Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive 6

WaPo fact-check on Trump "officially retired"
Glenn Kessler on their Trump fact-checking database:
 * Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims as president. Nearly half came in his final year.
 * "The database became an untruth tracker for the ages, widely cited around the world as a measuring stick of Trump’s presidency — and as of noon Wednesday it was officially retired...."
 * "The growth of falsehoods over the course of Trump’s presidency is illustrated by one remarkable statistic.
 * "The Fact Checker team recorded 492 suspect claims in Trump’s first 100 days. Just on Nov. 2, the day before the 2020 election, Trump made 503 false or misleading claims as he barnstormed across the country in a desperate effort to save his presidency."

He provides a great "assessment of the Fact Checker database." -- Valjean (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs to go in his bio article, I think. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be good to include here, but it should also go in the main article. The near-constant lying has been a prominent characteristic of his presidency. Mgasparin (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Infection Fatality Rate
Reviving a recently archived discussion.

"Trump also claimed that the death rate published by the WHO was false, that the correct fatality rate was less than 1 percent, and said, "Well, 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""

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-deadly-is-covid-19-researchers-are-getting-closer-to-an-answer-11595323801

As written, "In an interview with Sean Hannity on 4 March, Trump also claimed that the death rate published by the WHO was false, that the correct fatality rate was less than 1 percent, and said, "Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number"" itself is misinformation. WHO’s initial mortality rate for COVID-19 was 3.4%, more than an order of magnitude higher than seasonal flu, which is usually pegged at about 0.1%. But recently the CDC put its “best guess” figure at 0.26%. (That's still higher than the seasonal flu but far lower than the 0.67% death rate of the “Asian flu” of 1957-1958 (H2N2), which, according to the CDC, killed an estimated 223,000 Americans and 3 million worldwide adjusted to today’s populations. That pandemic led to no panic in the U.S., no suspensions of civil liberties, no worldwide recession.)

None of the three sources used the term "case fatality rate" or "CFR". They all use the term "death rate", and none of them quote the exact question to which he was responding. But from the context of his answer, it's clear that HE was talking about the infection fatality rate.

(It's also possible that Trump was trying to explain that CFR is not a useful metric ("really a false number"), and that people should be focusing on the IFR. https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid.  )

The real problem is the statement of the head of WHO that Trump was refuting:

"Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died," [Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization] said. "By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected." - That's literally talking about the IFR. (Do you see why this statement itself, is misinformation? The Director of the WHO is presenting the CFR as the IFR by comparison in the same statement.)

(I'm thinking about this today, because this bit is coupled with criticism for Trump (and numerous other important people) for comparing C-19 to the flu. Yet in today's TNYT: "A mild case [of COVID-19] is effectively the common cold.")

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/briefing/ted-cruz-texas-water-iran-nuclear.html

Drsruli (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's most dangerous lie is irrelevant?
I added the following to the section "COVID-19 pandemic":

"Of all the lies that Trump told during his presidency, his lie that, "The coronavirus was under control", was the most dangerous. His numerous lies about the coronavirus was a family of lies which include the lie that the virus was equivalent to the flu, the lie that the situation was "totally under control", and the lie that the virus was "disappearing"."

and editor deleted it with the justification in the edit summary "Whether it was his most dangerous lie is irrelevant."

Isi96's opinion that Trump's lies to the American people about the danger of the novel coronavirus is irrelevant is not sufficient to delete it. It is only Isi96's opinion, Isi96's opinion lacks the support of any factual finding that is is "irrelevant".

Trump deliberately lied to the American people, and many Americans die as a result. A lie that resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of American people was very dangerous (and clearly his most dangerous that has been revealed so far) and needs to be pointed out.

Placing this information that is important, true, and verifiable at the beginning of the "COVID-19 pandemic" section provides an unambiguous topic sentence that places the subsequent discussion into clear focus.

I will revert Isi96's edit.

Osomite hablemos  19:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean that was pretty good to get the word lie in there seven times in two sentences. But yeah this one guys analysis that it was the one was his most dangerous is not very valuable speculation. I have to say the way it is worded certainly feels like a lack of NPOV and again probably undue. I support the removal. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Most dangerous' is very subjective and the whole section smacked of editorializing. While I agree he deliberately underplayed the seriousness of the disease for political reasons, that was non an encyclopedic tone. Bkatcher (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * once again you rapidly come to Trump's defense about how his lies have been characterized.


 * Your concern that the word "lie" (or some version of the word is used) is "in there seven times in two sentences" is really laughable. OMG, this entire article is about the tens of thousands of lies that Trump has told. You are critical of a discussion about Trump's numerous lies using the word "lie" (or some version of the word "lie")? You are being disingenuous and a bit desperate for the sake of trying to create an argument that has no credence.


 * What seems to be a lack of NPOV to you, is the reality to people not living in the imaginary world Trump has created with his serial lies. You dislike the truth about Trump. Your opinion claiming the analysis is not a NPOV account is simply denial. Your concern about "lack of NPOV" is your disagreement with CNN reports. You can disagree and claim it "lacks a NPOV", but it is a creditable source. Note that this article about Trump's Veracity has many, many references to CNN--if you want to discredit one CNN report, you better stand ready to discredit all of them. Your "lack of NPOV" is just your opinion. Your opinion is not a fact. It is not a sufficient condition to revert my edit. Claiming "not NPOV" is an attempt to do a "cancel culture" type censorship. I guess it just isn't PC to tell the truth about Trump's lying ways.


 * You claim that Daniel Dale's analysis that Trump's most dangerous lie is "not very valuable speculation". Speculation? Do you understand the definition? Speculation is "theory or conjecture without firm evidence". The "guy" you are being critical of fact-checks political claims; he was the first journalist to fact-check every false statement from President Donald Trump. You are speculating.


 * Daniel Dale's words are a fitting "topic sentence" for the "COVID-19 pandemic" section of this article.


 * Are you in denial about Trump’s overwhelming dishonesty during a national emergency due to the Covid pandemic? How do you reconcile that Trump's numerous lies about Covid and his misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasances concerning actions and lack of actions to protect American's from the pandemic while in office was not very dangerous? Whether you believe it or not, nor whether you like it or not, if Trump would have acted differently (and not lied and lied and lied about Covid) thousands and thousands of deaths could have been prevented. You can not refute this reality. The logic is simple: "Trump's Covid lies" and "lying created preventable Covid deaths". Apparently, you dislike the logic that Trump's lies had a causal link to thousands and thousands of preventable   Something that creates death is pretty dangerous, don't you think? Where in Wikipedia is there a rule that a claim of NPOV (whatever you might think it means in this context) has precedence over logic? Oh, I get it, if you don't like a statement, you proclaim that it is just not NPOV enough for your preferences.


 * Somehow your efforts at writing an encyclopedia lacks any attempt at cooperation and collegial effort. Your contributions, in my experience, are to remove content and edit war over it. Do you have any appetite for working to create content or do you prefer the lazy approach of just objecting and reverting and objecting and reverting?


 * I have provided an edit of an exact quote that is creditable. Although it does not match your particular weltanschauung visa via your particular NPOV expectation, it belongs in the article.


 * In the spirit of compromise, I propose an edit to the phrase, "was the most dangerous", to "was. . .dangerous". Do you disagree with that? In the spirit of seeking a resolution, I will reinstate the two sentences with that change.


 * If you wish to continue to disagree and claim not NPOV because the word lie was used too many times and the word "most" was used as an adverb modifying "dangerous" (or maybe it was because the word "dangerous" was used), please come to the discussion with some facts, not just your opinion. To support your opinion, please find something that says Trump's Covid lies were not dangerous to the American public. I provided a reference. If you persist, you need to provide a reference.


 * Osomite hablemos  22:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Your concern that "'Most dangerous' is very subjective" puzzles me. Subjective is a conclusion that is "based on or influenced by personal feelings". What is subjective about the truth that Trump's lies resulted in preventable Covid deaths? It is empirical. The fact that millions of people suffered from Covid and hundreds of thousands died from Covid because Trump lied about Covid (Trump made this admission to Bob Woodward which is included in Woodward's book "Rage") can not be discarded out-of-hand as simply "personal feelings".


 * You saying that "the whole section smacked of editorializing" is a strange denial of the truth. Apart from the use of the adverb "most" (which I have agreed is argumentative, although quite true) all of the other parts of the two sentences were facts that were fact-checked by the author (and are independently included further down in the section). Facts are not editorializing.


 * Your opinion of "that was non [SIC] an encyclopedic tone" is not well-founded. Please note that the two sentences are a direct quote. It is indeed unfortunate that Wikipedia can not require that all the writers in the world write their articles such that they are in "an encyclopedic tone". You have no support for your opinion that quotes must comply with "an encyclopedic tone".


 * As I replied to PackMecEng (above), in the spirit of compromise, I propose an edit to the phrase, "was the most dangerous", to "was. . .dangerous". Do you disagree with that? In the spirit of seeking a resolution, I will reinstate the two sentences with that change.


 * Osomite hablemos  22:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's just one reporter's opinion (and based on an unknown scale...by what criteria is it determined which lie is more dangerous than another?), why not just attribute it? (And simplify the wording) Trump's numerous lies about the coronavirus included that the virus was equivalent to the flu, that the virus was "disappearing", and, possibly the most dangerous lie according to Daniel Dale at CNN, that "coronavirus was under control". Schazjmd   (talk)  00:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that particular section would probably be more suitable for the "Commentary and analysis" section (I've already included some commentary from Dale there), though it would probably still be WP:UNDUE. Isi96 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like Has joined the edit war while being ignorant of what WP:ONUS is. Perhaps they could join us on the talk page? PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have it in me to deal with the nonsense that comes with these kind of articles, and won't interfere again, but good lord what kind of edit was that? Arkon (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I lied, I do have it in me to click a button when someone won't engage with those that disagree. Arkon (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Folks, this page doesn't currently have a 1RR or BRD sanction on it. Don't make me add one. I've fully protected the page for 24 hours. Please try to find a compromise instead of reverting back and forth. ~Awilley (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

break
A good place for a section break, right after the editing break was imposed (which was a good idea).

I think folks on all sides of this would agree that "most dangerous" is a pretty subjective evaluation. But that doesn't mean it could never be included in the article, only that it can never be included because editors here think it should be, or because one columnist thinks it is. Have another look at WP:DUE WEIGHT; we can report here in Wikipedia's voice and without in-text attribution what the majority of reliable secondary sources say. The way to get "most dangerous lie" into the article, then, is to demonstrate that that's how the preponderance of reliable sources characterizes it. If it's a description used by a significant minority of reliable sources, it could be added with some qualification, perhaps including in-text attribution to one or two of the most reliable among them. And if it's only a tiny handful of sources that say that, among the hundreds of outlets that cover the President's assertions through the lens of accuracy, then it should not be included at all.

Much of the discussion above is disagreement among editors trying to socratically or otherwise come up with their own arguments about why it should or shouldn't be included. But that's not how we do things here; it isn't based on what we think at all, it's entirely based on the sources. So as this discussion picks up again and carries on, it would help if everyone just checked their opinions at the door, whether pro or con. All you have to do, is demonstrate where this assertion falls on the axis of WP:DUE WEIGHT, and that will provide the answer whether to include "most dangerous" or not, and whether it needs qualification or attribution or not. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Need opinion on this article
OP and admin of this article need to edit the article and put "opinion-based" at the top of the article. Some of the statements in this article are clearly biased written statements and don't have proof of the statement. I'm not saying everything that came out of President Trump's mouth was truthful and accurate but some of the apparent "lies" might be proven to be the truth as the truth comes out so it should not be in this article in my opinion. For example, he didn't start the birther event and supporting the accusations OR asking the questions of the birth certificate legitimacy is not a lie. Some of the apparent "lies" is actually a tell-all of how some people worry about things they should keep their nose out of. Another example, did he lie about his taxes being under audit and he'll produce them when he's not under audit? Probably. Half right on that one. He probably is under IRS audit constantly but their is NO LAW that states a presidential candidate is required to give their taxes over to anybody. Interesting how nobody is questioning Joe Biden's taxes when they are clearly doctored but many of us could care less about his taxes. We do care about the quid-pro-quo that happened under Obama's watch and the clear hypocrisy between Hunter Biden vs. Donald Trump Jr/Eric Trump/Ivanka or Tiffany. If any of the Trump children were conducting themselves like Hunter Biden, the left & the media would be non-stop coverage 24/7. However, if the people who created this article don't want to make the necessary changes for an accurate WIKI, that's fine. We'll start creating misleading articles about Joe Biden, the liberal left and the legitimacy of his presidency with all the "truth" coming out. (You have to be a complete imbecile to think that 2020 was not stolen) Liberals ask "where's your proof?" The video in Atlanta is not proof enough? Just that one thing is pretty bad and it happened in EVERY state. We're just concentrating on the states that shut down counting on election night so they can ballot dump in the early morning hours. The TRUTH always comes out & it soon will.

Trump is doing more lying about the election than talking about any other subject


This analysis (that's provable by numbers, so worth more than a simple statement of fact) by a top fact-checker is worth including:


 * Trump is doing more lying about the election than talking about any other subject, Analysis by Daniel Dale, CNN, June 12, 2021

Valjean (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added this chart and source to the article. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The Big Lie Makes Big Money?
FWIW - seems relevant here as well - should be *entirely* ok of course - as another instance of being less-than-truthful - and to make a lot of money -  Comments Welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)



Copied from "Talk:Big lie":

Should this very recent New York Times news report be added, in some way, to the "The Big Lie" article - as perhaps another reason, besides pursuing political power, in the near term and/or later, to continue promoting "The Big Lie"? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT source is not directly related to the topic of the article. And WP:OR says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." -- Renat 14:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (and others) - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - more direct WP:RS may be helpful re the issue - several such direct references may include The New York Times, NBC News and Yahoo News - there may be more direct references (perhaps many more) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Besides making Big Money from The Big Lie during the current go-round in 2020-2021    - others are funding the Big Lie with their own Big Money - all in all - Money seems to be a very Big Part of the Big Lie - in one form or another - and, perhaps, should be part of The Big Lie article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

False and misleading statements about Mueller report
PackMecEng suggested that I "get consensus on the talk page about doing original research based on a primary source and if it holds due weight." Okay, here we are. The suggested content below is for the appropriate section "Special Counsel investigation". I didn't create this content, although, in response to PME's first deletion, I tried to improve it by removing unnecessary wordiness in some sources (maybe more could be done) and content that wasn't strictly about Trump. I thought that would be good enough, but apparently not. It is not based on a primary source, but on PolitiFact's article, and then uses the primary source from the Mueller Report for each point. Maybe it could be improved, but it seems relevant. Maybe we can just drop references to the Mueller Report and only use PolitiFact?

Valjean (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The eight points from PolitiFact:


 * 1) Trump publicly claimed Mueller had conflicts of interest and was turned down for FBI job. Trump aides told investigators none of that was true.
 * 2) Trump claimed he hadn’t thought about firing Mueller. His staff told Mueller otherwise.
 * 3) White House press secretary Sarah Sanders claimed ‘countless’ FBI agents lost faith in former FBI Director James Comey. She told investigators that was a 'slip of the tongue.'
 * 4) Sanders claimed a Justice Department review prompted Comey’s firing. The Justice Department privately refuted that narrative.
 * 5) Sanders claimed Trump ‘certainly didn’t dictate’ a statement for Donald Trump Jr. about the Trump Tower meeting with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer. However, Trump did.
 * 6) Trump said the Steele Dossier triggered the investigation — and that the probe 'was a plan by those who lost the election.' Both claims are false.
 * 7) Trump repeatedly attempted to downplay his business plans in Russia. Mueller report confirms interest in Trump Tower Moscow.
 * 8) Trump claimed Comey wanted to have dinner with him. But it was the other way around.

Valjean (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I follow this page and I think what Valjean edited was okay, even if it can be later improved. ACLNM (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting a discussion. So the issue is a few things. One, it does not need its own section, it should be rolled into the Special Counsel investigation section. Next you are quoting way to much primary sources. You are basically putting in a phrase you are calling incorrected based on a source in a different area and using the primary source as your refereince. That is just wrong, you do not use a primary source to support something like that. It makes it look like your personal original research. Next the section is far to large for just a single old Politifact source like that. It gives far to much undue weight to it in general. I think we could take one or two sentences from the source but that is kind of at most. In the end its just not a good fit for the article because of issues like that. Its hard to push that these falsehoods are that significant relatively speaking. PackMecEng (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can resolve this by using only PolitiFact as the source, keeping only those five items that are about Trump, not making it as a subsection, and making it a prose paragraph, not a list. ACLNM, does that seem reasonable? It would look like this:


 * Valjean (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sincerely, I prefer how it first was, as a list. I follow this page for some time now, and I enjoy reading it every now and then, and I also like seeing which changes happen, but I admit I still have a lot more to learn more about WP guidelines, especially regarding sources (primary/secondary/tertiary). But maybe we can have your edit as a list inside a subsection inside the Special Counsel Investigation section. I guess, this being a page about the veracity of controversial statements known public, one could find more sources that mention those same falsehoods. (I'm not having so much free time now, or otherwise I'd go on a search with you.) ACLNM (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

debasing of veracity???
The lead contains this sentence, and I can't find that phrase in her article:
 * According to writer and journalist Nancy LeTourneau, the debasing of veracity is a tactic.

On which words in her article is that phrase based? -- Valjean (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I should also note that the sentence seems to violate LEAD in two ways: (1) it is not covered in more detail in the body of the article; (2) the source is not also used in the body of the article. The whole thing is only present in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

X1\ added that content in April 2020, but they are no longer active, so I can't ask them what they meant. I'm going to remove it for now. I suspect this source should be used in the body of the article. -- Valjean (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Ref problem at "Voting by mail" section
The section has a quote of a Trump tweet, followed by a ref to the archive version of the deleted tweet. Unfortunately, the ref appears separate from the tweet, and sits immediately under the section heading, all by its lonely self. I don't know how to fix that. -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a basic fix. I don't know if there's a better way. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

CNN-article, maybe good for something
Trump documents allegedly claimed his apartment was nearly three times larger than it is, Michael D'Antonio Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The topic is mentioned in this article in "Business career" -> "Real estate." Other articles discuss it in more detail, and this article points to those articles. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of lead: 'Big Lie' and its 'implementation'
2nd paragraph of the lead currently says: "As part of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump and his allies repeatedly and falsely claimed there had been massive election fraud and that Trump had really won the election. Their effort was characterized by some as an implementation of "the big lie"."

The second sentence is confusing. My first reaction was that Trump's claim of election fraud has been widely characterized, not merely characterized by some, as 'the big lie'. Looking at the sentence more deeply, I see ambiguity about exactly what "their effort" refers to. Does "their effort" refer to verbal public comments (per the second part of Sentence 1) or to action-based coup attempts (per the first part of Sentence 1, e.g. submitting false slates of electors, initiating 63 lawsuits to overturn the election results, etc.)? Is it the words, or also the actions, that are characterized as the Big Lie?

I'd prefer to rewrite this for clarity. One possibility: "As part of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump and his allies repeatedly and falsely claimed that Trump had really won the election. Their claims of massive election fraud were widely characterized as "the big lie"." - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page
I don't get why this page exists. Wikipedia is supposed to represent a neutral point of view, and this is NOT a neutral point of view. The article repeatedly accuses Trump of lying, instead of presenting that info from a neutral point of view. So, what is this article's purpose? To present factual info? Or to just slam Donald Trump for lying? CertifiedAmazing2  wanna chat?  02:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the article is to summarize what reliable sources say about Trump's veracity. There is nothing about the neutral point of view that prevents us from summarizing such sources. The lack of reliable sources praising Trump's honesty is not the fault of Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 ah, I see. I understand that wikipedians can't control if a source likes or dislikes Trump's statements, but the way this article is formatted just makes it look like the only purpose of it is to smear him, especially in the beginning of the article, "During his term as president of the United States of America, Donald Trump made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims", and "As part of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump and his allies repeatedly and falsely claimed there had been massive election fraud and that Trump had really won the election.". These statements, among others, just look like they were purposefully non-neutral and are there just to smear Trump. I completely understand your thoughts, and I completely agree that this article should still exist, but I just see things that don't look right. CertifiedAmazing2  wanna chat?  21:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , you "see things that don't look right" but the real question is, are there any reliable sources that deny that Trump made tens of thousands of false statements, including about the 2020 election results? Please feel free to identify any such sources. It is the job of Wikipedia editors to accurately summarize what the reliable sources say, not to gloss over them. Cullen328 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 Source-wise, the only major news company that I've heard of that openly supports Trump and does not believe the media's claims of lying is Fox News, although I am sure there more. Also, I was thinking maybe we could change the sentences to something like "During his term as president of the United States of America, many news outlets and reports claimed that Donald Trump had been making tens of thousands of misleading, false, or controversial statements." and "As part of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, news outlets such as (insert reliable source) and (insert another reliable source) reported that Trump and his allies had repeatedly and falsely claimed there had been massive election fraud and tried to make it look like Trump had won the election.", to make it look more neutral. When I said things didn't "look right" I didn't mean that Trump wasn't lying and the sources are wrong, I meant that I feel like it should look more neutral than it appears at first glance. CertifiedAmazing2  wanna chat?  03:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the issue you bring up, and I acknowledge there is room to say this is a judgment call. WP:WIKIVOICE guides us, saying facts shouldn't be presented as opinion, and vice versa; and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". The question is whether there are serious assertions re Trump's veracity as summarized in the lede and detailed in the article body. Reliable sources/Perennial sources states that "Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics", which leads me to conclude that it, and other perennially biased-right sources like OANN, are not so reliable as to constitute serious contests against all the fact-finders and other analysts cited in the article. I think the present language is neutral under the circumstances, and that we should not amend the article to make the essentially unrefuted conclusions appear less pervasive than they are. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not specifically about Fox News but when discussing the reliabability of Fox (and many other sources) it is essential to distinguish between their opinion contributors and their actual news departments. So, which news articles and not opinion pieces from Fox make a convincing and persuasive argument that Trump has been telling the truth all along? Fox has already admitted in court that their opinion commentators are unreliable for points of fact. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are lots of reliable conservative news outlets like the Wall Street Journal and other well-established conservative news outlets that differentiate their news coverage from their opinion coverage. Have any such reliable conservative news sources contested the general assertion that Trump lies very frequently? Does that defense amount to "he only lied 1000 times and not 10,000 times?" Or is it that a persuasive argument is being made that he is actually not notable as a notorious prevaricator? Can you find articles in reliable sources that say things like "Donald Trump is not actually a liar. This is why he is actually telling the truth" followed by a detailed and persuasive analysis? If so, bring forward those sources for discussion here. If not, then this conversation is approaching a dead end. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A lot of this I also find has no place on Wikipedia. I agree with "Cullen328" there are many news outlets that dispute the claims made in this article and the "Social media use by Donald Trump" article. I do not think Wikipedia should determine validity when there is much disagreement on an issue from many news outlets. User "CertifiedAmazing2" also makes a point in potentially wording things much better in a reasonable way, "During his term as president of the United States of America, many news outlets and reports claimed that Donald Trump had been making tens of thousands of misleading, false, or controversial statements." Nothing about this statement is false and clearly portrays fair, objective and insightful information. Wid777 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wid777, I think you misunderstand Cullen328's point(s), so don't try to invoke his support for your misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's NPOV policy means. It is a simple fact that only unreliable sources dispute the findings of all reliable sources and serious fact-checkers, and we must not present facts as the mere opinions of certain news sources. Trump lacks veracity. He can never be trusted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,, it seems that you misunderstood my March comments although I tried to write clearly. Let me be blunt: I am not aware of a single reliable source that refutes the argument that Trump is a frequent and blatant liar, nor that he lies far more frequently than every other US president. If you can find any such reliable source, please bring it forward for assessment here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the article does a good job with presenting a neutral point of view. However, I have a concern with the leading sentence. It says Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of lies, which I find perfectly fine, but then goes on to give one particular estimate by one particular reporter. Estimates can vary a lot depending on how one defines a lie. "Tens of thousands" gives a general, accurate idea. But I believe something specific "30,573 lies" should go in the "Veracity of politics" section, as it gives an exact impression when an exact objective number does not exist. Or if possible, the lead section should present the range of estimates that various reliable sources have made (e.g., reports range from 23456 to 45678 lies). TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

British vs American English
can you clarify why you think this article should be written in British English? According to MOS:TIES, it seems fairly clear cut that this article should be written in American English. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * See MOS:LQ. It's not really "British English". It's my understanding that this is a project-wide style consensus and not something dependent on the ENGVAR of the article in question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha TheGEICOgecko (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to language, only to punctuation, specifically placement of quote marks in relation to periods. We use the British style. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Fact-checking Trump: How are repeated lies counted?
When DT repeats a lie, are the repeats counted, or just the original? BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At least for the Washington Post database, repetitions were separately counted individually (>30,000 "false or misleading claims"). And Daniel Dale (Toronto Star and CNN) once said that Trump was easy to fact-check since Trump told the same lies over and over. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those types of lies were classified as "Bottomless Pinocchio". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Request: Swap axes of graphs in 'COVID-19 pandemic' section
Could some ambitious soul please swap the axes of the two graphs in the 'COVID-19 pandemic' section, so the independent variable (time) is on the x-axis, and the dependent variable (number of cases) is on the y-axis, per common practice? Thank you -- BMJ-pdx (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ As originator of the graphics, I understand the issue. You're basically talking about rotating the graphics counter-clockwise 90 degrees. But a first consideration for Wikipedia graphics is that they be as easily readable as possible in thumbnail view. When I was making those graphics, I found that if they were made per your suggestion, most of the text would have had to be either (1) vertically oriented so people would have had to turn their heads 90 degrees to read, or (2) unacceptably "far" from their point on the trace. Also, the present graphics use their area most efficiently—with minimal wasted "white space" using the largest font size to fill the available space. — RCraig09 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead does not cover the article or content scope. Despite attempts by me to add detail, backed by references, backed by the truth and imo balanced, to the lead, the encyclopedia and the knowledge base, two revert warriors decided to remove content rather than improve the article or edit my additions in any way, all with spurious reasoning. If I spelt a word incorrectly according to your view, correct it, if in your view it is unbalanced, moderate it. Can someone else add to the lead to at least cover the article scope as per the title. The Original Filfi (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There were several problems with your large addition to the lead, which I (and another) mentioned in edit comments:
 * The lead summarizes what's in the article, so the body of the article should first have the detailed content. However, you went straight to the lead with overly detailed content.
 * Your content was presented in a grossly non-neutral tone ("continually lied in all areas of his life", "lies have continued en masse", "a new genre of lies have been troped out").
 * Much of your final paragraph is not sourced.
 * I counted six spelling errors, a capitalization error, and an apostrophe error.
 * That Schwartz "noted that he had to create the phrase "truthful hyperbole" as an "artful euphemism"" is much too detailed for the lead.
 * (non-exhaustive list)
 * Some of the sources look like they contain pertinent content, but it should go, first, into the article body. If you perform additions first to the body in an ordered, incremental way, things will work out better for you. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The Original Filfi, I have to agree with RCraig09 and those who reverted your edits. Some of your content was good and accurate (Trump really is a spectacularly big liar), but that's not enough, especially for the lead. You're also right that the lead could be better. The reverters left good edit summaries, and you should not have edit-warred. You should have been blocked for doing that. Now we're here.

I suggest you carefully read each edit summary and the response above and address them before even thinking about making any new attempts to edit the lead. In fact, because of the edit warring, you should seek approval here (in a new section) for any proposed edits. BE BOLD does not work for contested content. It's disruptive. Start with improving the body and only then consider any tweaks to the lead. Focus on section titles and seek to mention those topics very briefly in the lead, preferably in the order they occur in the body. I suggest you read my essay. It has a number of good pointers: How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:Czello. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User should take a wikibreak or prepare for sanctions. That edit summary is one of the most egregious trespasses of assume good faith I think I've ever seen. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding some context to the Washington Posts numbers
I think the justification for this article existing at all is dubious at best, but given wikipedia users typical politics, I suppose it's here to stay. But if it's going to stay, it at least needs a fig leaf of balance and impartiality. The article reads as if everyone universally accepts the Washington Posts 30k+ claim of false statements. But not everyone agrees with the WaPo. I added some sources to point that out.74.96.244.155 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Are there any non-opinion sources that make those claims? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I gave reliable sources. And the WaPo source of the 30,000 false statements IS an opinion source to begin with.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My question stands. We properly attribute the WaPo analysis piece, and we know that analysis is WP:DUE because it was covered by reliable, non-opinion sources. Is that also true of the opinion pieces you're looking to add? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I gave three sources. One is a "caution" source (The Daily Wire). The other two are considered generally reliable in wikipedia's list of perennial sources (Marketwatch and Real Clear Politics). Those sources are frequently used on this site.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this a response to me? It doesn't answer my questions at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also not true, Daily Wire is considered generally unreliable and cannot be used at all, RCP is with caution, but wouldn't be reliable for any controversial political statements as They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided., and is additionally an opinion piece while the MarketWatch article is explicitly an opinion piece. Andre🚐 03:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling it "explicitly an opinion piece" is irrelevant, since yet AGAIN, the Washington Post running tally of Trump falsehoods is itself an opinion piece. If you are adamantly opposed to opinion pieces being used, then the WaPo numbers would need to be scrubbed from this article also.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the Washington Post fact checker is attributed and it is not an opinion piece. An opinion isn't any inconvenient fact you don't like. Andre🚐 04:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, I realize this isn't going to go anywhere, because within minutes several people have pounced here in responses, so it's clear that there's an issue with WP:OWN in regard to this article, which is highly political to begin with.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what OWN means. Oe anonymous editor is misrepresenting information and complaining about things that actually aren't problems and then several regular editors are pointing out why the information being offered isn't accurate or consistent with policy or logic... Andre🚐 04:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on sources considered by the Wikipedia community to be reliable; articles aren't the place for editors to go after a source. Separately, this article is about Trump's veracity, and editors are free to add content from reliable sources that express positive or negative things about his veracity. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good thing I used reliable sources then. Reverting.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they were bad sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy cow, I figured this page had a problem with WP:OWN but no idea it was this bad. A response in just two minutes? Anyway, I gave three sources. One is a "caution" source. The other two are considered generally reliable in wikipedia's list of perennial sources. 74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I rate this four Pinocchios. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is blatantly inaccurate. Andre🚐 03:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, 74.96.244.155 misses the point that his sources are about the Post and not about Trump whose veracity is the subject of this article. — RCraig09 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Title of article is wrong
This article is misnamed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of the word “veracity” are: “conformity with truth or fact; devotion to the truth; power of conveying or perceiving truth; something true”. However, everything in this article is about Trump’s misinformation, falsehoods and lies. This article should be named “Untrue Statements Made by Donald Trump”, “Incorrect Statements Made by Donald Trump”, “Outright Lies of Donald Trump”…you get what I mean. Let’s try an experiment. I’ll add a veracious Donald Trump statement to the article and see what happens. UConnHusky7 (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree with you. But this has already been extensively discussed and consensus is that it isn't wrong. See for example the "Requested move" discussion here, where it was proposed that the title be changed to False statements by Donald Trump. The existing title won out. As for your proposed experiment, you'd need to find a statement that reliable sources specifically say was veracious. Good luck with that. Bishonen &#124; tålk 03:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC).
 * Yes, UConnHusky7, the title is indeed misleading, as it implies that Trump's statements are veracious (not to be confused with "voracious"). Once a visitor starts reading, they encounter one of the largest violations of Easter egg and Principle of least astonishment at Wikipedia, as the content is the opposite of the title. This article documents the Lack of veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Any veracious statements are rare exceptions that prove the rule. David Zurawik says we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because that's "how to cover a habitual liar". (The last part is by four illustrious experts.) Any gambler knows that's the safest assumption.
 * Bishonen is right about the existing consensus, but that doesn't mean we should give up on fixing this abominable situation. It's a dishonorable situation that lessens our credibility. Maybe, by now, more editors will realize that RS justify something like Donald Trump's dubious relationship to facts as a better title. A new consensus might fix this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "Veracity..." is neutral, and conveys to readers that this article is not a hit piece. Within ten seconds, readers know we're not implying Trump's statements have much veracity. One alternative title, which is more clumsy, might be "Degree of veracity...", but I still mildly favor for the present title. I can't find a single word that captures the concept "degree of veracity". — RCraig09 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Would "false" or "lies" or "dishonest" improve title?
I rarely look at this page, but the title keeps appearing in my watchlist and always seems convoluted. I'm pretty sure that few of our readers or potential readers use "veracity" as a search term. It's up there with incalescence superannuation etc. I think either the title needs to be changed. I haven't given much thought to what would be better. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Exaggeration versus Mendacity
This article seems to be about the mendacity of many of former President Trump's statements. It seems to me okay for discussion of untruths to be placed under the heading "veracity" (in the sense of "veracity vel non"). In any case, it might also be useful for the article to consider the extent (whatever that extent might be) of truthfulness in Donald Trump's statements, even if that task would involve serious methodological complexity--for example, how would this be properly measured?

In elementary school, when we took tests, we were instructed that if there is even a tiny grain of falsehood in a true-false statement, the whole statement should be marked FALSE. But such a binary approach to analyzing truth/falsity (especially where a single drop of falsehood is deemed to spoil an entire ocean that is otherwise true) might not be the most enlightening approach when we are considering the veracity-vel-non of statements made by actual people in a non-exam context. (I'm not suggesting here that Donald Trump in fact offers oceans of truth and only tiny falsehoods; what I'm saying is that the issues of degree and extent are probably important.) In my judgment, something quite relevant to the analysis of veracity-mendacity should not go unmentioned in an article about the reliability or unreliability of statements made by former President Trump. One striking feature of Donald Trump's utterances is his routine use of hyperbole and superlatives. For example, he tends to construct sentences that conclude with the recitation "the likes of which have never been seen before." I haven't tried to quantify this tendency, but he does this so frequently (and, it seems, so often inaptly) that his words can seem like a self-parody. I think I've noticed that this rhetorical propensity to rely on hyperbole seems to have increased over the past three or four years. Thus, if one were to use Trump's style of speaking to describe his overstatements, one might say that "Trump is a compulsive exaggerator and fact-distorter, the likes of which has never before been seen in human history." Of course, Trump himself prefers to use damning words such as "liars" to label those he considers his enemies.

Reference to the word "liar" brings up a set of distinctions to inform the analysis of veracity that would focus on the degree of culpability or bad faith in a false statement: for example, "lying" and "deception" suggest willfulness, whereas "inaccuracy" might include an inadvertent or unknowing untrue statement. And the context of a statement is important. Off-hand sloppy remarks to buddies at the golf course are contextually different from an address by the president from the Oval Office.

Another important area to explore is the range of pejorative (and often extremely abusive) language used by President Trump. Although the first amendment protects much insulting political speech, the former president has regularly and repeatedly made use of an arsenal of slurs that seem clearly untrue and even defamatory. A recent example is his defamatory characterization of special counsel Jack Smith as "deranged." The catalogue of Donald Trump's abusive statements about others (including his former associates) is quite extensive. If you read the extent of Trump's slurs and derogatory nicknames, it's quite overwhelming. One collection of slurs is Kevin Quealy's compilation of an enormous database of "Trump’s Twitter Insults(2015-2021)," which can be found on the New York Times website. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/19/upshot/trump-complete-insult-list

The abusiveness of President Trump's insulting language is perhaps also related to his propensity for crudeness of expression (e.g., "s___hole countries).

I haven't yet even read this entire wikipedia article carefully, so my remarks now are not necessarily calling for changes to the article. I simple wanted to share a few thoughts before reading further.

Best wishes to all!100.15.136.71 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This isn't a place to make general comments about Trump. It's here for constructive and specific changes for the article. Andre🚐 18:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Replying to my own comment above, I would like to raise the point that there are several types of "false" statement that don't neatly fall into the category of "false statements of fact." An example might be the example quoted from the LA Times, to the effect that Barack Obama . . . . "falsely stated that 'if you like your health care plan, you can keep it' under his Affordable Care Act." If former president Obama said those words early on during his lobbying for the ACA, his words might be more like a PROMISE or an assurance or perhaps even a prediction than an assertion of fact. A promise made irresponsibly (and eventually broken) could in some cases be no less blameworthy than a knowingly false statement of fact, and it would tend to erode trust in the person making the promise, but it's not exactly the same thing as a lie about a factual matter.
 * My point here is not to argue that Barack Obama never lied. Instead, I'm making an observation about different types of speech acts.100.15.136.71 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"significant evidence" of an intent to deceive
Interesting research:


 * "Analyzing Trump's tweets with a regression function designed to predict true and false claims based on their language and composition, it finds significant evidence of intent underlying most of Trump's false claims, and makes the case for calling them lies when that outcome agrees with the results of traditional fact-checking procedures."

Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Proposal withdrawn as too radical, but there are some good suggestions below, so I have opened a new rename/move discussion. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Mendacity of statements by Donald Trump – One thing I do get from the section above, and something that has long irritated me, is the fact that the current title is a bit misleading. It does not accurately describe the real topic. Mendacity of statements by Donald Trump is the real topic here, so the title should reflect that fact. "Mendacity" is a pretty accurate description. I suggest we move the article to that title. What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "falsehood" is a better antonym to "veracity" (despite "mendacity" rhyming better): "falsehood" asserts only that a statement is false to fact; "mendacity" can (like its synonym "lying") carry the additional implication that the speaker *knowingly*, *intentionally* spoke falsehood... which normally requires mind-reading, unless there's evidence of that knowledge and intention beyond the false statement itself. When someone *inadvertently* gets facts wrong, e.g. due to bad information sources or bad memory, that's "falsehood" but not "mendacity". We can't always know which is the case. Nevertheless we should debunk the falsehoods for the sake of others who might trustingly believe them, or think of the speaker as always reliable on facts. Does this make sense? –  . Raven  .talk 22:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense, in a certain sense. The idea that we must be mind readers has been rejected by RS in the case of Trump. For a very long time, all RS resisted the urge to use the words "lies", "liar" about him, but there came a time when they finally broke down and all began to call Trump a "liar". Literally all RS. They wrote that there was enough evidence that he "should have known the facts", and that by making false statements that contradicted those facts, he should be called a "liar". We don't need to know his motives.
 * A thesaurus gives us these synonyms for "mendacity": deceit, deception, prevarication, falsehood, falsification, fraud, lie, lying, untruth, and untruthfulness. Yes, he occasionally tells the truth. All liars do, but he literally (it's been counted by official experts) can't speak 3-5 sentences without there being some form of the above. His modus operandi is to grab the center stage by denying the obvious facts. The very idea of "truth" does not exist in his mind. That tactic automatic guarantees he is the center of attention, and all those who speak the truth are suddenly pushed aside and he sucks the air out of the room. Even his opponents in the media repeat his lies! The Big Lie tactic works very well for him. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Veracity was likely the most neutral term, though given just how blatantly false many of his statements are, I do wonder if we've come to the point where it's actually neutral to label it as Falsehood... I think Mendacity is a word that isn't used enough by English speakers to be immediately understandable by readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Locke Cole, nice to see you here. A fellow old-timer. I understand your point about the word "mendacity", and another word might be better. BTW, we say this in the lead: "Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics." The "neutral", ergo "accurate" term would be something synonymous with "the lack of veracity" of Trump's statements. What's a better word than mendacity?
 * The antonyms for veracity are: deceit, dishonesty, falsehood, lying, unfairness, falseness, hypothesis, imprecision, inaccuracy, inexactness, infidelity, and theory. "Dishonesty" is the most accurate description, and everyone understands that. Donald Trump's dishonesty has a nice ring to it. It rings true.
 * We chose this title at a time when RS were barely beginning to call him a liar, and we were too conservative, ergo not being really neutral by speaking the truth. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you too. I think Inaccuracy may be at least moving the needle in the right direction, as Veracity seeds the idea with readers that there is more truth than not I think. Inaccuracy at least sets the expectation that, more often than not, statements are false or misleading. I should mention that we should carefully consider WP:AT and perhaps look for a common name that our sources use to describe coverage of his statements as there's a risk when we choose names that we introduce unintended bias. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump. That's certainly better, because, as you have noted, and I have long felt, "veracity" implies something positive, that what he says has veracity, which is not true at all. The current title is misleading. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My first suggestion, many years ago, was Donald Trump's relationship to truth and facts, which is too long. By now, we know he has ZERO relationship to truth and facts, and an NPOV and better title should come firmly down on the side of identifying that fact. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. First of all, some form of WP:COMMONNAME should apply, because "veracity" is a more widely-known word than "mendacity" (I'd like to think of myself as fairly literate, and I had to google it). But I disagree that the current title implies his statements are true. In fact I think it implies the opposite purely by existing: if all his statements were true, there would be no need of having this article (we don't have Veracity of statements by Abraham Lincoln, after all). The article is about how true his statements are (i.e. veracity), and if most of them just happen to be false, well, that's still what the article is about. I do believe the suggested move would violate NPOV.  WP scatter  t/c 01:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wpscatter, in what way would it violate NPOV? (Keep in mind I helped write that policy.) -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I'm meant to care who wrote the policy, but anyway... To me, this pretty clearly violates WP:NDESC (which isn't technically part of NPOV to be fair, but still policy). I don't think I'll be able to convince you, since my opinion is essentially that "mendacity" is an opinionated title while "veracity" is not, and if you agreed with that then you wouldn't have made the nomination in the first place. But I feel as though, in the English language, we tend to use positive terms neutrally. I can talk about anyone's wealth, even when they don't have much wealth at all, but it becomes less neutral when I start talking about someone's despondency (even though it's still just as correct when inverted).  WP scatter  t/c 03:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the best way to illustrate this, but NPOV does not mean a middle or neutral position, in the normal sense. (This has nothing to do with the left-right political spectrum.) It means that editors stay neutral and do not interfere with what RS say. We document biased content and preserve the bias of the sources and topic in the article. Below is a drawing, with the C being the Center, and the S'es being the Subject limits. The top line shows a truly middle-centered/neutral topic, and the title should be totally neutral. The bottom line shows where the topic of this article lies. It is not in the center, so the title should describe that fact. It should not be like the top topic. It's not about Trump's statements in a general sense. It's about his dishonesty, so the title should say that.
 * xxxxxxxxxS---C---Sxxxxxxxxx|
 * xxxxxxxxxxxxxxS---C---Sxxxx|
 * NPOV does not require neutral sources or content, just neutral editors. We do not neuter or neutralize topics. We show the bias of the RS and that produces biased content and titles, but not any bias from editors. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of how NPOV works. The only way I would grant that the new title does not count as an editor's bias is in the presence of RS that say a majority of Trump's statements are false (simply noting that a large number of individual statements are false and claiming that most are is OR/SYNTH). And even then, the proposed title is just as descriptive and accurate as the current one (noting again that "veracity" as a property can still describe a low level of it), and I still oppose the move on the basis that "veracity" is a far more common term in this context.  WP scatter  t/c 03:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Mendacity of statements" has very few hits on Google (I get only 5, and one of them is the RM notice for this article). On the other hand there are plenty of other articles that use "veracity of statements" in the title, which is the case even if you strike out Trump-related results. If I showed someone the current title, I would expect them to get it, I can't say the same about the proposal. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A bunch of those "veracity of statements" hits refer back to this WP article, one way or another. If we'd titled it anything else originally, THAT phrasing would now get a bunch of hits. –  . Raven  .talk 03:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What you're referring to is citogenesis, and it happens a lot with Wikipedia. Which makes requests like this harder because it's difficult to properly weight the RS when some (or many) may be referring to the name we chose. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well aware of this. However, this article only dates to 2018, and I was referring to hits that don't have anything to do with Trump. (I didn't mean to specifically mention titles, though, so that's my bad. I moreso meant that "mendacity of statements" is seemingly not a phrase used at all, whereas "veracity of statements" is.) Nohomersryan (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Politely oppose. I appreciate the original poster's perceptions, but mendacity seems to refer to the person and not to his statements, while veracity applies to statements. Also, veracity is definitely more neutral. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course the article is about him, the person, and that's okay. His statements cannot be separated from him: "Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics." We are to be neutral to the topic, not to some artificial "neutral center". We should align the title with the topic. Right now the title and the article are not lined up with each other. BTW, this is also for brainstorming. Other suggestions are welcome. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster defines mendacious as "given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth", and gives the use-example "mendacious tales of his adventures" — that "mendacious tales" clearly referring to the statements. –  . Raven  .talk 05:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We must be careful to distinguish the noun mendacity (which is under consideration) from the adjective mendacious (which, you note, indeed applies to statements). — RCraig09 (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So are we talking about The mendacity of Donald Trump or The mendacious statements of Donald Trump? Which one covers the topic best? Which one is the better article according to RS? Let's talk about that. Look at the article, and tell me what you see. Then give that an accurate title. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * — I've thought about this question generally, many times. I've looked at thesaurus.com in hopes of finding a single word that summarizes what the article is capturing; no luck, as veracity yielded all positive words and mendacity yielded all negative words. I avoided the term mendacity as it's categorically negative and—especially given the prominence of an article title—is arguably a violation of WP:BLP, which states "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia..." I've considered "Degree of truthfulness of statements by Donald Trump" (very neutral) but I thought that title too wordy, though it is an option. — RCraig09 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said above, in English we often use positive words in a neutral tone, which is ultimately why I feel as though the current title can and should stand. Even in your "very neutral" example, you say "Degree of truthfulness". Why is that more neutral than "Degree of falsehood"? I argue that "veracity" in the title contextually refers to "degree of veracity" (again, that's just how English works) which is as neutral as we can get.  WP scatter  t/c 06:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * RCraig09, you wrote: "is arguably a violation of WP:BLP". That can certainly be argued. It would only be a violation if it was "unsourced" negative content, but that is far from the case here. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of his business and political identities. Scholarly analysis of Trump's tweets found "significant evidence" of an intent to deceive.
 * Failing to call a lie a lie is also misleading (Reich, 2018). Our title should describe the content of this article. Right now the title describes the neutral center of the full and theoretical possible topic area of truth vs lies, whereas RS and the article describe how Trump and his statements are far from that center and centered over his consistent use of lies as a distinctive part of his identity. He rules by deception. I would contend that dishonesty is his single most defining character trait, one that affects everything else in his life and politics. Therefore the title should move to a position centered above that reality and state the clearly negative fact of Trump's negative/absent relationship to the idea of truth. That is what NPOV requires. It does not require a theoretical "neutral" stand we take in relationship to the whole topic area, but how we reflect the RS description of this specific topic. Trump doesn't even begin to overlap the idea of truth in any sense. Even when he tells the truth he misuses it to deceive.
 * I am not wedded to the word "mendacity" or "mendacious". I just think we need a word that is far from the center and more accurately prepares the reader for what they will discover in their reading. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your assessments and I understand your sentiments, Monsieur Valjean :-), but I don't perceive that ~100% of RSs agree, to the point where we as Wikipedians could characterize/summarize Donald or his statements as 100% mendacious/dishonest etc. For example, some of Donald's strawman-ish bluntness does expose the shortcomings of being overly politically correct, even if many pronouncements are jaw-droppingly, face-palmingly hyperbolic. Then there's the issue of proving Donald knew something was false to justify calling it a lie and not just a falsehood. I'm afraid that our inability to be as blunt as Donald is in claiming "Everybody knows it!", is why he's the Teflon Don (so far). — RCraig09 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * > "characterize/summarize Donald or his statements as 100% mendacious/dishonest etc." – Not really the issue here. We're not listing every statement he ever made, categorizing, then totting up the true/false percentages, just listing those proven false. It's an old observation that even liars tell the truth sometimes... except perhaps those in logic puzzles like the old "Cretans always lie (said a Cretan)" head-twister. –  . Raven  .talk 21:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * .Raven, I'm LMAO! "Cretans always lie." Being a PK, I'm familiar with that Bible quote. The first (and only) time my wife and I visited Crete, we immediately ran into that situation. A taxi driver almost convinced us that the only way to get to the opposite end of the island was by using him, which would have been a very large bill. Crete is not a tiny island. We discovered the bus station was on the other side of the parking lot. That was much cheaper, and we had a great vacation there. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great story to tell (not so much to fall victim to)! But that wasn't a Bible quote, nor at all Christian in origin: that was the Epimenides paradox from the 6th-century-BCE philosopher, prophet, and devout worshiper of Zeus. –  . Raven  .talk 22:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Both are true. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that cite! –  . Raven  .talk 23:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That might be "Dishonesty of statements by Donald Trump", then; the very word you used. –  . Raven  .talk 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster again: mendacity, definition 1: "the quality or state of being mendacious"; definition 2: "LIE". –  . Raven  .talk 07:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per others. Furthermore, I wonder why this article isn't simply called False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. Veracity of statements by Donald Trump sounds like a prime example of bothsidesism. The article is primarily about how notable it is for someone in his position to lie compulsively. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, it seems like you actually agree, but would prefer a different title than the one suggested. Keep trying to find a better title than the one we currently use. Failing to call a lie a lie is also misleading (Reich, 2018). -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IMO what we have is the perfect title. "Veracity" means truthfulness, but it rarely seems to be used except when someone's veracity is doubted. I found veracity defined as "conformity to facts; accuracy", but the two examples given were "officials expressed doubts concerning the veracity of the story" and "voters should be concerned about his veracity and character". In other words, it only comes up when there are doubts about someone's truthfulness. So it's the perfect word to evaluate Trump. He is unique here in even having an article "Veracity of"; apparently nobody else has come close to him in that area. The mere fact that we have an article about whether you can believe what he says or not (and thus implies not), kind of calls attention to his situation, without calling him a liar in the title. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You're making a great case for changing the title because, as you admit, it implies he's truthful. How the word is often used is irrelevant. The impression of the title is misleading. We need a title that leans the other way, such as Donald Trump's dishonesty. That's factual, and both NPOV and BLP-compliant. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This reply is totally disconnected to the comment it's replying to. It was directly opposed to changing the title at all, and didn't admit that the title implies he's truthful (in fact, it states that it implies the direct opposite).  WP scatter  t/c 02:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you miss that ""Veracity" means truthfulness." and "veracity defined as "conformity to facts; accuracy""? That it is often used when veracity is questioned is another matter. The title stands alone and gives the opposite impression of what the article documents, and that is that Trump has no veracity. Therefore we need a title that straight out describes the contents. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the entire rest of the comment, which clearly disagrees with you? Yes, it stated the definition of veracity, but only to demonstrate that it's normally used when there is doubt. And yet again, the current title does describe the contents; it is about the veracity of his comments, it just so happens to describe a low level of veracity.  WP scatter  t/c 03:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We are saying the same thing. I described how I did see "the entire rest of the comment" where Melanie describes how (now my words) "it is often used when veracity is questioned", and I disagree because that "is another matter." I see what she's doing and do not buy it. It is disingenuous to use a word in the title that means the opposite of the content of the article.
 * So I agree with Melanie that the word is often used that way, but by itself, in the title, it means "truthful" and implies that Trump is truthful, when the article says the opposite. We need a word in the title that does not mean truthful. It should mean the opposite, IOW it should line up with the article content. The article describes his dishonesty, so we need a title that means the same. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps: " Low veracity of statements by Donald Trump" ? –  . Raven  .talk 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the right idea. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Summary of suggestions from brainstorming. Let's look at some of the ideas so far:
 * Veracity of statements by Donald Trump current title, but implies he's honest. It literally leans the wrong direction.
 * Mendacity of statements by Donald Trump by myself
 * Donald Trump's dishonesty by myself (my favorite)
 * The inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump sort of by Locke Cole
 * Donald Trump's relationship to truth and facts by myself, but too neutral because the RS are not neutral on this question
 * The mendacity of Donald Trump by myself
 * The mendacious statements of Donald Trump by myself
 * False or misleading statements by Donald Trump by Zxcvbnm
 * Low veracity of statements by Donald Trump by .Raven
 * More suggestions, please. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 14:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I respect that you believe the current title is unacceptable for the article and I understand why you believe it. However, there is a clear consensus against that. A large majority of participants in the discussion oppose the move outright.
 * That said, I would support a move to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. I do not think Donald Trump's dishonesty would be an appropriate title since it implies intent to lie, and while I understand we have RS that claim he does generally lie, most of the RS fact-checking statements in this article do not claim intent. The other suggested titles are just clunkier.  WP scatter  t/c 14:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur: the falsehood (or misleading nature) of so very many statements is the main point. We don't need to assert intent in the title. –  . Raven  .talk 14:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wpscatter, take a look at the section below: -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it. The article is, broadly, not about his dishonesty, as few of the sources about the statements discussed in the article assert intent; they just debunk them for being false or misleading. I take NPOV issues with an article titled "dishonesty" with a vast majority of sources claiming nothing stronger than falsehood. It seems to me like an article about his general propensity to lie would have a different scope than this one.  WP scatter  t/c 17:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think simply Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump remains concise and is only a simple word change from the current title. False or misleading statements by Donald Trump would also work as a more verbose variation. I think both of these would pass WP:NPOVTITLE and match what our sources state. While I see a consensus above against the proposed RM title, it seems like most contributors agree the current title is not accurate, it is simply the word choice that seems to be opposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That also works for me. –  . Raven  .talk 16:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent comments. We're getting much closer to a resolution. My original suggestion was too radical. Others have come with better suggestions. Let's work on using one of them. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * How about Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump, as suggested by Locke Cole? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above discussion. (And thank you for your adaptability to other ideas.) –  . Raven  .talk 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Adaptation=survival (Darwin) We operate collaboratively around here and seeking to find a consensus version usually involves compromise. One of the benefits of discussions at RfCs, AfDs, and RMs is brainstorming, and the exchange of ideas. I tend to cut to the chase and be a bit too direct. Tact has never been my strong point. Therefore, I often have to bend, give up my original ideas, learn from others, and become a new and hopefully better person who learns from my mistakes and the wisdom of others. At 72 I'm still learning. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)