Revision as of 23:30, 12 March 2019 editMarkbassett (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,467 edits →Proposed for deletion: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:19, 13 December 2024 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,486 edits Reverted 1 edit by 24.144.59.77 (talk): Not a serious attempt to discuss the article's contentTags: Twinkle Undo |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi |date=12 March 2019 |result='''keep''' |page=Veracity of statements by Donald Trump}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no|archives=no}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi |collapse=yes|date=12 March 2019 |result='''keep''' |page=Veracity of statements by Donald Trump |date2=19 December 2019 |result2='''Keep''' |page2=Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (2nd nomination) |date3=28 May 2020 |result3='''Speedy keep''' |page3=Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (3rd nomination)}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=B|listas=Trump, Donald|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=Yes|politician-priority=low|needs-photo=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|ethics=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=Yes|American-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=mid |trump=yes |trump-importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = page |
|
|
| author = Conrad Duncan |
|
|
| title = Nikki Haley roasted for claiming US president never lied to her |
|
|
| org = '']'' |
|
|
| url = https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-lies-nikki-haley-white-house-impeachment-nbc-interview-9201866 |
|
|
| date = November 13, 2019 |
|
|
| quote = According to ''The Washington Post'', the president had made 13,435 false or misleading claims as of 14 October. There’s even a Misplaced Pages page called “Veracity of statements by Donald Trump”, which opens with this sentence: "Donald Trump has made many false or misleading statements, including thousands during his presidency." |
|
|
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20191115184221/https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-lies-nikki-haley-white-house-impeachment-nbc-interview-9201866 |
|
|
| archivedate = November 15, 2019 |
|
|
| accessdate = April 16, 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author2 = Graham Gremore |
|
|
| title2 = Mike Pence cuts off media’s access to top health experts until they give Trump free on-air time |
|
|
| org2 = '']'' |
|
|
| url2 = https://www.queerty.com/mike-pence-cuts-off-medias-access-top-health-experts-give-trump-free-air-time-20200409 |
|
|
| date2 = April 9, 2020 |
|
|
| quote2 = Trump...lies so much that there’s an entire Misplaced Pages page devoted to the “veracity of statements by Donald Trump.” |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = April 16, 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author3 = Robin Bradshaw |
|
|
| title3 = Misplaced Pages page on Trump's false statements gains attention ahead of 2024 election |
|
|
| org3 = '']'' |
|
|
| url3 = https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/wikipedia-trump-lies-2024-election-19771639.php |
|
|
| date3 = September 17, 2024 |
|
|
| quote3 = While social media and the Internet have changed the political landscape in the modern age, a recent Misplaced Pages page titled “false or misleading statements by Donald Trump” is starting to gain attention in the last leg of the 2024 election race. |
|
|
| archiveurl3 = |
|
|
| archivedate3 = |
|
|
| accessdate3 = September 18, 2024 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{copied|from=Donald Trump|to=Veracity of statements by Donald Trump|fromoldid=865326698}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
|collapse=yes |
|
|
| list = |
|
|
* RM, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Donald Trump's false and misleading claims, '''No consensus''', 25 October 2018, ] |
|
|
* Discussion, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → False and misleading statements by Donald Trump, '''No consensus''', 21 February 2019, ] |
|
|
* RM, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → False statements by Donald Trump, '''No consensus''', 22 April 2019, ] |
|
|
* Discussion, *various options presented initially*, '''No consensus''', 19 August 2022, ] |
|
|
* RM, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Mendacity of statements by Donald Trump, '''Withdrawn''', 11 June 2023, ] |
|
|
* RM, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump, '''Consensus to move to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump''', 17 June 2023, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
| algo = old(14d) |
|
| archive = Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 2 |
|
| counter = 7 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 120K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 120K |
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
Line 9: |
Line 72: |
|
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{archives}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
|
{{copied|from=Donald Trump|to=Veracity of statements by Donald Trump|fromoldid=865326698}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|activepol=no|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=Yes|class=start|politician-work-group=Yes|politician-priority=low|listas=Trump, Donald|needs-photo=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Donald Trump|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=start|importance=low|ethics=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=low|American=Yes|American-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spirituality|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=low|USPresidents=Yes|USPresidents-importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Trump as source of real fake news == |
|
|
{{seealso|Donald Trump pseudonyms}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Several sources have accused Trump of pushing his own real fake news for years,<ref name="Page_2/7/2017">{{cite web | last=Page | first=Clarence | date=February 7, 2017 | title=Trump's obsession with (his own) 'fake news' | website=] | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-trump-lies-fake-news-kellyanne-conway-perspec-20170207-column.html | accessdate=February 9, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Phillips_3/1/2017">{{cite web | last=Phillips | first=Kristine | title=Trump has been pushing fake news for years, Obama’s former press secretary says | website=] | date=March 1, 2017 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/01/trump-has-been-pushing-fake-news-for-years-obamas-former-press-secretary-says/ | accessdate=March 2, 2017}}</ref> 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."<ref name="Rozsa_3/1/2017">{{cite web | last=Rozsa | first=Matthew | title=Donald Trump acts as his own anonymous source in meeting with network anchors | website=] | date=March 1, 2017 | url=http://www.salon.com/2017/03/01/donald-trump-acts-as-his-own-anonymous-source-in-meeting-with-network-anchors/ | accessdate=March 3, 2017}}</ref> ], in a '']'' 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.... 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."<ref name="Marcus_5/17/2016">{{cite web | last=Marcus | first=Ruth | title=Donald Trump: Stonewaller, shape-shifter, liar | website=] | date=May 17, 2016 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-stonewaller-shape-shifter-liar/2016/05/17/954129bc-1c49-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html | accessdate=March 1, 2017}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
] of the '']'' 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."<ref name="Page_2/7/2017"/> ] responded to Trump's tweet: "No, President Trump, negative polls are not 'fake news'." Stelter noted that ]'s response was: "'Negative news = fake news' is the beginning of tyranny."<ref name="Stelter_2/6/2017">{{cite web | last=Stelter | first=Brian | title=No, President Trump, negative polls are not 'fake news' | website=] | date=February 6, 2017 | url=http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/media/donald-trump-poll-denialism/index.html | accessdate=March 6, 2017}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Referring to the ], ], ] under former President Obama, told ] that Trump has been pushing fake news for years.<ref name="Phillips_3/1/2017"/> |
|
|
|
|
|
], ] winning columnist for '']'', 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."<ref name="Dowd_3/18/2017">{{cite web | last=Dowd | first=Maureen | title=Trump, Working-Class Zero | website=] | date=March 18, 2017 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/trump-working-class-zero.html | accessdate=March 19, 2017}}</ref> |
|
|
{{sources-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 04:32, October 26, 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Discussion about fake news === |
|
|
|
|
|
== USA TODAY has published 88 fact checks on Donald Trump. Read them all here. == |
|
|
|
|
|
USA TODAY has published 88 fact checks on Donald Trump. Read them all here.<ref name="Hafner_1/8/2019">{{cite web | last=Hafner | first=Josh | title=USA TODAY has published 88 fact checks on Donald Trump. Read them all here. | website=] | date=January 8, 2019 | url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/08/fact-checks-donald-trump/2512842002/ | access-date=January 9, 2019}}</ref>{{sources-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 07:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*And? are you proposing anything? <sup>[] ]]</sup> 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:* ??? It's obviously potential RS material. It's this type of stuff we use to create articles. It's sort of what we do here. You may not want to use it, but someone else might. You got a problem with that? -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Too long == |
|
== refs for (more) US-Mexico barrier == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of stating the obvious, it's probably about time to consider how to break this article up. The subject matter is simply too broad and there is too much material that should be included, but for practical reasons we can't jam it all in. This page reminds me of the classic cartoon gag when you open the closet door and it explodes with millions of things flying out. Suggestions? -] (]) 01:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
refs for (more) ]: |
|
|
|
: Finding things Donald says that are false or misleading, is, in the words of Tom Cruise, a target-rich environment. Dividing the article into sub-articles would lessen its impact. It ''should'' be long. We could do some relatively minor copy editing for conciseness of language, though that is labor intensive and unlikely to offset the influx of new material in an election season. I'm OK with leaving it substantially as-is, with some of the mentioned copy editing. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 01:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* |
|
|
|
::I have to disagree for practical reasons. Articles should not be so long that they are difficult to navigate or load for those using a device with limited bandwidth or a slower connection. And we have reached that point. -] (]) 01:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* |
|
|
|
:::Attempt at spin-off:s per topic or time-period, perhaps? Pre-presidency/presidency and onward, something like that? ] (]) 07:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Btw, article is currently at 16240 words readable prose, ] indicates something should be done. ] (]) 10:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think that is a pretty good idea. Three sub articles which can be linked from here would work. -] (]) 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Agree. The article intro is about the presidency. Thus we focus on those 4 years, and put aside the non-political and strictly businesses topics. We retitle the article as "Disputed statements made by President Donald Trump". (That opens the way for follow-up should he win the 2024 election.) So what article titles pertaining to the non-presidential periods of his life? E.g., suggestions, that comport with (this) "Disputed statements by President ..." article? Ugh! Suggestions are needed. – ] (]) 02:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I suggest splitting in three: in general, then during his presidency, then post-presidency. The "in general" article could have the main things while the sub-articles could have more things. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 22:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Normally this proposal would make sense under ] but this is an exceptional case. I am not keen in splitting into small ''meh'' articles, because it waters down the voluminous scale of Trump's Firehose of Lies. When viewers are linked to this Holy Mother of God page, it makes a huge impact in its current size. ] (]) 04:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Proofless claim of Kamala never working at McDonald's == |
|
] (]) 22:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I strongly oppose making this article about specific falsehoods or political issues. Keep it "meta" please. If your intent was to use specific RS to support general content, that's unnecessary as there is ample RS at the "meta" level. ―] ] 22:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{re|Mandruss}} Thank you for a heads-up on your approach; appreciated. ] (]) 21:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::: There is room for both. I agree that the meta issues should dominate, with examinations of how professionals and prominent people view his untruthfulness and personality. That would be fact checkers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social scientists, biographers, colleagues, etc. Then we should have a list of some of his more notable falsehoods. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 07:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Two things, we need to be careful with psychologist and psychiatrist comments giving the impression of a medical diagnosis without actually examining him. Also if we are going to add specific instances I think we need to start with . Some hard hitting fact checks there. ] (]) 20:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: LMAO! Yes, that's a VERY important one to start with...{{;)}} (It does illustrate that there is literally nothing, no matter how small, he will not lie about. He ''must'' be the focus of attention, at all times. Even with burgers, he has to exaggerate and make it sound bigger. These two articles make the point very well: -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I more meant it as commentary of the state of fact-checking these days. Fact-checking jokes and statements like "It was piled up a mile high". Obviously he did not have a mile high stack of burgers and to call that a lie is rather odd and alarming. ] (]) 17:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Was the tongue-in-cheek nature of the "fact check" not apparent to you? ] <small>(])</small> 22:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Certainly was and I found it most amusing as well. While yes this one was clearly joking it still is interesting overall when it gets taken seriously on both sides. ] (]) 22:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the past couple weeks now Donald Trump has been claiming without evidence that Kamala Harris never worked at ]. Today he "worked" a shift at McDonald's and posted about it again on TruthSocial, and now there's a lot of news articles being written about it, like these , , , , , etc. I don't know why he's going to such great lengths to propagate this but I think it should be documented on the page considering how many times its come up and how blatantly false it is. ] <sup><small>< ] | ] ></small></sup> 19:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::{{tq|Then we should have a list of some of his more notable falsehoods.}} Ok, with three conditions. That it's a small number, like <10. That sources, not editors, decide what are the most notable. That means at least several high-quality sources citing the same falsehood. And that I'm not the one who has to do that legwork. ―] ] 20:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: {{Like}}! That makes sense. I'll start working on something. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:What is blatantly false? She can't verify she worked there, but there are photos of Trump at McDonald's for a photo shoot. ] (]) 12:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{cot|Not constructive. ] <small>(])</small> 00:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
::I imagine if you called up ] and asked them if I worked at one of their stores in 1990, they probably wouldn't have that record either. And even though I did, I certainly couldn't prove it now. There's no reason to retain basic records for that long, both individuals and companies routinely shred documents when they are outdated. A large company like McDonalds doubtless have written procedures on exactly when to do so. |
|
:::::You make the rules ? Limit of 10 just because it may support your pro trump sympathies ? You won`t do the legwork when the shoe is on the other foot no pun intended ?] (]) 00:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::However, saying {{tq|She can't verify she worked there}} implies she has tried and failed to do so, which I've not personally seen in any of the reporting, probably because it doesn't seem important to rise to the bait while Trump is doing a photo-op working a fryer for a few minutes in a McDonald's that temporarily closed for this event. |
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
::Politicians tend to exaggerate their past or where they came from when it suits their purposes, there's ample evidence of that, but I suspect the reason Harris hasn't "proved" she worked at McDonalds is that it isn't seen as an important point by her campaign. ] ] 18:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Of course, Donald Trump is a pathological liar, and lies like most people breathe. The Washington Post published , titled, "No, McDonald's didn't confirm Trump's baseless claim about Kamala Harris" that says: |
|
== "Landslide Victory" == |
|
|
{{atop|No consensus to change anything. — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I have a very strong feeling that this article is not serious at all. It is simply supposed to bash Trump as I see it. There can't be a serious article with that name. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The restaurant chain — obviously not unhappy at the attention — sent a message to its employees that was obtained by The Washington Post. It indicates that no records of Harris's employment exist, but makes clear that this is not an aberration and not a reason to think that she didn't. |
|
Some things have been completely unduely put in the article to make it seem bigger. For example, somewhere you imply that Trump lied when he said his electoral victory was a landslide. Obviously it was a very convincing electoral victory indeed, and whether you want to call it a landslide or not, you can't claim it is an objectively false statement and put it in an article of a respectful encyclopedia. This sounds like a joke. Trump's victory actually was a landslide in the Electoral College, and even if you disagree you can't call it more than an opinion. It is not falsehood. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::"Though we are not a political brand", the message reads, "we’ve been proud to hear former President Trump's love for McDonald's and Vice President Harris's fond memories working under the Arches. While we and our franchisees don't have records for all positions dating back to the early '80s, what makes '1 in 8' so powerful is the shared experience so many Americans have had." |
|
:You're free to believe that, but reliable sources from , , and all disagree with you. ] ] <small>(])</small> 05:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:The preceding is correct. I encourage you to read some Misplaced Pages content policy. ―] ] 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The reference to "1 in 8" is to a corporate marketing program highlighting that (it claims) about 1 in 8 Americans have at some point worked for the chain. As McDonald's clearly accepts that Harris did. |
|
* Hmm. Agree the article seems a ] verging on ] page, with DUE issues and the title seems sarcasm or at least not followed. But for the vague term “landslide” it should be self-evident that coverage seldom used that term, and individuals used that term seldom and use was in hyperbole and framing. The results were shocking to coverage (described as “media meltdown”), and met the ] ‘landslide’ sense of broad Republican bandwagon producing an unexpected supermajority of seats and the sense of turning point in political views or behaviour. But it just did not meet the usual sense of an overwhelming electoral college margin and most WEIGHT of characterization of his victory went to it being one of the greatest upsets and a surprise win, and by individual framing mentions of popular vote numbers starting the next day. For Trump to call it landslide is fine, but WP should not portray that as a majority view. Cheers ] (]) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The article also says, "The restaurant was closed, and the cars that went through the drive-through were supporters who had been screened by the Secret Service." Naturally. ] (]) 21:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
<s>::Please look ]. Any EC win can be considered "convincing" simply because it was won rather than lost, but Trump's EC margin was by no means anywhere close to a "landslide" as he characterizes it. It ranks among the lowest of EC margins. His EC win was enabled by a mere . ] (]) 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
:::Even though Trump's claims are unsubstantiated, we can't really place this information in this article because records of her working at McDonald's have probably been destroyed because it was a long time ago. Maybe it'd be better to place the information at ], since then it wouldn't imply whether or not Trump lied and there could also be more details about Trump's McDonald's visit, since that also doesn't really fit into the topic of misinformation and is more of a campaign strategy. ]<sup class="nowrap">]</sup> 22:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::All irrelevant. We're not here to debate whether Trump's victory was a landslide or not based on media reaction or margin or statistics. That's ]. Reliable sources say it wasn't a landslide and that Trump's assertion was false. ] ] <small>(])</small> 21:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::That seems reasonable, Trump is clearly trying to turn it into a last-minute campaign issue, for reasons that are not entirely clear. It's not as if he could even try to pass himself of as ever having been a working class person himself. I'm surprised the Secret Service let him handle a deep fryer. You can really get hurt if you don't know what you're doing. ] ] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::I'm not proposing to add OR to the article, but I'll strike it anyway. ] (]) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ec}}Yeah but who cares? We do have discretion to decide in that area. Is that something that actually matters? Keep in mind ]. ] (]) 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The decision of which falsehoods to include or not include in this article is a separate discussion. The OP's central argument was that Trump's victory was in fact a landslide, regardless of the cited sources. All experienced editors should be swatting down those sorts of "I know better than the sources" arguments. ] <small>(])</small> 18:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yeah but I am making a weight argument. That yeah its reported and yeah its verifiable. But it is insignificant over all. What was the effect of him exaggerating like that? ] (]) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] The objection seems that this article failed NPOV in that a vague loose figure of speech “landslide” (Trump, Pence,Priebus) or “mandate” (Ryan) is a word choice. That the victory of Trump was more often called “surprise” or “shock” or “major” or “epic” victory and that landslide is a term that a few used does not make it “false”, it makes it a minority opinion or a different POV or another framing “spin”. I don’t think the article actually implies it is a lie, but it does seem to posture that it *is* false rather than that it is *said* to be false, and the article description of Veracity does not differentiate between an undefined term with apparently unconsidered use and some formal term carefully calculated. Cheers ] (]) 02:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's a bit of a straw man. You are using the word "false" despite the fact that the phrase "false or misleading" occurs ''in the very first sentence'' of the article. Three respected sources fact-checked the word and ] is considerably more weighty than unsubstantiated opinion. Can you counter with fact-checking from three respected sources that contradict those three? How about two? If not, sources support a wiki voice implication that the word was at least misleading.<br />The "apparently unconsidered use" part of your argument has no basis in Misplaced Pages policy. ―] ] 02:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: "Apparently unconsidered".... LMAO! Whether it was a "considered" false statement or an "unconsidered" false statement, it was still wildly false, by a long shot. It's just one more example of how Trump doesn't even TRY to tell the truth. The concept is only useful when it makes him look good, and totally irrelevant when it doesn't. He just throws out exaggerations and falsehoods in attempts to spin everything to make him look better. RS are pretty clear on this. The statement is false. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 07:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: ??? ] The article line does not portray it (or much of anything) as “or misleading”, nor would that be better. It would have the same NPOV concern of saying a word choice *is* misleading rather than as *said* misleading, and lacks as prominent sources saying that. Again, OP objected that the figure of speech word choice that cannot objectively be said false. Which seems a NPOV issue of the article posturing it *is* false instead of as *said* false. And the word choice/meaning issue is clear enough within the same sources too ... Politifact noted others in the Trump transition team said “landslide” prior to the Trump interview of 11 December 2016. Priebus was quoted as saying it re being a shift to new political vision, Pence as taking the most counties since Reagan in 1984 and a mandate for leadership. These are clearly examples of the mentioned different POV or framing spin, and seem valid uses of the word for aspects unrelated to the electoral percentage POV. (Conway had a tweet that night mentioning the count in “306. Landslide. Blowout. Historic.” but I read that as just a giddy stringing of superlatives.) Again, by ], that few said it or used it does not make it “false” (or “misleading”), that makes it a minority opinion or different POV or framing. Cheers ] (]) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{tq|cannot objectively be said false}} - Our opinions about that are completely irrelevant and without weight in this discussion. What matters is that three respected reliable sources have fact-checked the word and say it's false, while none have fact-checked it and say it's true (I asked you to produce some and you have not done so). I won't have anything more to say to you on this issue. ―] ] 09:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: ] That it is Opinion is kind of the whole point here. The OP objection is that the article title isn’t serious, broadly just bashing, and for this specific item the word choice is an opinion and not objective fact. This objection to opinions as facts seems to me an NPOV issue. ] requires “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant ]” with the aim to “describe disputes, but not engage in them”. The explanation has further bullets including “Avoid stating ] as ]” and “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts” and “Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views”. To say fact-check declared him King of the whoppers is fine by “describe the dispute” but to declare that his presidency began with a series of falsehoods originated by Trump is sloppy and no longer portraying things as *said* false, and to go on and say “Trump went on to claim that his electoral college victory was a landslide” was objected to as improperly presenting opinion of appropriate word choice as if it were an objective fact. (I note it is also unclearly/incorrectly portraying the actual events or describing the dispute at a jamming of three topics at two lines there, yet vague phrases by Kessler are given four lines below including quotes which NPOV is also against.). So yes, that word choice is opinion here does matter. “Decisive victory” or “stunning victory” or “shocking upset” or “devastating” or even “earthshaking” may be other descriptive of the election results, but that does not make less common POVs false, it just makes them something to be described as less common and here as something that has been *said* inaccurate and/or false. Cheers ] (]) 14:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Bingo! You correctly identify why we write it as we do, because "that has been *said* inaccurate and/or false" by RS, and we base our content on RS. "“Decisive victory” or “stunning victory” or “shocking upset” or “devastating” or even “earthshaking”" are all opinions, and in this case would mean "surprising" and counter to the votes cast by citizens, since he lost the popular vote. They are opinions with a lot of leeway, unlike a "landslide victory", which has a more precise meaning in English. That is a comparative term without meaning, except as how it relates to other victories, and this one was far from a "landslide", as several other presidents won by far more decisive margins and impressive numbers. That it was "shocking" is obvious, since he won while losing the popular vote and with the help of Russian interference. That is indeed shocking, as he was quite literally elected '''against the will of the American people''', and '''according to the will and help of the Russians'''. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 05:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Eh just remove it as undue weight. The purpose of this article is to give information on the most important things Trump has been wrong about, it is not a list of everything that comes along. Also quit with the personal opinions on Russia and his victory it is off topic and not relevant to the discussion. ] (]) 13:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::WEIGHT has nothing to do with our opinions of importance or significance. It's about amount and nature of RS coverage, nothing else. We (even you) routinely include one sentence with no more RS than we have here, so that pretty much kills any UNDUE argument. We're not talking about a whole article, a whole section or even a paragraph, just a sentence. ―] ] 14:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Not so much, as I explained above this is not a full list of everything and this item is not significant. Which is shown by the relatively small amount reporting on the subject. ] (]) 14:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::You're right, this is not a full list of everything, and no one is saying that it should be, so I'm not sure what your point is with that. We're discussing one sentence, not a full list of everything.<br />There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policy that says we can make judgments about significance, notwithstanding the fact that editors do that a lot. The reason there is nothing in policy is that that leaves things wide open to personal bias{{emdash}}the perceived significance of any Trump-related content will naturally be greatly influenced by one's feelings about Trump. ―] ] 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} Generally that would be ] where editors make judgments if something should be include. I referenced list because because that is what it is starting to look like. Find every instance and dump it in here regardless of significance. You keep saying it is only one sentence, but that does not actually matter in this situation. ] (]) 15:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Kindly point out where in ] it says anything about our opinions of significance. I've just read it again and I don't see that. ―] ] 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I will counter that with what is the defined rule for the number of RS for {{TQ|fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources}}? If it is not spelled out and defined it is editor discretion how many are required to fit that bill. Make sense? ] (]) 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I repeat: {{tq|We (even you) routinely include one sentence with no more RS than we have here}}. Do you dispute that? ―] ] 16:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::100% irrelevant. In this situation it is not worth mention, period full stop. ] (]) 16:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ok. Clearly reasoning doesn't enter into this for you, making this entire "discussion" a waste of my time. Lots of Misplaced Pages "discussions" are like that, regrettably. ―] ] 16:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Eh if you don't like policy you are welcome to try and change it. ] is not is not a reasonable excuse. Thanks for the discussion though, take care. {{(:}} ] (]) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I just showed that there is no such policy, so there is nothing to change. ―] ] 16:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::And I showed where it was policy, mind if I hat this whole mess as a waste of time? ] (]) 16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Yes I mind. It may have been a waste, but it wasn't off topic or forum. ―] ] 16:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} Would you guys mind taking this to user talk? ] <small>(])</small> 21:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:The discussion has been over for several hours. Should be fine {{wink}} ] (]) 21:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:^^ True, and anyway this kind of thing is what article talk is for. ―] ] 03:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggested "lies" turn to be true == |
|
== Should this page be moved to 'False and misleading statements by Donald Trump' ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never edited wiki before. I'm aiming to be honest, so I want to edit the Spying comment. As it's been reported through Washington Post, CNN, and others that the Clinton campaign did in fact spy on the Trump campaign. I know this will go no where, not I gotta ask, will this edit get approved? ] (]) 12:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Per title. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 04:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The standard for inclusion in is ] via coverage in ]. You say it has been reported through several of these, if that's the case it would be helpful if you were to provide links to that coverage. ] ] 17:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
* Bump for those looking at their watchlists. Essentially I feel this should be changed because this article is more about the false statements than how many of his statements are true versus false. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 06:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*I tentatively agree, but would be open to considering arguments from the other side. ] <small>(])</small> 16:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
:I can find no such reporting by ''Washington Post'' and ''CNN''. ] (]) 21:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*Yes, per ]. "Veracity" is the opposite of the subject of the article, and appears to be an attempt to sugar coat an inconvenient truth.- ]] 🖋 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::How about formalizing this with a {{t|requested move}}? ] <small>(])</small> 19:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*Just noting the ]. ] (]) 19:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I had forgotten about that. Dunno if it's too soon to try again. ] <small>(])</small> 16:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, four months is too soon. ] doesn't mean try again and see if a different mix of participants yields a different outcome. It would be different if the first attempt had low participation or consisted mostly of ] comments, but neither was the case. The question has received adequate due process to suffice for a year or so. ―] ] 17:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] is about something different; that's when there's consensus and someone is later trying to overturn it. In this case there was no consensus. It's not disruptive to take steps to try to achieve consensus where there is none, as long as it's done fairly (e.g., by alerting the participants in the previous move request). That being said, it might be unrealistic to expect a different result this time around. ] <small>(])</small> 18:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I interpret "Consensus can change" as "Consensus or non-consensus can change", and the considerations are the same. There are no "previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" as far as we know, quoting CCC, and certainly none given in this thread. Your last sentence is key when it comes to effective use of editor time. ―] ] 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::: ] mmm think in the general vicinity of Trump topics that repeated asks do happen and sometimes succeed ... But here I wonder if the article (whatever title) would allow for a section about the ‘Questioned or false accusations of Trump’ ? (Or should that be ‘Some falsehoods among claims of falsehood’? I get lost after double negatives.) Or does the title by definition mean any flaws or weaknesses of cases in this are automatically OFFTOPIC ? Because the article does not LEAD by defining its scope, it begins with a declaration, and if title is changed that seems perhaps a scope limit too. There are sources out there mentioning flaws and caveats in this topic, wonder what would happen with application of DUE here. Is a ‘caveats to claims of falsehood’ seem feasible as a subtopic or what ? Would it go into comparisons for context such as 77% polled say major news outlets DO report ‘fake news’, or mentioning that asks re ANY source whether they ‘trust that source to give unbiased and truthful information’ the numbers are going to be ‘no’. RSVP thoughts Cheers ] (]) 03:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I confess to serious difficulty understanding your writing. Let me see if this is responsive to your comments.<br />I feel this article should address both sides of the falsehoods issue, ''proportional to RS on each side''. I think NPOV requires that. In my opinion there is considerably more RS on the Trump-negative side than the Trump-positive side, and most editors appear to agree (I'm not familiar with everything out there, or even close to everything). But that does not justify this proposed title, which would imply that we are ignoring the Trump-positive side. If the article currently ignores the Trump-positive side, that needs to be corrected. I think it's highly unlikely the Trump-positive side doesn't exist anywhere in RS, and I also doubt that it falls to the level of ]. Fox News still has a check mark in the second column at ], and there are no doubt others that say this whole falsehood thing is overblown.<br />Am I willing to do the legwork/heavy lifting? Um, not really. Mostly I just sit around, spout opinions, and do cite cleanup. ―] ] 04:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Is there a Fox News source saying the whole falsehood thing is overblown? ] <small>(])</small> 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't know, I don't follow Fox News. Being as they and Trump are pretty much joined at the hip, it seems more likely than not. In any case, their viewpoint is likely to be quite different from, say, WaPo's and NYT's, but it isn't represented in this article AFAICT. And Fox surely isn't the only one. Consistent with the {{u|BullRangifer}} Doctrine (and with my general laziness), I think pro-Trump editors should go find that RS and perform these edits. That would be far more useful than filing spurious AfDs. ―] ] 22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Bingo. Editors with varying backgrounds and POV tend to access different sources of information. As long as they are RS, not Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc, they should bring them to the table. |
|
|
::::::: The closest to a BullRangifer Doctrine I can think of that applies here is below. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 23:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)] negotiation table'''<p> "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." — <small>]</small>]] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== False or misleading statements or Alleged false or misleading statements? == |
|
== Proposed for deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I checked some of the Washington Post explanations of the "false or misleading claims" (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/) for topics I'm knowledgeable about. |
|
Just to note there was another AfD to delete this article as being an ATTACK page. Sorry I didn’t get to mention POVFORK there as well ... many folks just never have a chance to see it when it’s removed in less than a day, let alone time for there to be discussion or gathering of facts. |
|
|
|
Some of the explanations are not in contradiction with Trump's statement; for some others, the explanation provides no proof that Trump's statement is "false or misleading"; or the Washington Post provides just a personal opinion, often because no consensus study exists on the topic; for a few others, the Washington Post provides sources that are very questionable; in some cases, Trump's statement is just somewhat oversimplified or exaggerated, but not wrong or misleading, which may be acceptable for a statement designed for a speech to a wide audience. Since clearly some of Trump's statements picked by the Washington Post are not "false or misleading statements", shouldn't the article be called "Alleged" false or misleading statements? ] (]) 22:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2024 == |
|
Thought I’d post the few suggested areas or approaches for improvement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|False or misleading statements by Donald Trump|answered=yes}} |
|
It would have been nice if the !votes had actually addressed the topic ATTACK, but most seemed casual remarks about GNG instead. POVFORK was mentioned with suggested a cleanup tag to address, and there was suggestion of attention to BLP, NOR, NPOV, and V. |
|
|
|
Change the title of the section "Sanewashing of Donald Trump" such that the word "sanwashing" includes quotation marks around it. It should look like this: "Sanewashing" of Donald Trump ] (]) 22:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I want to get input from other editors first: is there a precedent regarding neologisms in section headings? ] | ] 17:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Cheers ] (]) 23:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: I favor ''not'' using quotation marks. ] considers when neologisms can actually form the basis for entire Misplaced Pages articles... such as ]. From realiable sources such as and and , it is clear that sanewashing is a widely used term and has quickly become part of our language. Arguably, it's no longer a neologism. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 17:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Concur with NOT using quotation marks. ] (]) 19:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Marking this as answered as editors have weighed in. Also note ]. ] (]) 19:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
At the risk of stating the obvious, it's probably about time to consider how to break this article up. The subject matter is simply too broad and there is too much material that should be included, but for practical reasons we can't jam it all in. This page reminds me of the classic cartoon gag when you open the closet door and it explodes with millions of things flying out. Suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
For the past couple weeks now Donald Trump has been claiming without evidence that Kamala Harris never worked at McDonald's. Today he "worked" a shift at McDonald's and posted about it again on TruthSocial, and now there's a lot of news articles being written about it, like these NYT, WHY, ABC7, AP, USA, etc. I don't know why he's going to such great lengths to propagate this but I think it should be documented on the page considering how many times its come up and how blatantly false it is. ☞ Rim 19:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I've never edited wiki before. I'm aiming to be honest, so I want to edit the Spying comment. As it's been reported through Washington Post, CNN, and others that the Clinton campaign did in fact spy on the Trump campaign. I know this will go no where, not I gotta ask, will this edit get approved? Dhensley2012 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I checked some of the Washington Post explanations of the "false or misleading claims" (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/) for topics I'm knowledgeable about.
Some of the explanations are not in contradiction with Trump's statement; for some others, the explanation provides no proof that Trump's statement is "false or misleading"; or the Washington Post provides just a personal opinion, often because no consensus study exists on the topic; for a few others, the Washington Post provides sources that are very questionable; in some cases, Trump's statement is just somewhat oversimplified or exaggerated, but not wrong or misleading, which may be acceptable for a statement designed for a speech to a wide audience. Since clearly some of Trump's statements picked by the Washington Post are not "false or misleading statements", shouldn't the article be called "Alleged" false or misleading statements? Jacques de Selliers (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Change the title of the section "Sanewashing of Donald Trump" such that the word "sanwashing" includes quotation marks around it. It should look like this: "Sanewashing" of Donald Trump PepsiStripMine (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)