Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

Who checks the fact checkers?

The possible bias of so-called fact checkers should be examined. They should not be assumed to be impartial. Most fact checkers were set up by leading media organizations which have a proven pro-liberal, anti-Trump bias. Ttulinsky (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Everyone has biases, though its a sad world when facts are in dispute. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss the bias of fact checkers with regards to Trump, please offer them. If you have them more generally, the fact-checking article would be a better place. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There are 591 citations in this article, a bunch of books listed, seven archives of discussion, and innumerable discussions of sources at WP:RSN. Can you name one statement in the article that is incorrect? O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ttulinsky: you need to read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias and actually read this article and its sources. Editors do not have the luxury of second-guessing them. We must accept them. A pro-fact (IOW anti-Trump) bias is a good thing. We side with the facts, resist the lies, and document what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Nobody fact-checks fact checkers, because they would lose their jobs if they said something incorrect. The fact is that what is correct is often what is said by the left, not the right. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 17:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion of structure for the section Second term.

Greetings.
I suggest this structure for this section, which is similar to the one followed for the inter-presidency period.
In the future, these general subjects could be separated in more specific ones.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2025

Under the "Second Term" section, I would suggest the following addition:

Initiation of tariffs against Canada

Trump stated fentanyl sumuggling was one of the main reasons for imposing sweeping tariffs against Canada. On 1 February 2025, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said these tariffs were warranted because fentanyl has "killed tens of millions of Americans". <reference to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpyOSJaxkA> However, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, total drug overdose deaths from ALL street drugs for the 12 months ended August 2024 were less than 87,000. <reference to https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm> Moreover, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, only 43 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the Canadian border in the 2024 fiscal year, compared to over 10½ tons at the Mexican border. <reference to https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics> Captrobb (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Per the main article fentanyl: "Since 2018, fentanyl and its analogues have been responsible for most drug overdose deaths in the United States, causing over 71,238 deaths in 2021. Fentanyl constitutes the majority of all drug overdose deaths in the United States since it overtook heroin in 2018." I doubt that millions have died, but the mortality rate was high enough to be described as part of an "opioid epidemic". Trump would not be the first president to use the war on drugs for propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In this case, a reliable source would be a third party such as a newspaper making these allegations - the references you've given amount to original research as it is your own interpretation of government data in my opinion. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Sanewashing section

This section has some problems, and is probably unnecessary. The whole section is based on a neologism by a single source, which isn't quite coherent anyway. If sanewashing is "The act of packaging radical and outrageous statements in a way that makes them seem normal," then someone has to define what is radical and outrageous. There's a strong argument to be made that the positions of Donald Trump are now quite normal in the American political system, 10 years after his entry into politics. This is actually supported by the Washington Post article, which shows that voters were more concerned about Joe Biden's mental state before the election. The long quote is WP:OVERQUOTE. There also seems to be a lot of WP:SYNTH; it's not clear what the sentences about the reading level of his speeches have to do with sanewashing, you would need a source that explicitly links them. Wikibummer (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC):

Wikipedia is a global project. Trump is not seen as normal by the 96% of the world's population that lives outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a statement you need to source. This isn't a blog for posting opinions. Wikibummer (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2025 Copyedit (minor) Suggestion

In 2.5 Other, the 2nd paragraph should be split into two separate paragraphs. This is because the first pair and last pair of sentences describe two discrete topics.

DHW1947 (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)