Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

Trump as source of real fake news

See also: Donald Trump pseudonyms

Several sources have accused Trump of pushing his own real fake news for years, 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." Ruth Marcus, in a Washington Post 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.... [A]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."

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune 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." Brian Stelter responded to Trump's tweet: "No, President Trump, negative polls are not 'fake news'." Stelter noted that DeRay Mckesson's response was: "'Negative news = fake news' is the beginning of tyranny."

Referring to the birther movement, Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary under former President Obama, told Stephen Colbert that Trump has been pushing fake news for years.

Maureen Dowd, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for The New York Times, 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."

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:32, October 26, 2018‎ (UTC)

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.

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• And? are you proposing anything? ^{[Username Needed]} 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? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Landslide Victory"

The following discussion 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.

---

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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You're free to believe that, but reliable sources from PoltiFact, FactCheck.org, and NPR all disagree with you. We go by the reliable sources, not by editors' beliefs. R2 (bleep) 05:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The preceding is correct. I encourage you to read some Wikipedia content policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm. Agree the article seems a WP:POVFORK verging on WP:ATTACK 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 victory ‘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 Markbassett (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

::Please look here. 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 77,744 total popular vote margin across Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. soibangla (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2019 (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 original research. Reliable sources say it wasn't a landslide and that Trump's assertion was false. End of story. R2 (bleep) 21:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to add OR to the article, but I'll strike it anyway. soibangla (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah but who cares? We do have discretion to decide in that area. Is that something that actually matters? Keep in mind WP:VNOTSUFF. PackMecEng (talk) 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. R2 (bleep) 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? PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo 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 Markbassett (talk) 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 fact-checking 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.
The "apparently unconsidered use" part of your argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

??? User:Mandruss 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 WP:NPOV, 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 Markbassett (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss 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. WP:NPOV requires “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views” with the aim to “describe disputes, but not engage in them”. The explanation has further bullets including “Avoid stating opinions as facts” 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 Markbassett (talk) 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 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. PackMecEng (talk) 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 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. PackMecEng (talk) 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.
There is nothing in Wikipedia 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—the perceived significance of any Trump-related content will naturally be greatly influenced by one's feelings about Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Generally that would be WP:WEIGHT 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. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Kindly point out where in WP:WEIGHT it says anything about our opinions of significance. I've just read it again and I don't see that. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I will counter that with what is the defined rule for the number of RS for 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? PackMecEng (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I repeat: We (even you) routinely include one sentence with no more RS than we have here. Do you dispute that? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

100% irrelevant. In this situation it is not worth mention, period full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 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 Wikipedia "discussions" are like that, regrettably. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh if you don't like policy you are welcome to try and change it. WP:ILIKEIT is not is not a reasonable excuse. Thanks for the discussion though, take care. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I just showed that there is no such policy, so there is nothing to change. ―Mandruss ☎ 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? PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I mind. It may have been a waste, but it wasn't off topic or forum. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you guys mind taking this to user talk? R2 (bleep) 21:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion has been over for several hours. Should be fine PackMecEng (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

^^ True, and anyway this kind of thing is what article talk is for. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:39, 9 February 2019 (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.

Should this page be moved to 'False and misleading statements by Donald Trump' ?

Per title. starship.paint ~ KO 04:12, 21 February 2019 (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. starship.paint ~ KO 06:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I tentatively agree, but would be open to considering arguments from the other side. R2 (bleep) 16:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, per WP:NPOVNAME. "Veracity" is the opposite of the subject of the article, and appears to be an attempt to sugar coat an inconvenient truth.- MrX 🖋 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How about formalizing this with a {{requested move}}? R2 (bleep) 19:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting the previous RM on this topic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that. Dunno if it's too soon to try again. R2 (bleep) 16:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, four months is too soon. Consensus can change 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 Wikipedia:I just don't like it comments, but neither was the case. The question has received adequate due process to suffice for a year or so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CCC 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. R2 (bleep) 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss 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 Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I confess to serious difficulty understanding your writing. Let me see if this is responsive to your comments.
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 WP:FRINGE. Fox News still has a check mark in the second column at WP:RSP#Sources, and there are no doubt others that say this whole falsehood thing is overblown.
Am I willing to do the legwork/heavy lifting? Um, not really. Mostly I just sit around, spout opinions, and do cite cleanup. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a Fox News source saying the whole falsehood thing is overblown? R2 (bleep) 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 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." — BullRangifer

As long as they are RS, not Fox News... As I said previously, per WP:RSP, Fox News (news and website, not talk shows) is considered a "generally reliable" source by Wikipedia. There are caveats given at RSP, including "exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics", but I see nothing suggesting we should completely ignore Fox. I think it would be highly improper for a local group of editors to override that judgment based on our personal views about Fox; the venue for that is WP:RSN and the question has no doubt been thoroughly flogged there already. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Yes there is coverage of Trump-positive of telling truths. I was wondering more if coverage of caveats to these Trump-negatives seem within the article scope. The assortment of remarks and instances on fake news, media bias, misreporting, loss of perspective, etcetera seems sizeable. (Could have either, both, or neither I suppose.) But at the moment I'm not seeing a perspective of 'criticisms and caveats/responses', nor 'Trump true and false', I'm just seeing criticisms and some DUE issues here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

As others have observed, you are often difficult to understand, so please correct me if I got this wrong. Did you just assert that the numerous reliable sources that have documented thousands of Trump's false/misleading statements constitute "fake news?" soibangla (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No. I am responding to Mandruss input about Trump-positives (not presented in article) by saying yes such exist but I was really asking if the diverse and sizeable body of caveats and responses for the Trump-negatives are out of scope. The responses and evaluations of the current article content seemed missing — all the remarks and noted instances of criticism being false claims of falsehood, or said overblown, or tagged as fake news, media bias, misreporting, etcetera. They may be OFFTOPIC with this title, and in topic with another title. The article does not clearly define scope as being criticisms (in which case responses should be given too) or if it is about Trump (in which case praises of truth would appear in DUE weight), or if both flavours can appear, or if neither approach of counter views fit, or what. Hence I am asking for TALK on what is in scope. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The current scope is anything talking about the truth or falsehood of any of Trump's statements. It's really not that complicated. If a source doesn't touch on the truth or falsehood of any of Trump's statements, then it might be useful in talk page discussions--e.g., to challenge another source's reliability--but it probably shouldn't be cited in the article, as doing so would likely be off-topic and/or coatracking. Remember, the purpose of this article is neither to attack nor defend Trump's statements, but to summarize what reliable sources have said about their veracity. That's it. R2 (bleep) 16:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Rather than make vague allusions to "all the remarks and noted instances of criticism being false claims of falsehood, or said overblown, or tagged as fake news, media bias, misreporting, etcetera," perhaps you should add content from reliable sources that confirms those things. Otherwise, it might appear that you are making a baseless assertion of those things, which might cause some to wonder about your adherence to WP policy regarding reliable sources and take you less seriously. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Donald Trump and truth"

This is what the article appears to be about. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Awkward, overly broad, and it sounds loaded. I'm having trouble thinking of any page titles structured that way. R2 (bleep) 16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

1. "Trump's relationship to truth, facts, and reality"

2. "Trump's relationship to truth" BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

3. "Donald Trump's mistruths" or "Mistruths of Donald Trump".

"Relationship" is vague and stylistically awkward. "Donald Trump and truth" is similarly awkward. If the article is about the noteworthy history of Trump's habitually lying, then we should articulate that as plainly and directly as possible. We don't need to euphemize it just because he's prez.- MrX 🖋 12:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Lies and misstatements of President / Donald Trump. Does exactly what it says on the tin. ——SerialNumber54129 12:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I hate agonizing over article titles, but I'll agonize briefly anyway. First, the 100% accurate, 100% NPOV-compliant title is something like: Widespread news media allegations of an unprecedented pattern of false and misleading statements by Donald Trump. So we can start by accepting that the title can't be 100% accurate and 100% NPOV-compliant, and we will have to substantially compromise one or both. That's just how titles are.
If the current title taken in isolation appears to give Trump a pass, I prefer that to the alternative, which would make the same error in the opposite direction. As I've said elsewhere, the Trump-positive RS viewpoint on this issue is greater than WP:FRINGE; the fact that nobody has yet addressed that viewpoint in this article is not a reason to propagate that failure to the title. I have no problem with balancing the article's strongly Trump-negative content with something less Trump-negative in the title—that violates no sacred principle in my book. I simply read the title as a short form of Veracity or lack of veracity of statements by Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV compliant version would be one that faithfully reflects what reliable sources have consistently reported and would not include any such attribution. If there is a RS version of reality that says Donald Trump does not frequently lie, I am not aware of its existence. Like the belief that the earth is flat, I would most definitely consider such a view to be fringe.- MrX 🖋 12:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've now spent about half an hour looking. I tired far short of a complete survey, but I'm prepared to retract the above comments and dump the burden of defending that position on pro-Trump editors. Per the BullRangifer Doctrine, they are more familiar with the RS supporting their views, if their views are supported by RS. It's telling that the editor who filed the SNOW-failed AfD has never commented on this page or edited the article's content. It's time for those folks to put up or shut up.
Merriam-Webster lists the following antonyms for "veracity": deceit, deceitfulness, dishonesty, lying, mendaciousness, mendacity, untruthfulness. Despite the widespread use of the word "lie" in the press, I think Donald Trump's lying is unencyclopedic in tone and a step too far. Not to mention that the article does not currently use the word in wiki voice—that would have to change in a big way before we could even consider the use of the word "lie" in the title. I could almost live with Untruthfulness of statements by Donald Trump, but none of the other antonyms seem workable. On the other hand I don't see how Donald Trump and truth is awkward—actually it seems succinct and to the point—and it seems less awkward than anything incorporating a "-ness" noun. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion of "Trump's relationship to truth, facts, and reality" is because we need to avoid any title that leads one to think this is to be a list. That would be a list article. Myriad RS, experts on lying, psychologists and psychiatrist, and notable people discuss Trump's relationship to, and war against, the very concept of truth. It's not just a matter of him making false statements, he's literally trying to destroy the idea of truth being important. That is content worth including here. We should avoid just a list here. A list article can exist as a subpage, spinoff, list article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A list article title would begin with "List of" or something similar, by almost universal convention. Let's not make this any more complicated than it already is. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss:If you're going to call me out, at least do so by name. Why would I even bother to try and fix an article as biased as this? Even if the argument can be made this is a legit topic, it still is a candidate for WP:TNT. I'll be happy to provide some sources on how biased some of this "fact checking" in the media is. However, I fully expect the reaction to this to be that these are biased sources and need to be ignored. Meanwhile, this article is full of sources that are nothing more than opinion pieces. Regardless, here are some sources [1] [2] [3]--Rusf10 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tuning out the less constructive aspects of your comment, thanks for the links. None of those are reliable fact sources supporting the position Mandruss was calling for. However, they do reveal that there are some noteworthy conservative voices objecting to how the fact checkers have been treating Trump. I think these deserve mention in the article...along with due weight given to the many more noteworthy voices supporting the fact checkers. R2 (bleep) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Your response is the exactly the reaction I expected. Define "reliable fact sources", Is it something different than WP:RS? Because I made sure before I posted this that none of the sources were blacklisted.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

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.

Thought I’d post the few suggested areas or approaches for improvement.

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.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a link to this AFD. Thanks. soibangla (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

[4] (permalink). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, they did address the claim of this being an attack page, they just did not agree with it. You are free to challenge the close at WP:DRV but this talk page should not become a repeat of the AFD. Regards SoWhy 08:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)