Wikipedia

Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive 7

< Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Tomcatfish in topic Sanewashing Section Very Bad
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Requested move 17 June 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago70 comments20 people in discussion
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: Moved. A consensus to move to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump has been clearly established. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump – As the current title is quite misleading ("veracity" stands alone and thus implies his statements are truthful), I am rebooting the move discussion above, as it was not really finished. This last good suggestion was proposed by Locke Cole and is supported by myself and .Raven. Feel free to suggest even better titles. Please read the discussion above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Well expressed. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Hold it, Valjean. In the discussion above, all of the first seven reactions were "Oppose". All of them. In each case you posted arguments and suggestions for other wording - the term WP:Bludgeon comes to mind - and other people discussed your suggestions and proposed others. But the fact remains that the overwhelming consensus in that thread was to oppose a change and keep the current wording. So your reaction is to abandon that thread, start a new one, and hope this time the seven opposers will not take the trouble to repeat their opposition. Sorry, this is not legitimate discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    BTW just to be absolutely clear, I still think "veracity of" is the best title and I reaffirm my opposition to the changes you have suggested. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    AGF. One of the purposes of these discussions is to see where consensus lies. It rejected my suggestion as too radical, so I did the honest thing and closed it. It was that suggestion which was rejected, not the basic idea of a possible change. There were a number of suggestions for less radical titles, so it is logical to see if there might be a consensus for one of them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Though I opposed the original "mandacity" language, Valjean's engagement with other editors definitely shows a good faith approach to solving a genuine, however difficult, issue. It's worth pursuing. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
all of the first seven reactions were "Oppose" Please don's misrepresent my comments again. I did not oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose A statement's veracity can still be analyzed even if it is a correct statement. If we change the title, it will not cover statements which are correct but still analyzed by the RS. We should move this to Statements by Donald Trump instead.
95.12.119.26 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The article has not been "cover[ing] statements which are correct but still analyzed by the RS." So the "Veracity" title doesn't fit; nor would Statements by Donald Trump. – .Raven  .talk 20:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven You have an opinion about the article's content but it is wrong. Because you are completely missing the point and your statement contradicts the available data. If you read the article once again, you will see that there are factual errors in your comment. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I *did* read the article again, before replying. It does not attempt to "cover statements which are correct but still analyzed by the RS." I should note that "cover" in this context (cover a topic) does not mean "to briefly mention occasions in passing". The history of one nation may briefly mention that other nations around the world exist, but does not cover them. – .Raven  .talk 23:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 
"File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png" — based on language of fact-checkers
  • RCraig09, I too like that title better, but from the response in the previous RM, I doubt it would be approved. In spite of all the evidence, there is still quite a bit of reticence to actually clearly stating what RS say, IOW a reticence that violates NPOV. We should be echoing what RS say, not neutering, censoring, or whitewashing them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support – Actually an exact echo of RCraig09's "Support in principle", save that *I* did *not* upload that pic. :) Also as per my comments on the prior RfC, which I hope I don't have to repeat here.
    ETA per request below: per WP:PRECISION: "... titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article,..." — as "Veracity" does not.
    Cf. Wpscatter's question immediately below: "is the purpose of this article to list only the false statements Trump has made, or to take stock of his statements as a whole and report the veracity of them?" – .Raven  .talk 19:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: is the purpose of this article to list only the false statements Trump has made, or to take stock of his statements as a whole and report the veracity of them? Obviously many, many of them are false and so the article is in its current state, but what is its purpose? Should RS come out in a month that confirm Trump as broadly telling the truth in his statements for that period, does that belong in this article? Under its current title (and perhaps its original intent) then clearly they would. But it seems like its subject is only his false statements and the unprecedented amount of them. If that is the case I would support moving to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump as the article is about exactly those statements and no others. If that is not the case, I would weakly support moving per nom as the inaccuracy clearly outweighs the veracity, but still prefer the original title as it is just as correct and descriptive. WPscatter t/c 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
When a person tells the truth, it's not notable for such, and is therefore not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia if based only on the fact of its truthfulness. The basis for this apparently one-of-a-kind article, then, is Donald's pervasive, enduring, compulsive dishonesty which exceeds Wikipedia's notability guidelines out of the starting gate. I therefore perceive this article is about Donald's falsehoods and misleadinghoods(see what I did there?) and not about canvassing for true statements as well. Accordingly I concur with User:Wpscatter's reasoning that False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is therefore the way to go—which follows the language of language-careful, neutral fact-checkers whose data is charted in the lead image. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, the sourcing so far supports this name far more than the current one. It's also troubling that there appears to be a bit of citogenesis going on with the current article title. Also, per my comments in the prior RM that was abandoned. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
    And just to add, I'd also support False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Observation: Here I'm definitely seeing a lot of support for False or misleading statements by Donald Trump which is based on fact-checker language. I'm also seeing support in the 11 June Requested Move (though one editor remarked it was verbose); I don't see a basis for Valjean's 20:29, 17 June perception that "from the response in the previous RM, I doubt it would be approved". I think it is being approved here—as a successful write-in candidate no less!!! :-) I've changed my !vote above. Procedural quandary: start a new RM? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • VERY meta discussion: Procedural quandary: start a new RM? I think it's early enough in the RM that anyone else coming in will see the write-in option. I generally hate the perception that RM locks us in to the initial proposal, I'd almost prefer they be forced to be submitted as a "list" style (numbered A, B, C, etc.) with the default being just an "A" option (unless the person proposing the move has additional ideas at the outset of course), and other editors being allowed to add additional bullets during the RM process if a better idea is exposed during discussion. A courtesy ping to inform participants of additional choices if a discussion is further along would seem to be enough to avoid a full restart (and with that being said, we should probably ping the folks in the above RM to let them know there's a restarted discussion). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Valjean, .Raven, Locke Cole, Wpscatter, Nohomersryan, Zxcvbnm, MelanieN, Estar8806, and Ad Orientem: Since you have already shown interest in the Rename/Move Request discussion(s), if you have not already done so, please weigh in now on the apparent growing consensus to rename as False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. We'd like to avoid a third formal Move Request. Sorry for any bother. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

No opposition to it whatsoever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Not opposed to either the proposed title (by nom) or the alternately proposed title. The current title is definitely a little problematic, and while the proposed solutions may not be perfect, I guess they're better than what we've got. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Support moving to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump per my previous comment as it seems like the article is scoped to only those statements and not Trump's statements as a whole. WPscatter t/c 21:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't like it, but I have to admit that it does describe what the article is about. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, as indicated above by echoing RCraig09.
    ETA per request below: per WP:PRECISION: "... titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article,..." — as "Veracity" does not.
    Cf. Wpscatter's earlier question: "is the purpose of this article to list only the false statements Trump has made, or to take stock of his statements as a whole and report the veracity of them?" – .Raven  .talk 01:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Should be clear from my comment above, but to remove any doubt, Support this as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. "Inaccuracy" is a rather limited term. You can be broadly truthful but inaccurate in details. "False and misleading" is more accurate, but it assumes more purpose and a bit more POVish. To be honest, I'd rather leave it at "veracity", as it is the degree of truth-content that is being measured and its lack or shortness that leaves the statement to doubt. It also the most neutral. Walrasiad (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
"Dishonest statements by X" would be calling "X" dishonest, even though the adjective modifies "statements".
"False statements by X" expresses no such thing. One may utter false statements by error, e.g. ignorance or bad sources.
"Misleading statements" likewise may be uttered inadvertently, e.g. by simple carelessness of phrasing, only to require "What I *meant* to say was..." corrections.
It's when false or misleading statements are uttered repeatedly after correction that intent can fairly be inferred. – .Raven  .talk 23:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support False or misleading statements by Donald Trump as the subject of the article. starship.paint (exalt) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not trust anything Trump says without fact checking it. But I believe Wikipedia should be encyclopedic. "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" implies the statements are objectively evaluated. "Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump" sounds like we're starting out saying he's inaccurate, then going from there. That doesn't sound like an encyclopedia to me, it sounds like an editorial and a biased claim. Alden Loveshade (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Alden Loveshade, you should read the comments above. "Veracity" implies his statements are true, but RS say they are not. The title stands alone, so when readers actually read the article, they are in for a surprise, and that is not allowed. The title and content should harmonize, and because RS and fact-checkers have analyzed and described his statements as false and misleading, it is not a violation of NPOV to do so. -- Valjean (talk)(PING me) 20:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks for you comment. I agree that "Veracity" by itself implies truth. But followed by "of" it can imply an examination. For example, Merriam-Webster uses the example of "We questioned the veracity of his statements" at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veracity I believe that applies here. As an alternative, perhaps the article could be named something specifically neutral such as "Examination of statements by Donald Trump." Alden Loveshade (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
      You're correct about the usage of the word "veracity" but that isn't what the article is about. The article doesn't examine Trump's statements as a whole. It examines his false and/or misleading ones. WPscatter t/c 20:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Reading the discussion, the support or oppose vote are comprised primarily of opinions, with little basis in WP policy. Given a lack of consensus, I would recommend users to elaborate their votes with the policies on the basis of which they have cast them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Already done. - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the reminder. We should always do that anyway. – .Raven  .talk 20:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 
"False or misleading claims" — language of fact-checkers
  • Re-listing was not necessary: I perceive a strong, though not unanimous, consensus for False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, and I do see definite policy-based reasons even if not always specifically enumerated by all editors. For example, WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NPOVTITLE are followed because of fact-checkers' use of exactly these terms, and as well explained by Valjean above at 23:30, 19 June: "When the content and title are aligned with RS, no matter whether they are left, right, up, or down, the content and title are 'neutral'." Contrary opinions that "false or misleading" is non-neutral miss the point that we are not generalizing about Trump the man in a biography (WP:BLP), but accurately describing the content of the article which is about certain of his statements. Further, note the existence of articles such as List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and COVID-19 misinformation by the United States which may seem disparaging but are supported by reliable sources. More generally, WP:CRITERIA mentions (1) Recognizability, (2) Naturalness, (3) Precision, (4) Concision, and (5) Consistency. Recognizability and naturalness are clearly met. Precision is fulfilled, as it has generally been agreed above that the article doesn't examine all of Trump's statements but presents the statements that are false or misleading. Conciseness was discussed above, but the new title is only one word longer than the current title. Consistency is not an issue, as this article is apparently one-of-a-kind. For these reasons, this Requested Move should be approved. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    • I second all of this, and to be perfectly clear, the scope of this article are those statements by Donald Trump which are false or misleading. Not his statements as a whole and how true or false they are. Thus the new title is more appropriate per WP:PRECISION. WPscatter t/c 06:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    • I third this as well. A relisting was not necessary, and my !vote was firmly based in the WP:PAGs discussed above. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oh come now colleagues. I'm thinking that there's a level of disdain for this person and that is coloring our responses. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. It's only human, but still -- it's not the Wikipedia way, and it's not excellent. I watch and guard the articles of some blackguards I hate, it keep my NPOV chops sharp, and I recommend it as a good growth exercise.
On the merits, we want to be fair, but we also want to be seen to be fair. The existing title kinda-sorta implies "Here's some famous or important statements made by Trump, and our reporting of what notable, neutral sources say about their analysis of their veracity". The proposed title kinda-sorta could be taken to say "Here's some cherry-picked statements by Trump where, as usual, he lied". Even if you like the article, it's not a good look, and just the kind of thing the Atlantic or Buzzfeed or whomever could pick up to say "Look at this article title, proof that the Wikipedia is biased". And they'd have a fair point. It's not a vote, and I call on the closing admin, who is sworn to protect the Wikipedia, to consider this.
Besides, Trump does say true things sometimes. Here is the Foreign Minister of the UK saying so. Here is Politifact giving some examples, and Politifact is legit NPOV I think. If we change this article name, we are kind of signaling "We don't want any true statements he made here, as that does not fit our agenda". True or not, justified or not, it's not a good look. Let's not.
If we make this change, I will claim the right to write Inaccuracy of statements by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama or somebody. OK? I'm sure they've made some inaccurate statements, they are politicians, they make a lot of statements, and they have agendas and are fallible. If you change the name of the article, it'll give full cover to someone wanting to do that. Yeah I know that this guy's different but that's a slippery slope to start down. We don't need to lead the reader. Let the reader read the article and figure out on her own what they think. Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Herostratus: Editors are free to compose comparable articles for, as you say, AOC or Bernie or Barry, assuming WP:NOTABILITY guidelines etc. are met. I don't think this is a slippery slope because it's not only you who says "this guy's different"—it's reliable sources who say "this guy's different". By any rational measure, Donald's "False and misleading statements" are WP:NOTABLE. Separately: I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says we should draft articles to avoid the perception that "it's not a good look"; in any event, the existing title doesn't prevent that perception either. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As Valjean has stated many (perhaps too many) times in these discussions, NPOV requires us to consider what reliable sources are saying, not to give equal weight to both sides of every point. You're correct when you say this guy's different and the reliable sources say so too, which is why this page even exists in the first place. For that sole reason I think this argument is bunk. It's no different than any other page on the wiki. WPscatter t/c 04:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Query: is it unfair or non-NPOV of us to have articles titled 18th Street gang, Nathan Larson (criminal), or John List (murderer)? Those titles also imply value judgments... but also reflect our sources. – .Raven  .talk 23:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems like the confusion for drive-by admins results from the June 17 RM being started for Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump but a consensus arising for False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. Should we start a third RM, to start clean? Would that not solve everything, albeit slowly? RCraig09 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
That is an option that would get rid of any confusion. The first RM established a consensus for a change, just not the suggested change. It was too radical. The second one was based on a small consensus around another suggestion, but a new suggestion quickly gained traction, so that's where we are. If we start a third one around that version, we should be able to reach a more solid consensus for it, and that would be the best outcome possible. That's the whole purpose of discussions. So should we do it? Would there be any unforeseen problems with doing so? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't foresee any unforseen problems, but that's what makes them unforeseen! I think we can go for it. Third time's the charm. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand any of this. There's a clear consensus (IMO) for a move to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. It shouldn't matter that the RM was opened for a different name, the closing admin is meant to read the discussion to assess consensus. No, relisting in the first place wasn't necessary, but it shouldn't have hurt anything. Now that consensus is clear it should just be closed and moved. No need for any of this RfM or Move Review nonsense. Unless maybe there's disagreement about whether consensus has been established, but... other than that I don't see why any of it is necessary. WPscatter t/c 16:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The move review was linked at the top of this RM. It was an attempt to seek a review of the "relist" closure. Apparently people at Move review aren't up to the challenge of discussing anything other than a move/not moved binary choice. WP:MFD would be one way to close down that apparently worthless process (Wikipedia:Move review). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So, if I understand this correctly, we can ignore all that as just unnecessary distraction and proceed with discussions, !voting, and even get a close and hopefully just move the article? If so, are we at a point of clear consensus? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think so. I don't know of any rule that RM participants are iron-bound to the original suggestion of a name – particularly if that RM's proposer is open to the alternatives. If the floor is open, and if a consensus has indeed been reached after discussion, the closer can surely see that and acknowledge it in closing. The relist only gave this process more time – perhaps unnecessarily (since it was not close to a deadline anyway) – which didn't harm it at all, as far as I can see. – .Raven  .talk 16:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I, also, think we have clear consensus. Who among us is so WP:BOLD? If there's a serious doubt afterwards, then the doubter can start an RM. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I would recommend just waiting, since apparently @CapnJackSp's relist action is going to be allowed to stand. If we involved take action, it would make it easier to question the legitimacy of the result. Better to let an uninvolved editor or administrator close this properly. If you want to accelerate that, apparently the only way is to go to WP:CR and ask there. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I dont see the point of pinging me here. You are getting far too upset over a relist, which is a mostly irrelevant procedural thing. Nothing stops this from being closed at any point. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Because it's rude not to when I'm talking about you? But so be it, I won't ping you again, ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. My analysis of the WP:CRITERIA roughly matches RCraig09's. The negligible conciseness loss is worth it for the improvements in precision, naturalness, and recognizability. Google News hits, only a very rough indicator, suggest that even a mouthful of a phrase like "false or misleading" is about four times more common in news media than "veracity" when it comes to Trump. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Narrow support for false or misleading claims: I actually disagree with the editors suggesting that "veracity" implies the article only discusses his true statements or that the statements are truthful. Put simply, that's just ... not how language works. If I say an article's subject is "the truth value of statements by Donald Trump" ... it'd be unreasonable to interpret that as "Donald Trump's statements are true" or "here's some true statements by Donald Trump". And, while the use of "of" makes this a non-issue, it's worth noting that veracity is (most?) commonly used when a source's truth value is being explicitly contemplated or called into account. Consider the first usage examples from Oxford Learner's Dictionary ("They questioned the veracity of her story.") or Dictionary.com ("He was not noted for his veracity.") or the most-recent example provided by Merriam Webster ("this man called into question the conduct and veracity of Anthony Fauci").
    However, this article seems chiefly dedicated not to discussing Trump's general propensity for inaccuracy, but to documenting the false or misleading statements he made. As such, "false or misleading claims" is a more apt title.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"the consistency of falsehoods"?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What does that mean? Is there a better way to say it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The biggest Pinocchios of 2021

  • Analysis | The biggest Pinocchios of 2021[1]


References

  1. ^ Kessler, Glenn (December 17, 2021). "Analysis - The biggest Pinocchios of 2021". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2021.

New study reveals correlation between Trump’s repeated falsehoods and public misperceptions.

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"New research published in Public Opinion Quarterly reveals a correlation between the number of times President Donald Trump repeated falsehoods during his presidency and misperceptions among Republicans, and that the repetition effect was stronger on the beliefs of people who consume information primarily from right-leaning news outlets." -- New study reveals correlation between Trump’s repeated falsehoods and public misperceptions. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

illusory truth effect

Stephanie Grisham, Trump's former White House press secretary, recalled how Trump taught her a method of lying:

"As long as you keep repeating something, it doesn't matter what you say."[1]

References

  1. ^ Pillai, Raunak M; Kim, Eunji; Fazio, Lisa K (September 15, 2023). "All the President's Lies: Repeated False Claims and Public Opinion". Public Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press (OUP). doi:10.1093/poq/nfad032. ISSN 0033-362X.

Bigly huge

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page has 15,225 words and so almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. Although its size accurately reflects the veracity and volume of Mr. Trump's verbiage, can anything sensibly be done? Certes (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Media reluctance to use the word "lie"

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It seems as if this article should have more coverage of the media's years-long reluctance to refer to Trump's falsehoods as "lies", and how they eventually started conceding that he's a liar. The fact that they were so reluctant to refer to the lies as lies started getting considerable attention, as did their decision to finally admit the reality. — Red XIV (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't a lie indicate an intentional act of deception? It's possible he believes what he says and is just ignorant. Caseofbaskets (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe the watershed moment was the January 6 United States Capitol attack, where the whole world saw the danger of not treating the big lie as a deliberate falsehood. Don't have a source in hand at the moment to verify that though. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Bone Spurs

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I see nothing about his statements about his bone spurs (osteophytes). Were those statements true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.200.50.178 (talk • contribs)

As medical records are confidential, we may never actually know the answer to that one. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
From what I could gather before the paywall got me, the New York Times did do some reporting on this, it seems the diagnosis came from a podiatrist that rented space from Trump's father. [1] Looks like Nikki Haley's campaign also had something to say about it: [2]. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Opening lines

Latest comment: 5 months ago26 comments6 people in discussion
Thread retitled from "Opening lines accusing Trump of “tens of thousands” of “false or misleading claims” is incorrect". WP:TALKHEADPOV

The Washington Post article was subjective, opinion based and should not be used in any respected publications. The articles on Wikipedia regarding Donald Trump are deeply concerning, as we continue to allow biased opinion to be presented as fact. Even Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer’s pages are far more objective and rooted in fact. When did Wikipedia stop caring about objective truth?

Please consider this with future posts, as this is a slippery slope to propaganda, defamation and dehumanization…these are the ingredients to oppression, war and genocide.

I beg that we return to a respected, non-political Wikipedia that’s interests are rooted in facts. Lay the facts out without bias, and let the people think for themselves. After all, this is Wikipedia, not CNN or Fox News. Political fervor and bias is a disservice to your readers. Vklemenz (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to say you will stop donating. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I will not stop donating, and I will not withhold an opinion I feel is important. I am a person who stated over and over again that I was personally offended that Donald Trump was elected president, but that doesn’t negate the world’s need for an unbiased and objective source of crucial information.
Your response is actually a great example of the tactic of ridiculing people in order to discredit them, which eventually escalates to the issues aforementioned in my initial post.
If you have any actual thoughts on the matter, I’d love to dialogue. Vklemenz (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't stop with the first sentence or only one RS. Read the whole article and double check to see if any sources have been misused. Then come back and tell us what you have found, and be very specific (exact quotes and the sources). This article has been created by editors of all persuasions, and we try to correctly describe what RS say. If you think you can do better, give it a try. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The text is well documented and the actual disinformation has been point by point documented by respected sources. You have not presented any sources to discount this. Seriously, we don't use common sense here. But if we did, listen to what he says every day. A small percentage of what he says is true. So it's not a surprise that a well respected source that documented the situation comes to the conclusion that he has made a vast number of false statements. If you wish to make an argument that we are willing to entertain, you need to use reliable sources and avoid bringing up Hitler, as tempting as that may be. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
... and the small percentage of what he says that is true is pretty scary and dystopian. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
That might be true. Yet, that opinion belongs in a blog and not on Wikipedia. I recommend everyone reads this essay and internalizes it.
[Wikipedia:We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions]] Vklemenz (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Why isn't there another article pertaining to the lies of other politicians? What is so special about Donald Trump? He isn't the first politican to lie all the time, that's for sure. 71.67.133.93 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
This is because reliable sources have written about his numerous false statements as a distinct topic, not just documenting them, but writing about the fact that he brings false statements to a new level, among other aspects. If you can offer independent reliable sources that write about the false statements of other politicians as a distinct topic, go ahead and write that article. Personally I haven't seen enough coverage to sustain, say an article titled "False or misleading statements by Joe Biden" or HRC or whomever politician you dislike. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
From the lead: Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of Trump's mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics. That's why this article exists. — Czello (music) 08:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Vklemenz:, whereas all people lie at some times in their lives, and all politicians lie occasionally, that is a bug, not a feature, of their modus operandi. Not so with Trump. It is his main mo. He is not alone in using lies a lot, but he is far worse than any other American politician or president. RS and fact-checkers find there is no comparison, no one else even close, hence this article. For him, lying is like breathing, a feature, not a bug. Telling the truth is the exception for him. He literally, no hyperbole, cannot utter five sentences, without there being some form of lie, deception, or distortion of the facts. He has those who emulate him, politicians like George Santos and Vivek Ramaswamy. Before Trump made lying so acceptable to such a large number of people, they would not have survived in politics for five minutes. Trump has made it politically correct to constantly lie, at least his followers feel that way. They don't care.
Lying is the basis of his political career and how he maintains control of his base. They only believe him. That's why his MAGA followers believe so many lies and false conspiracy theories. (See List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump.) They believe them because Trump creates and pushes them, and he has caused them to distrust all media (RS) that exposes them. They live in a bubble. They don't trust fact-checkers either. In fact, many of them are so isolated from the facts that they are ignorant of many of his controversies. They haven't even heard of them. When one tells them, one gets a blank look on their face. It's really stunning to watch.
His Big Lie of a stolen election is the most dominating lie for most of his followers, and it's wreaking havoc on America and the GOP. If you are inclined to believe there was significant election fraud, and that the election was stolen from Trump (Election denial movement in the United States), then you should ask yourself why Fox News, the main purveyor of Trump's lies, and election lies, paid $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems. I dare you to read Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network#Discovery. They knew they were lying, yet continued to lie to their viewers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
You are simply venting your frustrations with Trump to me.
I am not inclined to believe the election was stolen. Please note my comment " I am a person who stated over and over again that I was personally offended that Donald Trump was elected president, but that doesn’t negate the world’s need for an unbiased and objective source of crucial information" before writing me off as a Trump supporter, which, on this thread, makes you an enemy. I think the guy is a pig, but voicing that opinion out loud is divisive and counterintuitive.
This is the entire problem. Objective and unbiased reported does not equal support. Wanting to see an objective and unbiased factual article on Trump does not equate to me supporting Trump.
Biased reporting to fulfill your political ideologies is not credible, and people know that. Unbiased reporting gives people a feeling that they're being presented with FACT, not opinion, and gives them the information needed to form their own opinion. People who are unsure of what to think about Trump read articles like this one and disregard it because it's so obviously biased against him. Vklemenz (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Your argument is with the RS that document these things. Our job is to document what they say, and your personalization of this matter by accusing editors of including their own biases is a personal attack. Stop it. Comment on content, not editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Vklemenz. I personally despise Donald Trump, and have no reason to back him up in any way.
Reliable sources that come from media doesn't seem reliable to me Someone just pointed out that FOX News has been deemed non trust worthy since they "supported Trump", yet are you 100% sure other media outlets aren't supporting the other side? It just astounds me that there are so much evidence against Trump and not the hundreds of thousands of politicians who have lied and spread misinformation in their career. 71.67.133.93 (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Someone just pointed out that FOX News has been deemed non trust worthy since they "supported Trump" Someone where? This is nonsense. Discussion about Fox (and numerous other sources of all types) have been underway since this project began. Of course paying $787.5 million for knowingly spreading lies was a part of that determination. As has already been said in this section, politicians lie, But Trump has taken this to a new level. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I will work on this!
I stand by my point on Hitler, unless you can explain why his page doesn’t seem to have so much emotion and opinion thrown in compared to Trump. Again, I know it’s easy to try to discredit someone by making jokes, but please at least try to directly respond to the points made instead of trying out your stand-up. Vklemenz (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I did respond, and if you can find any emotion in this article, please point it out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
You have not responded to any of the points made. You have just deflected. By the way, this article actually does compare Trump to Hitler, so I'm going to roll with it.
Here's this pointed opinion that somehow made its way into an article about a list of false statements by Trump:
"Their effort was characterized by some as an implementation of Hitler's "big lie" propaganda technique." Vklemenz (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Your "points" (WP allows biased opinion, articles not rooted in facts, WP has stopped caring about objective truth, this is political fervor and bias, followed by ingredients to oppression, war and genocide) are not points at all. They are broad accusations and assumptions of bad faith. You have not shown any actual lack of WP:NPOV or failure to use WP:RS in fact anything in the article that backs up your contentious claims. So what's there to respond to? As to the point you just mentioned about the big lie, it is not our opinion; it has seven sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, here's a point: why is most of the sources in this article from media outlets like The New York Times, CNN, etc.? I don't see a single from FOX News, who someone in this thread pointed out that they support Trump. Shouldn't there be both sides in a Wikipedia article? Why do you only include the media outlets who are against Trump? 71.67.133.93 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
There are 471 citations in this article. You are incorrect. I already responded to your comment on Fox higher up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I see, again, that most of them come from media outlets that vehemently oppose Trump. If one side has supposedly supported Trump and is not included, why should the other side be deemed as reliable?
> Fox News, the main purveyor of Trump's lies, and election lies, paid $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems.
Above is in response to what you said about FOX. This is who I was talking about. There also must be scandals from the other media outlets as well.
Also, in respond to Valjean, I'm not personally attacking anyone, nor is the OP of this section. I just believe that both sides should be taken and an article that almost only has citations from the opposing side doesn't seem like good faith. 71.67.133.93 (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Scandals by others are in other articles. Fox was declared unreliable for politics after years of lengthy discussions. If you want to argue for its inclusion, this is the wrong place. WP:RSPS or WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
It just seems to me that you are deflecting the questions I brought up. I do believe FOX News is uncredible, but just because of that there is an argument to be made that if a media outlet supporting one side is not trustworthy, why should the other side be deemed trustworthy? It does not make sense to me. 71.67.133.93 (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not deflecting at all. Wikipedia is built using reliable sources. Sources are deemed reliable, unreliable, or partially reliable based on their history of integrity, acknowledging errors, reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, etc. and is not related to their positions. The history of any other source is irrelevant to the source. The lengthy parameters are outlined at WP:RS. No source has ever been considered unreliable because it does or does not support Trump. Among the 471 citations, there are many sources that have supported or been neutral on Trump. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
We do not create content here by engaging in bothsidism, aka "false balance". Unreliable sources have no WP:Due weight here, so we don't use them. We only use reliable sources. Go to WP:RSPS or WP:RSN if you want to question the reliability of a source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Less character analysis, more verified instances of falsehoods and obviously misleading claims

Latest comment: 5 months ago9 comments9 people in discussion

This article contains numerous opinion-based character judgments which are not fitting for an encyclopedic entry on such a specific topic. If such information is truly necessary, it should be moved to a section reserved for that purpose, leaving only instances of substantiated lies and mendacity in the existing sections. 152.117.79.55 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult to respond to a general grievance. Please detail some of the specific passages that you find problematic. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Opinions and character analyses are just as legitimate content as straight facts. Just as we are not supposed to isolate criticism into its own section, we should not isolate opinions and analyses into one section. It's best to mix content and place things where they logically fit together. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I note that this issue is mostly resolved and offer the following suggestions. Paragraph 5, under "Use of repetition" (beginning with "The Washington Post "), alludes to the Post's "14 statements" that were disinformation. These are notably missing.
Generally speaking, the character analyses mentioned by the anonymous user above add little to the discussion. The only actual comparison between Trump and other presidents is a 2017 NYT article by Sheryl Stolberg, which, after mentioning some other lies by past presidents, concludes that Trump had taken lying to "an entirely new level" and "Trump is trafficking in hyperbole, distortion and fabrication on practically a daily basis." Nowhere is an unopinionated, and substantiated, comparison of Trump to other presidents. I would agree with the assessment that such conclusions, especially when their premises are omitted, are not appropriate for this entry.
Additionally, most of said character analyses have a strong Left bias, giving this article as a whole a Left skew. It'd be nice to see some more objective statements on Trump's veracity, and additional evidence/opinions from sources with a Right bias. LetsAddSomeContext (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
You will need to explain how this is a left bias. As is well documented, he spreads disinformation on a constant basis. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you able to explain how this article does not contain a left-bias? The previous poster made a lot of solid points that you disregarded, then basically responded saying “prove it”.
Here’s proof of left-bias:
Adolf Hitler’s page isn’t nearly as damning or colorful as Donald Trump’s. Why?
All of the Donald Trump articles are written as if they were authored by a CNN journalist. There’s no place for that in an encyclopedic entry. Vklemenz (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler’s page isn’t nearly as damning or colorful as Donald Trump’s.
Lol. Lmao, even. — Czello (music) 23:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
That's called proving a negative, and is a logical fallacy. It is not incorrect to ask for proof of left wing bias when it was not presented in the first place. 129.145.50.123 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want a "Right" viewpoint, I highly recommend Liz Cheney's book, Oath and Honor. It is FULL of accounts of tRump's lack of "truthiness", all of which are well-documented by many persons WHO WERE IN TRUMP'S EMPLOY DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. The book is extremely well-written and well-documented. Whether one agrees with Cheney's well-right-of-center views on policy, she is a great source of tRump and rePUBICan sins of January 6, 2021. You needn't read the entire book -- Chapter 46, alone, ought to be sufficient for anyone who is not certifiably insane and not an idiot. 47.155.230.74 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is there a wikipedia page for this?

Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I see no need for a wikipedia page specifically for trump, or at all. Politicans lie. And if it is decided we need one specifically for trump, why not put one wikipedia page, showing the lies all politicans made?5.28.182.34 (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Per the 4th sentence, Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of Trump's mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics. That's why the article exists. — Czello (music) 12:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Still, we have this value already:
http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rhetoric_of_Donald_Trump
We have way too many values for the same topic, this could have been discussed or added to the link I provided.
This still does not explain why it needs a seperate value, and the link seems written in a more wikipedian style.
Also, saying "unprecetened" means it happens with everybody, and again, I don"t why we need another wikipedia value. 5.28.180.54 (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that you do not understand what the English language word "value" means, and also do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about whether or not a separate article should exist about any given topic. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps, you may provide the guidelines stating why an additional value besides "Trumps Rhetoric" is required.
Value is the direct translation from my language that is correct.
But, I could see value if the goal is to open the topic of lying in politics for the eyes of the public. Trump`s lying is in comparison to others, that is the only way to measure this.
But at the moment, this is not the case, and I don`t see a wikipedia value for any president, or at all on the topic of lying. Maybe I missed it. 5.28.180.54 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
"Additional Value" = page.
"Value" = Value, as per context.
I believe you understood what I meant rather well, despite my mistake, which will be corrected. 5.28.180.54 (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

edit conflict

"Lying" and "rhetoric" are two related, but different, topics covered in different ways by reliable sources. Lying is one specific aspect of his rhetoric, and no one even comes close when it comes to lying. "Unprecedented" does not mean "everybody". It means the opposite. It means he is different than everybody else, even than other prolific liars. He sets new records for lying. Fact-checkers have never encountered a public official who lies more. They even had to create a whole new category of liars called the "Bottomless Pinocchio" just for him. Who keeps telling the same lie when it has been exposed and debunked? Trump does it all the time. He also makes use of the Big lie propaganda technique, where he knowingly repeats a huge lie, especially about the election.

You really should read the article and check the sources before commenting. Your ignorance of the topic is showing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "value" in this context. If you mean "article", this subject is so notable and large that it deserves its own article. Please speak normal English. What you write is a mess. If you're not a native English speaker, try using Google Translate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: speedy shutdown of sections like the one above

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How many times must we have the same discussions here? I have already crafted an edit notice that will display when a user attempts to start a new thread, asking them not to if they intend to ask "why doed this excist" unless and until they ahve read the deletion discussions and prior threads in the archives, and are able to advance a line of argument not already refuted again and again. If they fail to do so, I propose that such threads not be replied to and instead be either speedily closed or removed entirely, whichever. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me that removing obvious sealioning is something we needed to discuss, I've just been doing it, per WP:NOTFORUM. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

deciding which falsehoods to include

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I tried to see whether there was any consensus about this in an archived discussion, but failed to find it (perhaps because I used the wrong search terms, perhaps because there's never been any overarching rule, only case-by-case decisions).

I'm asking because of a recent falsehood, a story in which Trump said "I know Willie Brown very well. In fact, I went down in a helicopter with him. ... he told me terrible things about [Kamala Harris] … he was not a fan of hers, at that point.” Brown denied ever having been in a helicopter with Trump and is a Harris supporter. It turned out that Nate Holden, another Black man, had been with Trump in a helicopter that made an emergency landing [3], who also hadn't bashed Harris. Trump has doubled down, claiming that he has “logs, maintenance records, and witnesses” to confirm his story, and he threatened to sue the NYT for their reporting about it [4]. I think this false story is noteworthy in that he confused two Black men who have little in common (either physically or in terms of their careers), used it to bash his political opponent, doubled down after being corrected, and threatened to sue. But Trump also lies a great deal, and perhaps this isn't worth adding.

Is there some rubric that people use to decide which lies to include? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump is doubling down on this one [5]. Brown insists he was not there, and would not have said "terrible things" about Harris had he been there, and also the entire incident seems to predate their relationship anyway. Nate Holden has been quoted in a number of sources as being the actual black person that was on that helicopter, and has joked with the press that Trump can't tell black people from one another [6].Seems like it is maybe worth a mention. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024 use tweet ref-name not abuse dummy ref

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
−
|ref = {{dummy reference|1}}
+
|ref-name = TweetrealDonaldTrump_2

This actually shows the clickable ref with the URL and is the proper way to avoid cite errors with multiple tweets. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

A good list from Christakis of Coronavirus lies

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Here's a nice list of Trump quotes from Nicholas A. Christakis's book "Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live". (I have reformatted the quote to make a bulleted list by date.):

"We know from subsequent leaks that the president was indeed presented with information about the seriousness of the virus and its pandemic potential beginning at least in early January 2020. And yet, as documented by the Washington Post, he repeatedly stated that "it would go away."

  • On February 10, when there were 12 known cases, he said that he thought the virus would "go away" by April, "with the heat."
  • On February 25, when there were 53 known cases, he said, "I think that's a problem that's going to go away."
  • On February 27, when there were 60 cases, he said, famously, "We have done an incredible job. We're going to continue. It's going to disappear. One day—it's like a miracle—it will disappear."
  • On March 6, when there were 278 cases and 14 deaths, again he said, "It'll go away."
  • On March 10, when there were 959 cases and 28 deaths, he said, "We're prepared, and we're doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away."
  • On March 12, with 1,663 cases and 40 deaths recorded, he said, "It's going to go away."
  • On March 30, with 161,807 cases and 2,978 deaths, he was still saying, "It will go away. You know it—you know it is going away, and it will go away. And we're going to have a great victory."
  • On April 3, with 275,586 cases and 7,087 deaths, he again said, "It is going to go away." He continued, repeating himself: "It is going away.… I said it's going away, and it is going away."
  • In remarks on June 23, when the United States had 126,060 deaths and roughly 2.5 million cases, he said, "We did so well before the plague, and we're doing so well after the plague. It's going away." Such statements continued as both the cases and the deaths kept rising. Neither the virus nor Trump's statements went away."[1]

We also cover this topic at COVID-19 misinformation by the United States and Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Christakis, Nicholas A. (May 26, 2020). Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live. Little, Brown. ISBN 9780316628228. Retrieved September 5, 2024.
The Christakis source quotes seem to be cumulative to the existing graphics   and   which are verifiable online. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
That's good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

eating cats and dogs

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently states " debunked hoax spread by right-wing politicians and media figures" but NPR has reported that the rumor was actually started by out-and-proud racists and nazis. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sanewashing Section Very Bad

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Sanewashing of Donald Trump section is rather poorly laid out.

It has 1 paragraph that reports that experts have "questioned Trump's mental state and fitness to serve" without relevance to the section. Following is an extremely long quote of a single incident, without specific relevance, then 1 paragraph saying that this response was "denounced as 'sanewashing'". Finally, at the very end of the section, the term "sanewashing" is finally described using a citation that is specifically about Donald Trump, not the term at large.

Could the section be rewritten to first describe the term (preferably using a source that is focused on the phenomenon, not on Trump specifically, to make it more useful), then explore where sources have claimed that difference incidents have been sanewashed? I think as the section stands, it doesn't engage with the term or make a good case for the trend, but a little bit of rewriting could do much better. Tomcatfish (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree (section should be shortened by 80%, or started over.). Most important of all: present an authoritative definition of sanewashing; currently it's not clear. Also, such a long Trump-quote isn't needed or appropriate in a "False and misleading statements..." article. Neither is the sentence saying several news media did not mention Trump's particular ramble; if anything, that's anti-notable. I'm OK with deleting the entire section and starting from scratch, starting with an authoritative definition of sanewashing and a clear, reliable-source expression of how it applies here. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
As of the recent edit by Maykiwa, new content has been added that alleges Donald Trump has undergone a cognitive change and speaks at a 4th grade reading level. Everything can exist where it belongs, but the additions are not in a suitable Wikivoice and are also grossly irrelevant for *this* article.
I'd really really like to see this cleaned up some, but don't have perms. Tomcatfish (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump/Archive_7&oldid=1258457806"