Sundays. (Not literally; that's an old saying for doing it all the time.) I hope we aren't going to list them all here. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am unsure of another example of him stating someone committed murder and asking for his follows to get on the case. The only other one that comes to mine is Murder of Seth Rich. That does have an article.Casprings (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Has an article because it's a legit homicide case, not because Trump has a feeling whodunnit. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have an article because people on the internet pushed the idea that Clinton had him murdered because of the DNC emails. If there is no push, the murder is not notable.Casprings (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a Seth Rich article because right wing sources began promoting conspiracy theories virtually as soon as he was found dead. Trump didn't invent that one, he only echoed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right wing media sources are pushing this story. https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/15/clip-msnbc-joe-scarborough-joking-don-imus-dead-intern-lori-klausutis/ Casprings (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

When you expanded this section you added two orphaned references, presumably because the material was taken from other articles. I found the reference "Pittman1" at the Scarborough article and filled it in. But I have been unable to find the orphaned reference called "politico1". Can you please fix this? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Casprings (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory section does not present any more new information, and I don't see any purpose to the paragraph. Does anyone know of the purpose this paragraph serves? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a conspiracy theory, not a lie. Forwarding non-falsifiable accusations such as conspiracy theories seems to be outside the scope of the article, which is about veracity of statements, not moral character. Go ahead and remove if you ask me. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Narssarssuaq After a long period of no explanation to this last paragraph, I have removed it, as it is entirely redundant. However, I believe that the section itself is worthy of being mentioned. I'm not aware of its noteworthiness, but as far as the content goes, this deals with the veracity of Trump's statements. There seems to be a debate of this within this section of the talk page, but I am not the most familiar with specific events. So if you want to make your case, do so in the discussion above.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump's suggestion to slow down testing
Trump's push to slow down testing is clearly an effort to cover the truth of the number of cases in America, and I believe it should be added in the article. However, I'm not entirely sure how to make the point that it's untruthful while still keeping the content encyclopedic, or whether or not this even needs to be explicitly expressed. Here is the paragraph I have on this so far. Does anyone have suggestions? Here is the source I used.

On June 20, at a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Trump suggested that America should slow down testing. In response to the high number of tests, he said that "When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people, you’re going to find more cases, so I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down, please.'" TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Father & Grandfather's Birthplace
This guy lied about where his Dad and Grandfather were born in his hit book? For real? Sorry, nothing productive to add. Just wanted to share my favorite lie. 96.231.144.224 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

USA split the atom.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2020/07/us-president-donald-trump-causes-outrage-by-claiming-us-split-the-atom-invented-telephone-won-both-world-wars.html

During a speech at Mount Rushmore on 4 July Trump told a crowd the US "harnessed electricity, split the atom, and gave the world the telephone and the internet". The quote was then reposted by the official White House Twitter account.

"Americans harnessed electricity, split the atom, and gave the world the telephone and the internet. We settled the Wild West, won two World Wars, landed American Astronauts on the Moon—and one day soon, we will plant our flag on Mars!"

This received widespread criticism: Ernest Rutherford, the New Zealander, is widely credited for splitting the atom, although arguably his students Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft conducted the first physical "splitting" in the early 20th century, and neither were American. The inventor of the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell, was Scottish and invented the telephone while in Canada; he later became an American citizen several years after inventing the telephone. The claim that the USA "settled" the wild west was criticized for passing over details such as the treatment of Native Americans, who had already settled there prior to the USA's founding. Although America technically won the 2 world wars, the claim that "we won the world wars" seems to imply the USA had no help - in fact, it only joined WW1 in 1917, the year before the war ended, and the US also entered WW2 late. --Orbhouse (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Add more statistical comparisons to other presidents
One thing I think this page could use more of is a statistical comparison of how much Trump lies compared to other presidents. There is a reputation that politicians lie in general, so does he lie more? The section "Fact Checking Trump" touches on this by quoting Fact Checkers and some fact checking sites, but these in my mind aren't entirely sufficient. For instance, my understanding of a lot of the fact checkers/sites mentioned is that some of them only evaluate the truthfulness of some facts (so it's not clear what the results would be if they evaluated all facts), and some don't have a comparison between Trump and other presidents. As an initial act to remedy this situation, at the least I think it would be good to add some text describing the results of this article which evaluated the amount of outright lies made by Trump vs Obama in a timeframe. This does not have the limits discussed above.

Esaucedog (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess it is all a matter of notability. It may be true that everyone has lied or at least intentionally misled at some point in their lives, with some far more severe than others, but out of all the liars (me included), but it is quite unusual that someone's honesty like President Trump's can receive so much attention from everywhere that it warrants an actual encyclopedia article about it. Perhaps the president is not as deceitful as some or even most other politicians, but I think our problem is that we give a huge amount of weight to this individual compared to others who have had a greater influence on the world. In this case, it would not be Wikipedia's fault that that is what makes a subject (at least objectively) notable; rather, it is the world's fault for giving a huge amount of attention to something that is otherwise irrelevant. As for the requested changes, I do believe that fact checkers are flawed not in the sense of their accuracy, but in the sense that they seem to be interested in some individuals more than others, and they also tend to judge claims that they consider to be "potentially controversial". Personally I do not think of Mr. Trump as being more or less dishonest than Mr. Obama or Joe Biden, but at the same time, I am not sure how one can write comparisons comparing the president's honesty to other politicians while keeping it in the context relating to the subject of the article. Perhaps you know, in which case I am eager to read from you.  Free Media  Kid!  00:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For my main point, I am the type of person who believes that actions alone do not define a person's character. Rather, the actions reflect that character, so saying more lies alone does not make that person any more deceitful. It is thus possible that Mr. Biden is as equally deceptive as Mr. Trump, the only difference being that the latter is much louder and more verbally libertine (or unrestrained) in that regard than the other.  Free Media  Kid!  19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you see the section, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump? You didn't refer to it. Maybe a sentence could be added there to summarize some point from the NYT piece you cited (I didn't look closely at that possibility). But I think the section fairly adequately addresses the comparison thing, and it wouldn't be particularly useful to try to provide hard numbers that would be highly dependent on how things are analyzed (statistics lie). "Unprecedented" is sufficient.The bottom line: There exists an extensive database of over 20,000 Trump false and misleading statements, and very little of it has been debunked by the Trump side. All they can do is dismissively (and lazily) say the Post is biased against Trump like most of MSM, and that's good enough for most of his base. To my knowledge no such database exists for any other president, and that speaks volumes in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreadable mess
The article is an unreadable mess of accusations. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which accusations are you referring to, and what do you believe is the President being accused of?  Free Media  Kid ! 04:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lying, I'd wager. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Recommend citing White House transcripts and C-SPAN uncut video footage, with time-stamp in order to stave off claims of article bias. C-SPAN has a web page section for the Executive Branch and each video recording includes the official White House transcript. 1984in2020 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be extremely political here but this article seems to only have sources from mainstream media that is "left-leaning", which could pose WP:NPOV issues. Statements in this article could be inaccurate and contain political opinion. Cairo2k18 • (talk)  •  (contribs)  09:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do agree with you on the mainstream media generally leaning left, especially in its editorials, although it should be noted that it does have some conservatives. However, I feel that the problem is not so much that the sources are occasionally but notably progressive. It is well known that President Trump is an attention seeker who does not mind killing his dignity as long as it brings him fame. He is certainly someone who will shamelessly say anything controversial, although granted he does not communicate anything particularly heinous or defamatory. I think the problem is that all of us are therefore drawn to him and what he says. It is certainly possible that the fact checkers got some of his claims wrong, but here I am thinking about what is undisputed, such as the ridiculous conspiracy theories. All politicians have deceived or misled the public at some point in their lives, intentionally or by accident, but no one seemingly does a better job at doing that than the president. It is possible that some politicians who deceive much less are still equally dishonest as far as virtue is concerned. I for one do not really see Mr. Biden as being more honest than the president, but there are politicians in the world who certainly deceive the public much more actively than either of them. In the end, while not particularly special except maybe for a U.S. president, not just the veracity of statements by Donald Trump, but also our entirely drawn attention to his statements have had a social effect notable enough that it warrants an encyclopedia article. See this section for my similar comments.  Free Media  Kid!  11:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgive the ignorance, but if the president says something, then it is later proven to be - at least - misleading, why does it matter if the source if left, right or middle? Lies are lies and proof is proofRobbmonster (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia was a reliable resource, the moderation would be consistently promoting a neutral point of view. Where are the articles discussing Obama's misleading statements and George W. Bush's misleading statements? Anyone who says, "Obama never lied" or "George W. Bush" are simply pushing their own political agendas. I could provide thorough, well-documented examples of their lies--yet moderation would find one excuse or another to shut down those articles2601:681:4503:C440:744F:BAAB:76F7:625F (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC).
 * This article is consistent with Wikipedia policy, and I encourage you to learn some of it before making accusations like this. To start, Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" does not mean false balance; in fact it means the avoidance of false balance. If, after learning about the policies, you feel you have a policy-based case for an article like this about any past U.S. president, please make it at that article's talk page – and bring plenty of reliable sources to support your case. Thank you for your comments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mandruss. If a topic passes WP:GNG, one can create a new article—if supported by reliable references. The guidelines aren't liberal guidelines or conservative guidelines; they're encyclopedia guidelines. With this article's 317+ sources supporting its 227 Kbytes of content, there is little reason to complain about the existence or content of the present article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Primary targets of his disinformation
Do we cover this at all? It is primarily his supporters who are targeted by it, and because they believe his "fake news" attacks on the media, they have followed him into an information bubble limited to Fox News and extreme right-wing sources, thus leaving them ignorant of what the rest of the world and media internationally have to say that is corrective, IOW they remain deceived. Those who are not his supporters get their information from many sources, so they are not fooled by what he says. His supporters are his primary victims.

If anyone knows of good sources which cover this angle, I'd like to see them so we can cover it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Bill Clinton lies.
Bill lied to a grand jury and lost his right to practice law. Even the Supreme Court would not show up at his next state of the union address. The infamous blue dress had Bill’s DNA on it, which he denied that he deposited it there. My guess is that you who call Trump a liar, never were bothered by even these quite disturbing lies. The formal lie was a felony, a felony, yes a felony. So until you deal with this honestly with others, YOUR opinion can have no value. 70.114.99.225 (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To call this YOUR opinion reveals a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia content policies, which usually earns one a big ignore around these parts. Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias was created for the Donald Trump article, but most of it applies here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The lies of Bill Clinton even if they are more numerous than the stars in the sky are irrelevant for this page, except for perhaps in a see also section. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, I considered referring the OP to Talk:Bill Clinton. But if they went there, they would have to bring reliable sources and show some understanding of policy including WEIGHT, so that would be a waste of their time. Their main point here is the common false-balance argument, that to be trusted Wikipedia must (1) treat all U.S. presidents in a similar manner and (2) compensate for the "fact" that most mainstream media is biased against Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Disinformation "a key part of President Donald Trump’s campaign strategy"
Experts: Disinformation poses greatest threat to the election
 * "And unlike cybersecurity threats or difficulties posed by the pandemic, disinformation is both a foreign threat and, it appears, a key part of President Donald Trump’s campaign strategy.... Fox News and Donald Trump’s own campaign were far more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls or Facebook clickbait artists."

I suspect this would be useful on several articles. -- Valjean (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Infection Fatality Rate
"While on Fox News, Trump contradicted the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that the global mortality rate for SARS-2 coronavirus is 3.4%, calling it "a false number," and said his "hunch" is that the real figure is "way under 1%"." - Why is this left in, when we now know that the infection fatality rate is actually less than 1 percent (and apparently closer to 0.5 percent)? Drsruli (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It was a misrepresentation at the time he made the statement and what the current figures are is irrelevant. Although the Case Fatality Rate is lower than it was when Trump Made his allegation that the WHO is wrong, based on the WHO dashboard it is still hovering around 1.5 percent. This is even now greater than Trump's "hunch". I am curiou where the "less than 1 percent (and apparently closer to 0.5 percent)" figures come from?--Buteo49 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(I could point out that "less than one percent" is closer to 1.5 percent than 3.4 percent is. However...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 02:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mql_sars-cov-2_-_cleared_for_public_release_20200728.pdf https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-deadly-is-covid-19-researchers-are-getting-closer-to-an-answer-11595323801

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/americas-frontline-doctors-scotus-press-conference-transcript

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/cdc-confirms-remarkably-low-death-rate-media-chooses-ignore-covid-19-realities

Drsruli (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a quote of the full context as reported in the nbc source: ""I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number — and this is just my hunch — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild, they'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. You never hear about those people," Trump said." That's a very clear description of Infection Fatality Rate from a layperson. (He's not a very technical person.) Drsruli (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump versus the truth: The most outrageous falsehoods of his presidency
Plenty of stuff here: Valjean (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump versus the truth: The most outrageous falsehoods of his presidency

Other presidents catalogues of lies
Are there other cataloge of lies of other liers? That would be very handy!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.129.231 (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Only if the virtue ethics of other politicians have been widely discussed by a great deal of sources. You are welcome.  Free Media  Kid!  03:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Other presidents come under the generally broad "all politicians lie" and "all people lie" category, which probably accounts for no similar articles for them. Lying is not their singularly most defining character trait. Even Nixon's lies don't deserve a separate article, but they are noted. By contrast, Trump is in a class by himself, unlike any other politician or famous human being. It is an exceptionally notable occurrence for him not to lie. It's pretty hard to find three sentences that originate with him, and not a speechwriter, that don't contain some form of deception or misleading content.
 * So, if multiple very RS have documented that some public leader is remarkably mendacious, then create an article about it. Nothing forbids it if it's notable enough. -- Valjean (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" in Lead is an issue for Editor PackMecEng
, I don't understand where you think you have the high ground on this issue. Was it really necessary to put a D/S Alert on my talk page? Where are your manners? Isn't Wikipedia editing supposed to be a collaborative process? You don't like an edit involving a single sentence, which is a direct quote from the referenced article, that I made and you threaten me with arbitration. You are acting like a bully.

Based only upon your opining, you are taking umbrage with the direct quote, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation". Are you a Trump apologist? When pressed, you find a "rule" in the Manual of Style that supports your position, sort of. Your rule is "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section, partly because it is not in the body."

Seriously, "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section." You made that up, that piece of guidance is not in the WP:MOSLEAD.

You think the following supports your argument: "if you look Morning Mix describes itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world." OK, it does that. What exactly is your point? What part of the "Morning Mix" is the problem?

Somehow you doubt the referenced article is from a reliable source. Are you telling me that the Washington Post is not a reliable source? What part of the article about Trump's lying is not reliable?

You object because the article included as part of the "Morning Mix" which for some reason or other the Washington Post calls it a "blog", but it isn't a blog. The article is a Washington Post article that is included in the "blog" section. The article isn't written as a blog, it is reporting, it provides fact after fact after fact. It is not an opinion piece or editorial. Go read it.

Here is the article, check it out:



Your opinion, as I have pointed out before, is not sufficient to merit authority to undo my edit. It is doubtful that the statement, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is an opinion. It is a substantiated fact. The man lies and he lies about his lies. His lies have been tracked and counted. Trump is averaging more than 50 false or misleading claims a day. As of October 22, 2020, he had made 26,548 false or misleading claims. By today, it is pretty close to 30,000 false or misleading claims. 30,000 "falsehoods" seems like a pretty prodigious effort are spreading misinformation. (And I pause here thinking of the 344,0000 unnecessary COV-19 related deaths that were mainly due to Donald Trump lying to America.)

And since you wanted me to read the MoS, how about this "rule": "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable." Clearly, the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" satisfies these requirements.

And you continue, "partly because it is not in the body." That is a pretty weak reason. Don't you realize that the entire article is about Donald Trump's serial mendaciousness? Everything that is written in the article is about Trump's propensity for being a liar and spreading misinformation? I think you are missing the obvious here.

It is annoying that to support your tenuous position you go full-bureaucrat and roll out a D/S Alert on my Talk Page and with a condescending attitude, you tell me "Finally please read up on WP:TRUTH & WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." Gee, you left out WP:TENDENTIOUS.

And about "tendentious editing", it is defined as "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" What in the single sentence about Trump spreading misinformation, "is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" It is a simple statement of truth.

About WP:TRUTH, a "rule" is "material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source." I submit, as I have discussed, the article is from a reliable source.

About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability." It is pretty clear that the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is pregnant with its verifiability.

About WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Somehow I don't see any support for your argument here. Please explain what relationship the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" has to the righting of great wrongs? What "wrong" is this sentence "righting". I think you are just throwing merde against the wall to see if some of it will stick.

About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." I will repeat, "editors. . .may may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." You have removed my edit only because for some obscure reason you disagree. You are unable to support your disagreement and can only cite generally WP:MOSLEAD, WP:TRUTH & WP:RGW. The irony is what you are doing is in general violation of these pieces of Wikipedia guidance.

I would appreciate your response to my parsing of your disagreement. I think you were wrong when you made [|the undo of my edit].

Do you really think arbitration for this one sentence is necessary?

Osomite hablemos  08:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally we do not have quotes like that in the first sentence of a lead to an opinion article. This is because according to WP:NEWSBLOG, such things need to be attributed to the person that said it which cannot be done in this situation. Also you want a better source than an opinion article to make controversial statements, even if true. That kind of thing is covered by WP:BLPPUBLIC which requires stronger sources for such things. Finally, it is basically redundant. The whole lead at this point is dedicated to saying the same thing over and over in various ways. With your addition not adding anything new to the equation. PackMecEng (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a controversial statement, but a summary of what all RS are telling us, and a summary of the RS narrative documented in this whole article. It's only controversial to those who believe unreliable sources. It's hard to improve on what's there, but maybe a paraphrase would be more acceptable? Why not try that route? -- Valjean (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How many times do we need to repeat the same thing? Also quit with things like those who believe unreliable sources, questioning peoples competencies is not helpful. No need to personalize disputes. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is "controversial" about the statement? That's what you wrote. -- Valjean (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Putting quotes in the first sentence of the lead. That is not how you write a lead. What are you trying to get at here? PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just trying to understand what you meant. So it's the quote, not the meaning, that is your sole objection? If so, then a paraphrase might work better. What you wrote seemed to indicate you considered the meaning itself to be "controversial": "to make controversial statements, even if true." There was nothing in those words to indicate that the quote marks were the problem. -- Valjean (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that is not my sole objection. See my previous posts. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

, at this point you have nothing new to add to the discussion. When you take the position that your previously discredited posts have a convincing argument as to your personal opinion, you have basically given up. You are only complaining about something you do not like. It is time to just give it up.

But let me add some discussion to my previous disagreement with your opinion.


 * You are really hung up on your view that the Washington Post newspaper article in question is not creditable because it is "from" the "Morning View" which for some obscure reason is identified on the WashPost website as a "Blog". It really isn't a blog. Per the Wikipedia article "Blog, a blog is a discussion or informational website . . . consisting of discrete, often informal diary-style text entries with a method for displaying reader posts. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, a blog is an "online column" (this definition is not very enlightening, but it implies an "online" interaction method). The "Morning View" is not a "discussion" nor is it an "informal diary-style text" format with any "online column" interaction. The "Morning Blog" is a method the WashPost uses to provide a way to collect their daily newspaper articles into a single page so readers can get an easy, quick view of "stories from all over the nation and world". Even if "Morning View" is a blog, WP:NEWSBLOG indicates that "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". The man who wrote the WashPost news article is Tim Elfrink, he is clearly a professional writer. Considering the several conditions satisfied, the news article is acceptable per Wikipedia guidance. I think it is time to acknowledge your complaint about "not acceptable because it is from a blog" is not creditable.


 * You cite WP:BLPPUBLIC claiming the quote, "Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is a controversial statement. It is amusing that you think this fact has any point of contention. The entire article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump addresses his serial mendacity. It seems that it is a fact to anyone who is not a kool-aide drinking true believer of the Donald Trump personality cult (sorry if I have offended anyone saying that).


 * And, as to what seems to be your last and final objection, "Putting quotes in the first sentence of the lead. That is not how you write a lead." OK, that is an interesting point, your opinion, but it is an interesting point. Maybe there should be Wikipedia MoS guidance on this particular issue.


 * offered "it's the quote, not the meaning, that is your sole objection? If so, then a paraphrase might work better." I agree with that. It seems the appropriate course of action is to rewrite the Lead that includes the thought that "Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" not using a direct quote with "quotes".


 * PackMecEng, is this satisfactory? Yes or no. And please don't be tedious and use the old saw of "See my previous posts" again. As you pointed out above, "How many times do we need to repeat the same thing?"

Osomite hablemos  23:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, obviously not satisfactory as you have failed to actually address of the issues. I mean at this point I have to believe you do not understand RS policy, how to write a lead, or even BLP articles in general. Lets start simple. Do you think a blog should be used for unattributed statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice? Do you understand what the first sentence of the lead should be and the structure is should normally take? Do you understand how our BLP policy on public figures interacts with RS requirements to make statements about a BLP? PackMecEng (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Seriously, more about an "unreliable source"? You are just repeating yourself. You are not adding any value to the discussion--you are only rehashing old discredited reasoning. At this point, you are just arguing for argument's sake. You are being disingenuous.


 * You started this discussion with a barrage of Wikipedia Bureaucratic Policy blather, it seems that you are seeking to start another Wikipedia Bureaucratic Policy blather. No, no more Wikipedia Bureaucratic Policy blathering.


 * If arrogance was an argument you would definitely be the winner. Your argument lacks any content. Your argument lacks any logic. Your approach is saying lies, told and retold, and with enough saying, they become the truth to you. You have devoted your position to just asking questions that you think justify your undefendable position. Listen to yourself, you are no making sense.


 * Lets start simple. ..
 * Do you think a blog . ..
 * Do you understand what. ..
 * Do you understand how . ..


 * Asking questions in this manner is a demonstration that you have nothing to add. You can't coherently reply to my responses to issue. You evidently have not read my responses that address your complaints, and/or that you don't understand what I have written, and/or that your cognitive dissonance is so overpowering that you have no ability to use judgement.


 * You continue to claim that the Washington Post newspaper article's source is a "blog". It isn't a blog. The Washington Post page is called Morning Mix - Stories from all over. It explains itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world." It is simply a place where links to a new collection of Washington Post newspaper articles is provided every day. There is none of the essential "blog" functionality or characteristics involved (e.g. Key elements of blogs: Immediate access to readers, highly interactive, no set deadline or publishing schedule, no fixed length, relies on comments).


 * Your WP:BLPPUBLIC argument has no merit. The way you present it, I don't think you understand the policy. Did you overlook, or just ignore, the sentence from the WP:BLPPUBLIC: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The disputed sentence: "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is unfortunately noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. Or do you disagree? You are just throwing merde up against the wall to see if it will stick. Face it, it isn't sticking.


 * Previously you asked, "How many times do we need to repeat the same thing?" The answer is, you don't need to keep repeating the same thing, so quit repeating yourself.


 * Are you ever collaborative and try to work with other editors? Or are all the solutions that are satisfactory to you are only those that perfectly match your own opinion and world view?


 * If you really want to continue on the issue, please don't make it an argument for argument's sake. Provide some facts and logic why the Morning Mix is a blog (other than the fact of the Washington Post's unfortunate selection of a genre called "blog"). Quit repeating what you have already said.


 * At this point, I find your repeatedly repeating yourself to be tedious and obtuse.


 * Osomite hablemos  00:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Use with Caution I saw this question posed at RSN. In general, I agree with Osomite's position and I expected to come here and !vote Absolutely Reliable. However, seeing this is the Morning Mix gives me greater pause. The Morning Mix, by its own definition, focuses on narrative feature writing as opposed to spot news or investigative reporting. This form of journalism may not be entirely compatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia (though not, necessarily, entirely incompatible either). In the case of narrative features, we should limit our use to quantitative assertions and not qualitative assertions. Narrative feature writing is designed to blend facts with personal observation and experience. The second half of that is not subject, by definition, to gatekeeping; gatekeeping is a cornerstone of reliability insofar as we understand the term on WP. Further, the narrative feature writing format is specifically designed to execute what David Bordwell called "story-constructing activities" by using inferential fragments of information; we don't create "story-constructing activities" in encyclopedia development. This Cal (okay, extension) course description I think summarizes it better, describing the narrative feature as one that "blend[s] journalism and art, exploring the dual nature of features based on facts but with the voice of a novel."  There's nothing wrong with narrative feature writing by the WaPo, however, we have to keep in mind that WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and not everything that appears in one is necessarily appropriate for the other. The literary, artistic elements of a newspaper's narrative feature should not be copied over into an encyclopedia.
 * TLDR - The story in question contains a concrete, quantitative statement ("As of July, he’s made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims while in office, according to an ongoing tally by The Washington Post’s Fact Checker.") which seems fine to use in the article (where in the article, I don't know). The artistic, qualitative statement ("Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation.") does not, to me, seem fine for the specific reasons I described above. Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Valid Paraphrase: I think "a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is a fair paraphrasing when it involves someone who managed to make over 20,000 newsworthy false claims in 1,267 days.. Trying to remove the wording looks a lot like whitewashing. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is not attributing the source, where it was used in the article, and how it was presented. No one is arguing it is inaccurate. PackMecEng (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Replace "falsehood" with "falsity" or "false statement"
The word "falsity" means: While the word "falsehood" can have one of two meanings: In particular, "falsehood" can mean "a lie" rather than simply "a false statement" (the former indicates that there is also an intention to deceive). Because the meaning of the word "falsehood" carries the risk of being ambiguous to the typical reader, I propose that (1) any instance of the word "falsehood" that is intended to mean "lie" should be replaced with the word "lie" and (2) all other instances of the word "falsehood" be replaced with either "falsity" or (even better) "false statement". Mgkrupa 21:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Something that is false; an untrue assertion.
 * 1) (uncountable) The property of being false.
 * 2) (countable) A false statement, especially an intentional one; a lie.

Updated by adding (uncountable) and (countable), see also this dictionary so "falsehoods" (ending with "s") means "lies" and not just "false statements". Mgkrupa 21:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. News sources prefer "falsehood" about 10 to 1 in a news search of  versus   (91,300 versus 9,310 hits in my Google News test a few minutes ago). I can't remember ever hearing the word falsity on broadcasts at all. We must follow reliable sources rather than editorial hair-splitting. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. Mgasparin (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Tweak: intention is almost impossible to be "reliably secondary-sourceproven". However, there should be no problem replacing "falsehood" with "lie" in specific cases where the primary source itself explicitly admits the intention to actually produce a falsehood, i.o.w. to lie — e.g. the Woodward interview on the severity of virus threat. - DVdm (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

New source
Hi folks, here is an interesting new source which classify Trump's lies according to various criteria (most dangerous, most ridiculous, etc). There is some subjectivity in the judgment, but I wondered if people here thought it would make sens to add it to the article. MonsieurD (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's subjective it doesn't really belong here. Mgasparin (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)