Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

The biggest Pinocchios of 2021

• Analysis | The biggest Pinocchios of 2021

References

Title of article is wrong

This article is misnamed.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of the word “veracity” are: “conformity with truth or fact; devotion to the truth; power of conveying or perceiving truth; something true”.  However, everything in this article is about Trump’s misinformation, falsehoods and lies. This article should be named “Untrue Statements Made by Donald Trump”, “Incorrect Statements Made by Donald Trump”, “Outright Lies of Donald Trump”…you get what I mean. Let’s try an experiment.  I’ll add a veracious Donald Trump statement to the article and see what happens. UConnHusky7 (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally I agree with you. But this has already been extensively discussed and consensus is that it isn't wrong. See for example the "Requested move" discussion here, where it was proposed that the title be changed to False statements by Donald Trump. The existing title won out. As for your proposed experiment, you'd need to find a statement that reliable sources specifically say was veracious. Good luck with that. Bishonen | tålk 03:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC).

Yes, UConnHusky7, the title is indeed misleading, as it implies that Trump's statements are veracious (not to be confused with "voracious"). Once a visitor starts reading, they encounter one of the largest violations of Easter egg and Principle of least astonishment at Wikipedia, as the content is the opposite of the title. This article documents the Lack of veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Any veracious statements are rare exceptions that prove the rule. David Zurawik says we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because that's "how to cover a habitual liar". (The last part is by four illustrious experts.) Any gambler knows that's the safest assumption.

Bishonen is right about the existing consensus, but that doesn't mean we should give up on fixing this abominable situation. It's a dishonorable situation that lessens our credibility. Maybe, by now, more editors will realize that RS justify something like Donald Trump's dubious relationship to facts as a better title. A new consensus might fix this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think "Veracity..." is neutral, and conveys to readers that this article is not a hit piece. Within ten seconds, readers know we're not implying Trump's statements have much veracity. One alternative title, which is more clumsy, might be "Degree of veracity...", but I still mildly favor for the present title. I can't find a single word that captures the concept "degree of veracity". —RCraig09 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Would "false" or "lies" or "dishonest" improve title?

I rarely look at this page, but the title keeps appearing in my watchlist and always seems convoluted. I'm pretty sure that few of our readers or potential readers use "veracity" as a search term. It's up there with incalescence superannuation etc. I think either the title needs to be changed. I haven't given much thought to what would be better. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Request: Swap axes of graphs in 'COVID-19 pandemic' section

Could some ambitious soul please swap the axes of the two graphs in the 'COVID-19 pandemic' section, so the independent variable (time) is on the x-axis, and the dependent variable (number of cases) is on the y-axis, per common practice? Thank you -- BMJ-pdx (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done As originator of the graphics, I understand the issue. You're basically talking about rotating the graphics counter-clockwise 90 degrees. But a first consideration for Wikipedia graphics is that they be as easily readable as possible in thumbnail view. When I was making those graphics, I found that if they were made per your suggestion, most of the text would have had to be either (1) vertically oriented so people would have had to turn their heads 90 degrees to read, or (2) unacceptably "far" from their point on the trace. Also, the present graphics use their area most efficiently—with minimal wasted "white space" using the largest font size to fill the available space. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead does not cover the article or content scope.
Despite attempts by me to add detail, backed by references, backed by the truth and imo balanced, to the lead, the encyclopedia and the knowledge base, two revert warriors decided to remove content rather than improve the article or edit my additions in any way, all with spurious reasoning.
If I spelt a word incorrectly according to your view, correct it, if in your view it is unbalanced, moderate it.
Can someone else add to the lead to at least cover the article scope as per the title.
The Original Filfi (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There were several problems with your large addition to the lead, which I (and another) mentioned in edit comments:

1. The lead summarizes what's in the article, so the body of the article should first have the detailed content. However, you went straight to the lead with overly detailed content.
2. Your content was presented in a grossly non-neutral tone ("continually lied in all areas of his life", "lies have continued en masse", "a new genre of lies have been troped out").
3. Much of your final paragraph is not sourced.
4. I counted six spelling errors, a capitalization error, and an apostrophe error.
5. That Schwartz "noted that he had to create the phrase "truthful hyperbole" as an "artful euphemism"" is much too detailed for the lead.
6. (non-exhaustive list)

Some of the sources look like they contain pertinent content, but it should go, first, into the article body. If you perform additions first to the body in an ordered, incremental way, things will work out better for you. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The Original Filfi, I have to agree with RCraig09 and those who reverted your edits. Some of your content was good and accurate (Trump really is a spectacularly big liar), but that's not enough, especially for the lead. You're also right that the lead could be better. The reverters left good edit summaries, and you should not have edit-warred. You should have been blocked for doing that. Now we're here.

I suggest you carefully read each edit summary and the response above and address them before even thinking about making any new attempts to edit the lead. In fact, because of the edit warring, you should seek approval here (in a new section) for any proposed edits. BE BOLD does not work for contested content. It's disruptive. Start with improving the body and only then consider any tweaks to the lead. Focus on section titles and seek to mention those topics very briefly in the lead, preferably in the order they occur in the body. I suggest you read my essay. It has a number of good pointers: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:Czello. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

User should take a wikibreak or prepare for sanctions. That edit summary is one of the most egregious trespasses of assume good faith I think I've ever seen. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding some context to the Washington Posts numbers

I think the justification for this article existing at all is dubious at best, but given wikipedia users typical politics, I suppose it's here to stay. But if it's going to stay, it at least needs a fig leaf of balance and impartiality. The article reads as if everyone universally accepts the Washington Posts 30k+ claim of false statements. But not everyone agrees with the WaPo. I added some sources to point that out.74.96.244.155 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there any non-opinion sources that make those claims? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I gave reliable sources. And the WaPo source of the 30,000 false statements IS an opinion source to begin with.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

My question stands. We properly attribute the WaPo analysis piece, and we know that analysis is WP:DUE because it was covered by reliable, non-opinion sources. Is that also true of the opinion pieces you're looking to add? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I gave three sources. One is a "caution" source (The Daily Wire). The other two are considered generally reliable in wikipedia's list of perennial sources (Marketwatch and Real Clear Politics). Those sources are frequently used on this site.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this a response to me? It doesn't answer my questions at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's also not true, Daily Wire is considered generally unreliable and cannot be used at all, RCP is with caution, but wouldn't be reliable for any controversial political statements as They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided., and is additionally an opinion piece while the MarketWatch article is explicitly an opinion piece. Andre🚐 03:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling it "explicitly an opinion piece" is irrelevant, since yet AGAIN, the Washington Post running tally of Trump falsehoods is itself an opinion piece. If you are adamantly opposed to opinion pieces being used, then the WaPo numbers would need to be scrubbed from this article also.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the Washington Post fact checker is attributed and it is not an opinion piece. An opinion isn't any inconvenient fact you don't like. Andre🚐 04:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

On a separate note, I realize this isn't going to go anywhere, because within minutes several people have pounced here in responses, so it's clear that there's an issue with WP:OWN in regard to this article, which is highly political to begin with.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not what OWN means. Oe anonymous editor is misrepresenting information and complaining about things that actually aren't problems and then several regular editors are pointing out why the information being offered isn't accurate or consistent with policy or logic... Andre🚐 04:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources considered by the Wikipedia community to be reliable; articles aren't the place for editors to go after a source. Separately, this article is about Trump's veracity, and editors are free to add content from reliable sources that express positive or negative things about his veracity. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Good thing I used reliable sources then. Reverting.74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No, they were bad sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Holy cow, I figured this page had a problem with WP:OWN but no idea it was this bad. A response in just two minutes? Anyway, I gave three sources. One is a "caution" source. The other two are considered generally reliable in wikipedia's list of perennial sources. 74.96.244.155 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I rate this four Pinocchios. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, this is blatantly inaccurate. Andre🚐 03:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, 74.96.244.155 misses the point that his sources are about the Post and not about Trump whose veracity is the subject of this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Exaggeration versus Mendacity

This article seems to be about the mendacity of many of former President Trump's statements. It seems to me okay for discussion of untruths to be placed under the heading "veracity" (in the sense of "veracity vel non"). In any case, it might also be useful for the article to consider the extent (whatever that extent might be) of truthfulness in Donald Trump's statements, even if that task would involve serious methodological complexity--for example, how would this be properly measured?

In elementary school, when we took tests, we were instructed that if there is even a tiny grain of falsehood in a true-false statement, the whole statement should be marked FALSE. But such a binary approach to analyzing truth/falsity (especially where a single drop of falsehood is deemed to spoil an entire ocean that this otherwise true) might not be the most enlightening approach when we are considering the veracity-vel-non of statements made by actual people in a non-exam context. (I'm not suggesting here that Donald Trump in fact offers oceans of truth and only tiny falsehoods; what I'm saying is that the issues of degree and extent are probably important.)

In my judgment, something quite relevant to the analysis of veracity-mendacity should not go unmentioned in an article about the reliability or unreliability of statements made by former President Trump. One striking feature of Donald Trump's utterances is his routine use of hyperbole and superlatives. For example, he tends to construct sentences that conclude with the recitation "the likes of which have never been seen before." I haven't tried to quantify this tendency, but he does this so frequently (and, it seems, so often inaptly) that his words can seem like a self-parody. I think I've noticed that this rhetorical propensity to rely on hyperbole seems to have increased over the past three or four years. Thus, if one were to use Trump's style of speaking to describe his overstatements, one might say that "Trump is a compulsive exaggerator and fact-distorter, the likes of which has never before been seen in human history." Of course, Trump himself prefers to use damning words such as "liars" to label those he considers his enemies.

Reference to the word "liar" brings up a set of distinctions to inform the analysis of veracity that would focus on the degree of culpability or bad faith in a false statement: for example, "lying" and "deception" suggest willfulness, whereas "inaccuracy" might include an inadvertent or unknowing untrue statement. And the context of a statement is important. Off-hand sloppy remarks to buddies at the golf course are contextually different from an address by the president from the Oval Office.

Another important area to explore is the range of pejorative (and often extremely abusive) language used by President Trump. Although the first amendment protects much insulting political speech, the former president has regularly and repeatedly made use of an arsenal of slurs that seem clearly untrue and even defamatory. A recent example is his defamatory characterization of special counsel Jack Smith as "deranged." The catalogue of Donald Trump's abusive statements about others (including his former associates) is quite extensive. If you read the extent of Trump's slurs and derogatory nicknames, it's quite overwhelming. One collection of slurs is Kevin Quealy's compilation of an enormous database of "Trump’s Twitter Insults(2015-2021)," which can be found on the New York Times website. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/19/upshot/trump-complete-insult-list

The abusiveness of President Trump's insulting language is perhaps also related to his propensity for crudeness of expression (e.g., "s___hole countries).

I haven't yet even read this entire wikipedia article carefully, so my remarks now are not necessarily calling for changes to the article. I simple wanted to share a few thoughts before reading further.

Best wishes to all!100.15.136.71 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)