Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

Suggested "lies" turn to be true

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)

The standard for inclusion in is verifiability via coverage in reliable sources. 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I can find no such reporting by Washington Post and CNN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

False or misleading statements or Alleged false or misleading statements?

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2024

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)

I want to get input from other editors first: is there a precedent regarding neologisms in section headings? Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I favor not using quotation marks. WP:NEO considers when neologisms can actually form the basis for entire Wikipedia articles... such as Sanewashing. From realiable sources such as AP and Editor and Publisher and Columbia Journalism Review, 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. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Concur with NOT using quotation marks. PianoDan (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Marking this as answered as editors have weighed in. Also note MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

adding his comments about the consensus of roe v wade to the abortion section

"And if you look at this whole question that you’re asking, a complex, but not really complex – 51 years ago, you had Roe v. Wade, and everybody wanted to get it back to the states, everybody, without exception. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, everybody wanted it back. Religious leaders.

And what I did is I put three great Supreme Court justices on the court, and they happened to vote in favor of killing Roe v. Wade and moving it back to the states. This is something that everybody wanted."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/read-biden-trump-debate-rush-transcript/index.html

Pro choice people were obviously not happy about losing federal protection of abortion, and even pro life people don't think it should be up to the states to possibly allow what they see as "murdering a child". Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we split this article? My proposal is to split specific time periods from Trump's false statements.

Given that Trump won a second term, he will almost certainly make more false or misleading statements, and this article is very long, I believe we should split this article. Here is my proposal:

• Option A: Keep the sections on Trump's lies in general, but create a new article for the sections on specific time periods. They are before his first term, his first term, between the two terms, and two terms. We could combine some of these time periods--i.e. before and during his first term, and after his first term.

If anyone has other proposals, please share them. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with your idea, those are good places to draw the line(for the time periods). 331dot (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)