Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

Trump as source of real fake news

See also: Donald Trump pseudonyms

Several sources have accused Trump of pushing his own real fake news for years, including the use of fake names which he used as pseudonymous sources to "spread favorable stories about himself or his projects" and "spread baseless gossip about his romantic and sexual exploits." Ruth Marcus, in a Washington Post article entitled "Donald Trump: Stonewaller, shape-shifter, liar," described how Trump was caught masquerading as his own spokesmen, "John Miller" and "John Barron", and then lied about it. She described how "a candidate willing to lie about something so small will be a president willing to lie about something big.... [A]ll politicians lie, but there is a difference between the ordinarily distasteful political diet of spin, fudge, evasion and hyperbole and the Trumpian habit of unvarnished, unembarrassed falsehood."

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune mentioned Trump's "obsession with (his own) 'fake news'" and Trump's February 6 tweet that 'Any negative polls are fake news...' Page ridiculed the tweet: "'Fake news'? Look who's talking." Brian Stelter responded to Trump's tweet: "No, President Trump, negative polls are not 'fake news'." Stelter noted that DeRay Mckesson's response was: "'Negative news = fake news' is the beginning of tyranny."

Referring to the birther movement, Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary under former President Obama, told Stephen Colbert that Trump has been pushing fake news for years.

Maureen Dowd, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for The New York Times, described Trump as a source of fake news: "Consumed by his paranoia about the deep state, Donald Trump has disappeared into the fog of his own conspiracy theories. As he rages in the storm, Lear-like, howling about poisonous fake news, he is spewing poisonous fake news.... He trusts his beliefs more than facts. So many secrets, so many plots, so many shards of gossip swirl in his head, there seems to be no room for reality...." He prefers "living in his own warped world."

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:32, October 26, 2018‎ (UTC)

Undiscussed move

Volunteer Marek recently changed the article title from "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" to "False statements by Donald Trump", stating "article title should reflect what the article is about, not try to HIDE what the article is about."[1] This rationale has merit, but given the controversial nature of the subject matter, I believe it would be worth discussing in a formal WP:move request instead. Opinions? — JFG ^talk 09:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In the previous discussion four editors (not including Volunteer Marek) supported a very similar title. No one explicitly objected and the discussion drifted from there. If someone does post a RM, it should have one proposal and editors should not be able to add third, forth and fifth options that make consensus impossible to determine. - MrX 🖋 12:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I support this move. It's a biased one-sided article and the new title accurately reflects this.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RM#CM and WP:Process is important, I oppose this move (and virtually any other move of this article) without an RM consensus. I also think it should be moved back pending said consensus, but I'm not in the mood to do that unilaterally. I concur with MrX's last sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no tyranny of the status quo on Wikipedia. There is WP:BOLD and as MrX points out, the consensus for the move already existed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It was inconsistent with two of the three bullet points at WP:RM#CM:

• "There has been any past debate about the best title for the page." Check, as previously noted.
• "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." Trump is so controversial that someone could reasonably disagree with virtually any move of any article about him. I wouldn't need an RM consensus for Viracity of statements by Donald Trump --> Veracity of statements by Donald Trump.

Obviously those bullets wouldn't exist if they were superseded by WP:BOLD, as BOLD could be asserted every time an editor wanted to ignore them. Lastly, any consensus actually present would be easy to reach in an RM, RMs generally run for about one week, and we can wait that long for this move. The only reason to oppose an RM is if a supporter of the move thinks their supposed consensus might evaporate if there were more participation and a more organized structure. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: do you object to the move based on the content of the title, because process wasn't strictly followed, or both?- MrX 🖋 18:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Process only, at this juncture. I haven't allowed my thinking to go any further, yet, since I don't believe in setting aside process when it would serve my position on a content issue to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2019

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

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

---

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → False statements by Donald Trump – This move was done without RM here, but the guidelines at WP:RM#CM require an RM in this case. No editor can reasonably claim that this move is not "controversial [or] potentially controversial". "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." My starting this RM does not constitute support for the move, and I may !vote later. Per MrX here, please !vote only Support or Oppose for the new title, and propose any other alternatives in separate RMs, bearing in mind that only one RM can be open at a time. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Ok, my !vote required less thought than I expected, so here it is.
  I've previously argued that this article should address both sides of the issue per WP:NPOV, and that its title should reflect that neutrality. I've challenged editors to edit the article to include the pro-Trump side, proportionally to the amount of coverage in reliable sources. They have not done so, so I conclude that that side of the issue is insignificant or non-existent in RS, and that the proposed title is a fair reflection of RS and therefore NPOV-compliant. Editors claiming widespread media bias should find a different project to work on. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The proposed title implies deliberate false statements I don't know where this comes from. False statements does not mean lies. R2 (bleep) 20:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

False can mean intentional lies. When you hear someone "gave false testimony under oath", do you think that merely means "incorrect" or "mistaken"? This is a dog whistle title which on its face is made to seem impartial, but which in practice implies intentional deceit. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This limits the topic to a list of his false statements. We use list articles for such things, and this article is much more, and should be even broader. It should cover what RS widely document, which is Trump's unique relationship to truth, facts, and basic knowledge. They analyze that relationship, and professionals have done so in depth. We should be going in that direction, not in a direction which severely limits our coverage. We would have to delete quite a bit of current content because it would be off-topic under the proposed title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

No one is proposing changing the scope of the article, let alone turning it into a list. We can ask Mandruss for clarification, but I'm pretty sure they're not envisioning that any content changes would flow from their proposal. R2 (bleep) 21:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not my proposal, as I indicated in the opening statement. I started the RM purely for procedural reasons and to save Volunteer Marek the effort. Regardless, the proposer's intent wouldn't preclude editors' opinions about the implications of the title change. (FFR, I'm out as a male per my UP. Feel free to call me one if you like, or not if you find it hard to keep everybody's pref straight. I personally avoid using the singular they whenever I can get away with it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

R2, I'm aware of that, but scope and title are intimately related. A narrow scope article has a very specific title, and a broader scope article has a looser title, so to speak. To stay on-topic with the proposed title, one can only list "false statements" by Trump. That's far too limited. The title must allow for full coverage of the subject of how Trump relates to truth, facts, etc.

When I create an article, I start by spending a whole lot of time searching for what RS say about it. Then I collect all those sources according to the specific aspects of the topic they mentions, and some sources can be used for many aspects. The process gets quite involved, and in the end it is the sources and the way they deal with the topic that determines what the article ends up looking like. In the process may rudimentary understandings of the subject go through the grinder, mashed up, and radically changed, since I allow what RS say to determine what I believe about a subject.

Try that process with this subject and you'll find a huge repository of very serious data, research, investigation, and commentary from primo sources and very notable people and researchers. We barely touch the surface of this subject, and it's a shame, but we're lucky to have this article at all. Its very existence has faced a lot of opposition, and we still see attempts to undermine and delete it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer - I disagree with your position. I don't see how in an article about Trump's false statements, that we would remove analysis of them (Trump's history and relationship to truth, facts, and common knowledge.). It would be unreasonable to remove that information from this article if it were renamed. starship.paint ~ KO 08:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is about the veracity of his statements - their truth or falsity or something in between. A lot of the article is devoted to making those distinctions, in the form of fact checking. To limit the article only to a list of statements that are definitively false, ignoring the evaluation process and the whole cottage industry of deciding where to classify them, would lose any encyclopedic value in my opinion. It's is true that we don't devote much of the article to saying "Trump said xyz and that was true", for obvious reasons: the issue wouldn't even come up if there wasn't some kind of doubt or challenge to be evaluated. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

No one is proposing changing to scope of the article to exclude any of its current content. R2 (bleep) 23:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

See my comments above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support- The title of the article should reflect what it is. As per Melanie N, "It's is true that we don't devote much of the article to saying "Trump said xyz and that was true", for obvious reasons: the issue wouldn't even come up if there wasn't some kind of doubt or challenge to be evaluated." She's right, the article is one-sided and going to remain that way. Since everyone here wants to continue to have this biased WP:ATTACKPAGE], we shouldn't use the article's title to disguise what it actually is.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• (Just in case someone missed it, the above editor put this article up for AFD per WP:ATTACK and the result was a SNOW keep.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• And???--Rusf10 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Experienced editors need no further information. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• As I noted above, this article should be more than just a list of false statements, as would be required with the suggested title. Right now it is more than that, but it should be even more than that. It should document Trump's history and relationship to truth, facts, and common knowledge. That would, per NPOV, include any positive relationships he has to those subjects.

Anyone who has read RS on the subject has discovered that they document nearly everything he says and does, which is as he would have it, and they have documented that he has a rather dubious and antagonistic relationship to truth. It doesn't seem to interest him. That is not the fault of RS or editors, but Trump himself (and maybe the way his parents raised him).

Documenting those facts is not an attack on Trump, or anything even slightly resembling what we mean by an "attack page". Rather than editors attacking Trump, RS are holding up a mirror to him, and we are required to put what they write in the article. The article should merely reflect what Trump's mirror tells RS. If we want a more positive article, then "the man in the mirror" must change.

It is our duty to follow policy, and therefore we are required to document what RS say about the subject. The subject happens to be very notable, ergo any attempts to delete the article are against our policies for the creation of articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Its no secret about Trump and well documented via RS.Resnjari (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per per WP:V ,WP:NPOV and even WP:WEIGHT .Now Trump may have made controversial ,disputed ,contestable , inaccurate ,misleading or false statements but none of them have had a substantial or lasting impact like
• George Bush's Read my lips: no new taxes
• Clinton's statement that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky".Which was Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ".Which led to Impeachment of Bill Clinton
• Bush and Blair stating that Iraq has weapons of Mass destruction which led to 2003 invasion of Iraq . According to Blair, "the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of alleged nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace."Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The proposed title implies deliberate false statements but it includes controversial ,disputed ,contestable and inaccurate statements not all the statements are false and fail WP:WEIGHT and has no lasting impact and includes Cherrypicking Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused about your comments, since they seem to be more about the existence of the article and its content than about its title. Am I mistaken? Perhaps you can clarify how your comments relate to the title? R2 (bleep) 20:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - it's his false statements which are notable. This does not mean that his relationship to truth is not going to be covered. That would be further analysis and still appropriate for this article. starship.paint ~ KO 08:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I concur with the reasoning of BullRangifer soibangla (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - a list of truths would be unencyclopedic, as would a list comparing truths with lies, or just a flat list of all statements. It's expected that people say things and generally don't actively mislead, and that there are many matters in which there are differences of opinions. What's notable about Trump (per the commentary and investigation of reliable publications) is how frequently he says things which are demonstrably false. Like, not a difference of opinion, but something where there are objective truths but Trump says something different, whether deliberately or ignorantly. That's the encyclopedic content, and the title of the list should reflect that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump/Archive 2#Requested move 25 October 2018. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC).It
• Comment It is a WP:POVTITLE and further the proposed title change clearly reduces or narrows the scope to a mere list of false statements, whereas an analysis of Trump's communication style, rhetoric and "persuasion technique" would more encyclopedic way to approach the issue.Note no single statement is significant like the ones of the Bushes or Clinton. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  So, what you are trying to say is that under the current title "Veracity of statements" an analysis of Trump's communication style, rhetoric and "persuasion technique" would be included, but it wouldn't under "False statements"? I think they would be included under both titles anyway if Trump's communication style is about false statements, if Trump's rhetoric is about using false statements, and if Trump's persuasion technique is about using false statements. starship.paint ~ KO 01:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  It narrows the scope and implies the article has only False statements as a WP:POVTITLE will do and further as MelanieN aptly states above "The article is about the veracity of his statements - their truth or falsity or something in between. A lot of the article is devoted to making those distinctions, in the form of fact checking. To limit the article only to a list of statements that are definitively false, ignoring the evaluation process and the whole cottage industry of deciding where to classify them, would lose any encyclopedic value in my opinion".Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bullrangifer. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is not a place for "alternative facts", but actual facts. "False" is not a POV adjective when the falsehood has been confirmed by reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Natural sounding title that reflects the contents of the article and RS coverage. Reywas92^Talk 07:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose My impression is the same as BullRangifer's. Also, the current "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" title suits the current article's topic and content. Similarly, the Adam and Eve#Historicity subtitle is not "Myth" or "Mythology", the subsection is concerned with the historicity (even if the result is that it's not historical). —PaleoNeonate – 19:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because the proposed move-to title implies a list article, which this isn't and because "veracity" captures the notion that statements may be true but misleading. Also, I think "veracity" invites a deeper discussion than just "false statements". For example, if a public discussion develops over a false statement by Trump, and Trump attempts to explain away the discrepancy between his statement and the facts, but his explanation itself is misleading, this whole scenario can be a section in the article, but "false statements" seems to be more about individual statements than discussions about how statements about other statements group together. Others may disagree but that's how I see it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, but I would support Inaccurate statements by Donald Trump. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Statements can have various degrees of truthfulness. PolitiFact's scorecard on Donald Trump gives 5% True, 11% Mostly True, 14% Half True, 21% Mostly False, 34% False, and 15% Pants on Fire, out of 670 fact-checked statements as of now. Article's current title is more neutral. - Manifestation (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Time for bed?

The RM has now been open for 13 days, almost double the usual duration. The RM is currently listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog and it's difficult to predict when an uninvolved closer will arrive to close it. There has been one comment, a !vote, in the past 8 days. There have been 15 !votes and the current count is 60% Support, a 3:2 ratio.

AFAIK the closing rules are the same for RMs as for most discussions: There is no firm requirement for uninvolved close. I propose closing as weak support for the move. Comments please, and perhaps we can avoid simply supporting or opposing that close depending on whether we supported or opposed the move. If we do that in significant numbers, we might as well declare 60% support for that close, which is enough.

(BTW, I hope it hasn't escaped editors' notice that the fairly close !voting shows that the RM was in fact needed and appropriate per the RM instructions—even if the outcome turns out to be the same. Forty percent opposition easily passes "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." Let's learn from that.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion deserves an uninvolved close since it's a particularly contentious issue. There have also been concerns raised about article scope. The last thing we want is for a close to be challenged after the fact. R2 (bleep) 21:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: As nominator, you should really leave this to an experienced and uninvolved closer. From my experience with the RM closing backlog, s/he will come soon enough. — JFG ^talk 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As involved I should refrain from unilaterally closing it myself. Not from putting a proposal up for discussion. Fine, so we wait. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And an RM boffin just decided to give it one more week. Damn deadlines! — JFG ^talk 13:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements by Donald Trump

Can we please have a quick, informal poll on this proposal? R2 (bleep) 02:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• They aren't notable enough for their own article, but some of them fit in perfectly well here. Everyone makes inaccurate statements, but Trump makes a remarkable number of false statements, as well as inaccurate statements designed to mislead. We should lay most weight on those that receive RS attention, and that is usually the outright false ones. Fact checkers keep track of them, but also provide analysis of misleading statements because of their huge impact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Deny, deny, deny

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

So this edit should be restored. In fact, it should be expounded upon here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump&diff=894397620&oldid=894385291 soibangla (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that's one of the areas in which Trump is like any other politician. At least I don't recall a case of a politician who didn't continue to deny until there was absolutely airtight proof. "And besides, I don't have a dog." It's what politicians do, it's how the game is played. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Please tell me you weren't aware that content was already under discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Here's my 2 cents worth. This one is quite different as it is Trump admitting a strategy based on deliberate deception, one modeled on the Big Lie propaganda technique. Myriad RS discuss how Trump uses it and gaslighting all the time. That's quite a notable admission from him and should be kept.

It's also an area in which Trump is different than other politicians. When a lie is exposed, most, with some exceptions, will usually stop repeating it, but Trump will repeat a lie, regardless of solid proof of the falsity of his statement. It can be debunked by everyone, and he'll continue to repeat it on Fox and in campaign rallies month after month. He really applies this technique relentlessly.

Fact checkers even created a new category of lies because of him, the Bottomless Pinocchio, for lies that get repeated again and again. He's the only one who populates the category, and that's because he is different than other politicians. He's in a class of his own. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: If you're genuinely "sorry about that", you'll self-revert pending a consensus to include this content. So Trump admitted that he plays the game the same as all politicians (if we take Jack O'Donnell's word for it, whose name has somehow morphed into "John O'Connell" in the content). Big deal. We already cover the Bottomless Pinocchio concept elsewhere in the article, and the disputed content says nothing specifically about that. "Deny, deny, deny" by itself has been around at least since Nixon, and probably many centuries. It's old news. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I just self-reverted after getting home, just to keep the peace, but against all my instincts as a Wikipedian. It still belongs here as very appropriate content, and I'm about as unconvinced by the arguments against inclusion here as ever. They seem contrary to policy on several levels. This is exactly the type of well-sourced content we normally include. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Remove as undue and nothing special. As Mandruss mentions it is not unique or different from other politicians. PackMecEng (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe you should read what I wrote above. It is very unusual, even proven by the creation of a special category of lies inspired by Trump. It's also an admission from his own mouth. That too is a gem to keep. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yup I did read what you wrote and my point stands. Though I am starting to doubt you have read what others wrote on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed I agree with BullRangifer that self-admissions are even more notable. This was one of them, Mandruss [2] didn't agree. There's also another one out there where he admits he made something up while talking to Justin Trudeau on U.S./Canada trade. starship.paint ~ KO 05:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss and PackMecEng: At least I don't recall a case of a politician who didn't continue to deny until there was absolutely airtight proof + As Mandruss mentions it is not unique or different from other politicians. - Trump denies stuff even after they are debunked. That's not the same as what you're saying. See [3] Trump disputes the "grab them by the pussy tape" after he already admitted: "I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize." Another example - May 31, Trump wrote on Twitter: "I never fired James Comey because of Russia!" versus May 11, Trump interview: "I was going to fire Comey ... in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story." starship.paint ~ KO 05:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

[4] Mueller report (not a direct quote) Trump told McGahn to fire Mueller. Trump after Mueller report is released: "As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so." Come on guys. Not every politician is this kind of liar. starship.paint ~ KO 05:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Trump denies stuff even after they are debunked. That's not the same as what you're saying. I completely understand that—why do you suppose I support the existence of this article? (A better argument than "Trump is a different kind of liar" is "Most reliable sources say Trump is a different kind of liar"; it would be great if we could keep our eyes on that critical distinction.) That doesn't mean it's WP:DUE to include some hearsay about Trump saying something that was not specifically about "denying stuff even after they are debunked". To make that connection on our own, without a source making it, feels very SYNTHy to me. It's making our own judgment that those words have different meaning coming from Trump's mouth, and that's bad Wikipedia editing. This article needs to be kept above that level—I much prefer to let reliable sources make the case and then summarize their findings and analysis, while providing links to the juicy details for anybody who wants them. That's encyclopedic. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any concrete suggestions to edit the article, or is this just a forum thread? — JFG ^talk 09:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This content. I support its inclusion. R2 (bleep) 10:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks undue to me: anecdotal hearsay from one person decades ago. — JFG ^talk 14:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@JFG and Mandruss: - is it "hearsay" when Jack O’Donnell (Soibangla, you wrote "John O'Connell" wrongly - I'd recommend CTRL-C, CTRL-V) recounts Trump telling that phrase to him? I thought hearsay would be Jack O’Donnell recounting hearing someone else tell him that Trump said that phrase. starship.paint ~ KO 12:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. This person apparently worked for Trump decades ago, is not otherwise notable, and today gets quoted by a journalist as recalling some conversation where Trump said that denying is a good defense strategy. Hearsay, and that's a rather unremarkable saying too, which probably happens twice a day at any pub where people talk about their view of life. — JFG ^talk 12:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Not gonna quibble over that one word, as my argument doesn't rely on it. Ignore it if you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the snark? soibangla (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla - I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be snarky, it was a genuine suggestion for improvement. starship.paint ~ KO 01:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Executing babies

“The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.” soibangla (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Anybody can see he didn't mean that literally. Nobody fact-checks ridiculous hyperbolic metaphor designed to energize support from the far right (let me know if Kessler does, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't waste his time on that sort of thing). In my opinion we should hold ourselves above the level of political noise like that, and stop bringing the latest asinine thing Trump said to article talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Anybody can see he didn't mean that literally. Uh, no. How exactly do you know "he doesn't mean that literally"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

[5] R2 (bleep) 00:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Not just another asinine comment by Trump - part of a concerted push by Republicans. [6] R2 (bleep) 00:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

For every asinine comment by Trump there is a reason why it's not just another asinine comment by Trump. The use of Wikipedia as a political battleground is getting tiresome. Anyway it clearly has nothing to do with this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

What in your view makes it so clearly off-topic? Is your position that we should exclude all asinine comments? R2 (bleep) 00:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Anybody can see he didn't mean that literally. Nobody fact-checks ridiculous hyperbolic metaphor designed to energize support from the far right. The title of this article is not Asinine comments by Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A comment can be BOTH asinine and false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

And that's not "a metaphor". A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable". Saying "the clouds were sad today" is a metaphor. This is just a false statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t really answer my question. R2 (bleep) 01:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

And I don’t understand this: Nobody fact-checks ridiculous hyperbolic metaphor designed to energize support from the far right. The New York Times fact checked it, so... are you saying it wasn’t a ridiculous hyperbolic metaphor designed to energize support from the far right? R2 (bleep) 02:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I jumped to a conclusion about the meaning of the words, thinking that he was using weird Trumpian hyperbolic language to call successful abortion an execution. My grievous error. I repeat my strong feeling that this article should be at summary level and not include a list of the most noteworthy false statements with no real objective way to determine noteworthiness. Most of his false statements are connected to one very hot political issue or another. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Struck "successful", a bad word to associate with abortion, which represents a failure regardless of one's position on abortion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss - thank you for admitting your error. Can you at least strike the erroneous comments? To avoid misleading others. starship.paint ~ KO 12:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this talk page a cherry-pick fest or what? Enough. Trump talks in a way that a President is not supposed to talk. We know that much, no need to pile on with every example you heard today. — JFG ^talk 12:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - what is cherry picking and what is not cherry picking? By your argument Trump talks in a way that a President is not supposed to talk. We know that much, nothing Trump says deserves to be included in this article. starship.paint ~ KO 12:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The distinction is very simple, per our usual WP:NOR and WP:Due weight policies. If multiple sources have picked up this "executing babies" comment in outrage, then it's worth mentioning. If an editor decides that this phrase should be excerpted from a rally by Trump because s/he is personally shocked, then it's not worth mentioning. — JFG ^talk 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Mandruss and JFG that this article shouldn't mention every non-trivial false statement. Readers would be better served by a cohesive article that talks about Trump's truthfulness more broadly, and if editors want to list every false statement then a separate list would be more useful and encyclopedic. However, if we are going to list every non-trivial false statement here as we're currently doing, then this one should be included. Trump is actively trying to mislead the voting public both about what happens in doctors' offices, and about what his political opponents are advocating for. That seems pretty significant. R2 (bleep) 16:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  I believe "non-trivial" is a lower bar than what has been previously discussed, which was something more like "most noteworthy". And your argument is exactly the kind of OR-subjectivity that concerns me. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Here's the most recent relevant discussion. We don't seem to have any consensus on inclusion criteria, which I find frustrating. R2 (bleep) 17:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I find that frustrating, too. Often the more aggressive win, regrettably, an unintended result of how the system works. I'm not very aggressive, generally. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

How does one define the most noteworthy, Mandruss? starship.paint ~ KO 01:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Not by "editorial judgment", certainly, since that would leave it wide open to the effects of personal bias. For example an editor's view of the relative noteworthiness of the executing babies comment will depend very heavily on how they feel about the abortion issue in general. JFG had the right idea here, although I'd set the bar a bit higher than "multiple" (two or more) sources. I think I said many moons ago that about ten of the "most noteworthy" would be about my limit for an article that I feel should be kept at a higher level (I may have said ten or maybe twenty, I don't recall). You're not going to get 10,000 down to 10 (or maybe 20) without extremely selective criteria. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Deja vu! Mandruss and I have been here before. I used RS criteria for most noteworthy lies and created a list. Mandruss objected. Maybe we should all return to that discussion. Here's my subpage: User:BullRangifer/sandbox8. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BullRangifer, that's a very useful list. No dead babies in there, so I hope we can move on from this thread. — JFG ^talk 06:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we can use (the # of times Trump repeated the false statement) as our sole inclusion criterion. It would be useful for a sublist or subsection on most-repeated false statements, which I think would be worthy of inclusion, but there may be other false statements that have been covered more by the sources, or are somehow more significant than those. Perhaps they reveal something about Trump's thought process, or they were more impactful. Those shouldn't be excluded from this article just because they were repeated 29 or fewer times. R2 (bleep) 15:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the number alone isn't a good enough criteria on its own, but even my experiment with using that as an objective, non-editorial opinion-based criteria was rejected by Mandruss. I tried, but even that didn't succeed, only meeting rejection. I pretty much gave up on that project because of that rebuff.

I really think that the idea of looking at "repetitions of lies" has some merit as part of the selection criteria we should use. Can we make a short list of such objective criteria we can use? We need to get some movement on this process, otherwise all the wikilawyering and arguments above appear to be stonewalling. Even if inadvertently so, the effect is the same: we're left without a small section containing a good list of notable whoppers. Instead of taking months, this should take 30 minutes. WTF is going on? Why so difficult? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Stonewalling accusations aside, the we have a recurring issue about the scope/contours of the article that will keep coming up over and over again until we resolve it comprehensively, so I support doing so, probably in a dedicated thread that's about no one specific false statement inclusion criteria broadly rather than about any one particular statement. R2 (bleep) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Good. BTW, is there a typo in your last five words? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No typo, but I hope this edit clarifies what I meant. R2 (bleep) 20:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Much better, and I fully agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Lie No. 10,000 is really a whopper"

Hmmmm. We're interested in only documenting whoppers (or something like that)? Well, here's a piece of historical revisionism that's blatantly false:

• Lie No. 10,000 is really a whopper

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

Sources

Looks like clickbait. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

new item: "The Mueller report: A catalog of 77 Trump team lies and falsehoods". CNN.com. April 30, 2019. Retrieved April 30, 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) X1\ (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

How about true statements?

Shouldn't there be a couple of examples where what he said turned out to be the truth, contrary to expectations? The topic of the article, after all, is "Veracity", not restricted to "falsehoods". TomS TDotO (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Any examples to suggest? — JFG ^talk 03:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

10,000 false or misleading statements

Re: [7][8] ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why we'd need in-text attribution for Glenn Kessler's conclusion that Trump has made more than 10,000 false or misleading statements while in office. The source's reliability is untouchable, and I'm not aware of any other reliable sources that contradict Kessler or dispute his methodology. R2 (bleep) 21:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Attribution is not required unless the fact is disputed by other reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. For a highly controversial claim, wiki voice requires multiple highly reliable sources agreeing on it, not just not disagreeing on it. We're wisely not using wiki voice for that number at Donald Trump#False statements. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Who in the world of reliable sources says it's highly controversial? If other sources dispute it, that's worth consideration, but if not, we should treat it as a reported fact from an impeccable source.- MrX 🖋 15:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Not because of controversy or that there are sources that dispute it per se, but that different fact checkers give different numbers, e.g the Toronto Star has a different number ("The Washington Post counts over 7,500, and The Toronto Star over 3,900") - much as you have to specify that the numbers are "By April 2019", one simply cannot say "Trump had made 10,000 false or misleading statements while in office" without specifying who's doing the counting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Also if we are saying well this one fact checker think he has made over 10k but others are all over the place it becomes an undue issue. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's any DUE issues since the numbers are widely accepted and reported on (most used number), and the the only "dispute" really is if it is 5000 or 10000 - hardly meaningful IMO - all I think is that somewhere we need to specify that the number is WaPo's count. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Presenting facts as merely Kessler's opinion poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It allows readers to feel they can just ignore him, when in fact they should not because he's presenting very solid facts. Facts should not be presented as opinions. Any attribution, if used at all, should be very short. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Attribution can be worded in many ways; "Washington Post claims" would be very bad attribution, but the attribution there is "The Washington Post has identified" which I think makes it clear enough that the WaPo's identifications of falsehoods are not really disputed in RS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point. That sounds acceptable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• If the concern is that we're focusing on Kesslers' analysis at the expense of the Toronto Star's analysis or other falsehood counts, then I suggest we say in the lead, without attribution, that Trump has made thousands of falsehoods. Then in the body we can detail, with in-text attribution, the Kessler count, the Star count, and any other noteworthy counts. R2 (bleep) 17:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  R2, bingo. That's a Solomonic solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, "thousands" solves the question elegantly. Until Trump reaches "tens of thousands". — JFG ^talk 00:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

CNN town hall with James Comey

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

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

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

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

• "The Mueller report: A catalog of 77 Trump team lies and falsehoods". CNN.com. April 30, 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

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

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

• "77 lies and falsehoods Mueller called out". CNN.com. April 30, 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

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