Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Possible content to develop and then include

This is from one of my personal essays, so it obviously would need some reworking for use here. I don't expect everything to be usable. Our job at Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes facts and opinions. Trump's dubious relationship to truth is obviously a very notable subject, and it's arguably his most notable and best documented character trait, going back to long before his dabblings in politics. It's how he rolls. He's a salesman, and we know that they always rate near the bottom for honesty and ethics. No surprise there. I also have a list of several hundred fully formatted RS on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump's falsehoods

See also: Donald Trump § False statements

"I think this idea that there is no truth
is the thread that will run through the rest of
the Trump presidency, as it has his entire
candidacy and his presidency so far."
-- Nicolle Wallace

As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks, and experience teaches that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because he's a "habitual liar". In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".

Fact checkers have kept a close tally of his falsehoods, and, according to one study, the rate of false statements has increased, with the percentage of his words that are part of a false claim rising over the course of his presidency. According to The New York Times, Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office, 1,318 total in his first 263 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" political analysis column of The Washington Post, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. After 558 days in office, the tally was at 4,229 false or misleading claims, and it had risen to an average of 7.6 per day from 4.9 during Trump's first 100 days in office.

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." Kessler also wrote: "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered ... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."

Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false:

• that Obama wasn't born in the United States;
• that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement;
• that Trump's electoral college victory was a "landslide";
• that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;
• that Trump was "totally against the war in Iraq".

A poll in May 2018 found that "just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy".

The Editorial Board of The New York Times took this telling sideswipe at Trump when commenting on the unfitness of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court: "A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth."

Other sources

• "The First 100 Lies: The Trump Team's Flurry Of Falsehoods. The president and his aides succeeded in reaching the mark in just 36 days." Igor Bobic

• "The unbearable stench of Trump's B.S." Fareed Zakaria

• "Killing the Truth: How Trump's Attack on the Free Press Endangers Democracy" Philip Kotler

• The New Yorker has published a series of 14 essays entitled "Trump and the Truth". They "examine the untruths that have fueled Donald Trump's Presidential campaign."

• The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board wrote a seven-part series about Trump's dishonesty, starting with the article "Our Dishonest President".

Fact checking Trump

Trump's incessant attacks on the media, reliable sources, and truth have kept an army of fact checkers busy, the latter having never encountered a more deceptive public person. Tony Burman wrote: "The falsehoods and distortions uttered by Trump and his senior officials have particularly inflamed journalists and have been challenged — resulting in a growing prominence of 'fact-checkers' and investigative reporting."

Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:

"Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts." No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker — Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact — finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false."

PolitiFact

• "Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter"

• "Donald Trump's file"

• "PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year."

• "Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods."

• "7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office."

FactCheck.org

• Donald Trump's file

• "100 Days of Whoppers. Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president."

• "The Whoppers of 2017. President Trump monopolizes our list of the year's worst falsehoods and bogus claims."

The Washington Post

• "Throughout President Trump's first 100 days, the Fact Checker team will be tracking false and misleading claims made by the president since Jan. 20. In the 33 days so far, we've counted 132 false or misleading claims."

• "Fact-checking President Trump's claims on the Paris climate change deal"

• President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims

Toronto Star

The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:

• "Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things."

• "Confessions of a Trump Fact-Checker"

• "The Star's running tally of the straight-up lies, exaggerations and deceptions the president of the United States of America has said, so far."

The Guardian

• "How does Donald Trump lie? A fact checker's final guide."

• "Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents."

NOTE: Many of the sources above are older. The situation has not improved, but is rapidly getting much worse, as described by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ashley Parker: "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true."

Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories

Trump has been involved in the promotion of a number of conspiracy theories which have lacked meaningful substance. These have included promoting Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories from 2011 ("birther" theories); claiming that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 2016; claiming that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 election (in addition to his electoral college win) if there had not been "millions" of illegal voters in that election cycle; and the Spygate conspiracy theory alleging that the Barack Obama administration planted a spy inside Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to assist Hillary Clinton win the 2016 US presidential election. It has been widely described as blatantly false.

Trump also made his Trump Tower wiretapping allegations in 2017, for which the Department of Justice has said evidence has yet to be provided. In January 2018, Trump claimed that texts between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were tantamount to "treason", but the Wall Street Journal reviewed them and concluded that the texts "show no evidence of a conspiracy against" Trump. Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo and Meg Kelly, writing for The Washington Post, found that Trump has made over 3,000 false or misleading claims (including repeats) in the first 466 days of his presidency.

Trump is a friend of "professional conspiracy theorist" Alex Jones, and has appeared on his show. That's a big red flag. Anyone with any regard for truth would stay away from Jones and InfoWars, but Trump cares not for truth and Jones helped his election. When InfoWars and Jones were banned from Apple, YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify, Infowars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson called it "censorship" and used the well-known Trump-Jones friendship as an argument: "Infowars is widely credited with having played a key role in electing Donald Trump."

Sources

Helpful sources

I found some more useful sources but don't have the time to actually summarize them or add them so figured I'd leave them here for later:

• A President Who Believes He Is Entitled to His Own Facts - New York Times
• Trump's hurricane response delusion - The Baltimore Sun
• AP FACT CHECK: Trump implies terrorists mixed with migrants - Washington Post

Praxidicae (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Restoring this:

• Donald Trump's palpable fear of the truth - The Chicago Tribune

It's a perfectly good RS containing facts and opinions. The latter should be attributed. That's how we roll here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer I removed it originally from my list because it appeared to be an op-ed and I wasn't sure but given the abundance of non-op ed and clearly independent reliable pieces, I guess there's no harm in including it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Media's hesitancy to label him a "liar"

There are many RS which use the words "lie(s)", "lying", and "liar" about Trump. There has been a very high level debate among editors of major RS as to whether they should use those words, and some have just decided to start doing it, and others won't. So it all depends on the source, and we do use the words used by RS. Here's a section I've written about that subject. It's rough and not ready for use, but with some work, some of it could be used here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Media's hesitancy to label him a "liar"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some writers have said he should not be called a "liar" because one cannot know his motives, all while admitting he was very untruthful and had no respect for the truth. Others have declared the situation to be so serious that it was time to dare call a sitting President a "liar". They seemed to focus more on the fact that the consequences of the constant repetition of falsehoods is the same, regardless of motives. Aaron Blake, senior political reporter at The Washington Post explained: "Whether you like Trump or not, it's demonstrably true that he says things that are easily proved false, over and over again. The question the media has regularly confronted is not whether Trump's facts are correct but whether to say he's deliberately lying or not." David Greenberg, an author and a professor at Rutgers, questioned whether one could always know Trump's intent and motives, and he expressed caution about calling Trump a liar, even though he admitted there was a "... barrage of false, duplicitous, dishonest and misleading statements emanating from Donald Trump and the White House in the last week...." Mary Ann Georgantopoulos, reporter at BuzzFeed, explained why BuzzFeed did not take accusing someone of lying lightly: A lie isn't just a false statement. It's a false statement whose speaker knows it's false. In these instances, the president — or his administration — have clear reason to know otherwise. Reporters are understandably cautious about using the word — some never do, because it requires speculating on what someone is thinking. The cases we call "lies" are ones where we think it's fair to make that call: Trump is saying something that contradicts clear and widely published information that we have reason to think he's seen. This list also includes bullshit: speech that is — in its academic definition — "unconnected to a concern with the truth." On NBC's Meet The Press, January 1, 2017, The Wall Street Journal's Editor in Chief Gerard Baker said the journal wouldn't call Trump's false statements "lies": "I'd be careful about using the word 'lie'. 'Lie' implies much more than just saying something that's false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead." Three days later he wrote: Trump, 'Lies' and Honest Journalism, By Gerard Baker, Jan. 4, 2017 "Mr. Trump certainly has a penchant for saying things whose truthfulness is, shall we say for now, challengeable. Much of the traditional media have spent the past year grappling with how to treat Mr. Trump’s utterances. "In a New Year’s Day broadcast on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” moderator Chuck Todd asked whether I, as the editor in chief of the Journal, would be comfortable characterizing in our journalism something Mr. Trump says as a “lie.” "Here’s what I said: “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.” "Note that I said I’d be “careful” in using the word “lie.” I didn’t ban the word from the Journal’s lexicon. Evidently, this carefulness is widely shared in the newsrooms of America. While some of the fresher news organizations have routinely called out Mr. Trump as a liar in their reporting, as far as I can tell, traditional newsrooms—print, digital, television—have used the term sparingly. Given the number of times Mr. Trump seems to have uttered falsehoods, that looks like prima facie evidence of a widespread reluctance to label him a liar. "Why the reluctance? For my part, it’s not because I don’t believe that Mr. Trump has said things that are untrue. Nor is it because I believe that when he says things that are untrue we should refrain from pointing it out. This is exactly what the Journal has done. "Mr. Trump has a record of saying things that are, as far as the available evidence tells us, untruthful: ..." Veteran reporter Dan Rather strongly disagreed with Baker's position, calling it "deeply disturbing". He proposed a very different approach: "A lie, is a lie, is a lie." He wrote: "These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures." He directly criticized the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, and also Donald Trump, for lying, and wrote: "The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before." Greg Sargent also responded to Baker, stating that "Donald Trump 'lies.' A lot. And news organizations should say so." He also referred to "the nature of Trump's dishonesty — the volume, ostentatiousness, nonchalance, and imperviousness to correction at the hands of factual reality...." Sargent described how Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The New York Times, wrote that Trump's lies should be called lies "because he has shown a willingness to go beyond the 'normal sort of obfuscation that politicians traffic in.'" Adrienne LaFrance: Calling Out a Presidential Lie The New York Times editorial board has used “lie” to describe Trump’s rampant abuse of facts. And Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has taken the media to task for not using the word. Other outlets ― including MSNBC, New York Magazine and HuffPost ― will use the word when it’s merited. Don’t call Donald Trump a liar – even if he is one, John Rentoul, The Independent, February 4, 2017 Don’t call Trump a gaslighter: he’s just an inveterate liar, Donald Clarke, Irish Times, January 21, 2017 Don't Call Trump a Liar—He Doesn't Even Care About the Truth, Lauren Griffin, Newsweek, January 29, 2017 "News outlets are still working through the process of figuring out what to call these mischaracterizations of reality. (“Alternative facts” seems to have been swiftly rejected.) "... [WSJ] Baker’s critics are missing the point. Baker is right. Trump isn’t lying. He’s bullshitting. "Bullshitter-in-chief? "Bullshitters, as philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote in his 1986 essay “On Bullshit,” don’t care whether what they are saying is factually correct or not. Instead, bullshit is characterized by a “lack of connection to a concern with truth [and] indifference to how things really are.” Frankfurt explains that a bullshitter “does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.” "Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at the media watchdog group Media Matters, has a strong message for the media trying to keep up with President Donald Trump: Get ready to call him out, and get ready to call him a liar if you have to. “I know we’re only three weeks into this, and it’s going to take time because the establishment of DC media has never called a DC president a liar,” Boehlert said on Salon Talks, adding, “You cannot call a lie a claim.” "But for newspapers — like the New York Times, which recently used the word lie in its headline — is adapting slightly. And that’s something that Boehlert thought should happen more often. “It’s time to get rid of these headlines,” he said. “If it is a demonstrable, proven lie, like his claim that journalists don’t cover terrorists attacks. He’s lying to journalists about their own work, and they still won’t stand up and say, You’re lying about that.” According to Alexandra Whiston-Dew, a lawyer and expert in media law at Mishcon de Reya, the British press does not call Trump a "liar" because of differences in defamation laws. The American press is protected by the First Amendment, whereas the British press has a different burden of proof. Why I’m Not Mad at the Wall Street Journal’s Gerard Baker. "The embattled WSJ editor doesn’t fear his newsroom’s wrath. As long as the paper’s Trump coverage keeps his boss happy, he’s invincible." Sources

• We do need a section specifically about lies. Not only do we have reliable sources that have called certain statements lies, but we also have highly noteworthy opinion sources calling certain statements lies (and calling Trump a liar)--as well as, I believe, a small number of noteworthy opinion sources defending Trump from these charges. Then we also have reliable sources describing the media debate about whether to call some of Trump's statements lies. All of these should have a place in this article. R2 (bleep) 18:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Notable false claims

I feel that the false statements listed need dates, maybe some extra prose to tie them into the relevant time period and related articles. Without knowing when he made these statements I find it hard to get the full meaning from the section. And checking the sources to find out takes time and is a poor reader experience. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

We should avoid use of the word notable, which is pinned to our notability standard. By that standard, every false claim that was the subject of a reliable fact check would be notable. We should come up with objective selection criteria. R2 (bleep) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

How about "Relevant statements"? And then we just try to keep only the most relevant examples there. It will always be slightly subjective deciding what to include out of so many false and misleading statements that have been reported on. We just want the best known ones with the most impact to be noted. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

We started down a very slippery slope when that section was started. It will be virtually impossible to prevent this article from becoming a condensed version of FactCheck.org, which I think is a bad idea. best known ones with the most impact is subjective original research; we should not be political analysts. A summary/overview level would be more encyclopedic and of more value to readers, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Home from work now. (Even though I'm retired, I keep active.) I agree completely with everything above, so we need to work on it and be more cautious. I see, from a quick glance, that a number of items have been added by User:Soibangla, who happens to be a very productive editor. Kudos for their industriousness. Now let's see that energy channeled and refined (see below)

Thanks also to User:Mandruss for cite cleanup. Together we can all get this article in good shape and "get it right".

Some advice I received was to "define some inclusion criteria and put it at the top of the section in an <!--invisible comment--> before things get out of control with people adding stuff right and left. Something along the lines of "widely reported in reliable sources and one that he states repeatedly after it has been debunked." So stuff like the US having the highest tax rate, but not every little mis-stated statistic." That's good advice.

I see this section as a near certain, and logical, candidate for a SPINOFF list article, with a shorter section, with the most notable false claims and a "main" hatnote, left in this main article.

So right now, let's stop adding more to this section and start improving what's already there. Several things to do:

1. order it chronologically, and don't stop with the false statement, (maybe not so easy to do...)
2. add the truth (that makes it informative to readers), and finally,
3. be very selective. Limit it to very notable items, because there are literally thousands (over 5,000) of false statements if we get too loose. Choose only the most notable from the hundreds of egregious ones.
4. Inclusion criteria. Is the above acceptable for now?
5. We also need to agree on some arbitrary limit to number of items, maybe 15-20, we'd have a great section. Then add others to the list article when it gets started.

As with everything Trump does, as the master self-promoter he is, everything he does is notable, including this subject. He's "high energy" and very productive, also in this area. Therefore we can afford to be choosy and include quality content, because there's plenty of junk to choose from. There are plenty of good fact checkers, and plenty of very notable people and specialists who have documented, analyzed, and commented on this. Use them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I’ll stop now. Well...pause, anyway. Goodnight. soibangla (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You've done a great job! Thanks. Start thinking about a SPINOFF list article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Truthful hyperbole"

This belongs in the history section: (This ref is used elsewhere in the article, so, to avoid duplication, not including it in the text below, but placing it here so it works below.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

When Tony Schwartz ghostwrote The Art of the Deal (1987), he created the phrase "truthful hyperbole" as an "artful euphemism" to describe Trump's "loose relationship with the truth." This passage from the book provides the context, written in Trump's voice: "I play to people's fantasies...People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration — and it's a very effective form of promotion."

In July 2016, when The New Yorker published Jane Mayer's interview with Schwartz, she described how he later distanced himself from that phrase, and also Trump's attitude toward the phrase: "Deceit," he told me, is never "innocent." He added, " 'Truthful hyperbole' is a contradiction in terms. It's a way of saying, 'It's a lie, but who cares?' Trump," he said, "loved the phrase."

Sources

 Done -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The Trump family lie

The Trump family has a long history of untruthfulness. In an article entitled "The Swedish Whopper: Donald Trump's Long-standing Struggle With the Truth," the Trump family lie is revealed to be their claim, maintained for two generations, that they are Swedish, when in fact they are Germans. Donald's father, Fred Trump, "for a reason that has never been disclosed, began telling people that he was Swedish."

The lie was repeated by Fred's son Donald, who, in The Art of the Deal (1987), repeated and embellished the lie by claiming that his grandfather, Friedrich Trump, "came here from Sweden as a child," even though he left his family and emigrated from his home town, Kallstadt, Germany, in 1885, when he was 16 years old. Wayne Barrett confirmed that Donald also claimed that his father, Fred Trump, was "born in New Jersey to Swedish parents; in fact, he was born in the Bronx to German parents."

Sources

 Done -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

Would this be on-topic? I think so. He has a long history of creating and/or pushing conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The following is from a private essay, so it's not completely "kosher" (NPOV, etc.), but with tweaking it can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories

Trump has been involved in the promotion of a number of conspiracy theories which have lacked meaningful substance. These have included promoting Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories from 2011 ("birther" theories); claiming that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 2016; claiming that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 election (in addition to his electoral college win) if there had not been "millions" of illegal voters in that election cycle; and the Spygate conspiracy theory alleging that the Barack Obama administration planted a spy inside Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to assist Hillary Clinton win the 2016 US presidential election. It has been widely described as blatantly false.

Trump also made his Trump Tower wiretapping allegations in 2017, for which the Department of Justice has said evidence has yet to be provided. In January 2018, Trump claimed that texts between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were tantamount to "treason", but the Wall Street Journal reviewed them and concluded that the texts "show no evidence of a conspiracy against" Trump.

Trump is a friend of "professional conspiracy theorist" Alex Jones, and has appeared on his show. When InfoWars and Jones were banned from Apple, YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify, Infowars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson called it "censorship" and used the well-known Trump-Jones friendship as an argument: "Infowars is widely credited with having played a key role in electing Donald Trump."

Sources

 Done -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Title, scope

"Donald Trump's false and misleading claims" is a title that narrows the scope too much. We don't want to end up with a list article which mentions the subject without doing it justice. We also need a title and scope which doesn't bring down the wrath of the AfD and censorship mob.

The subject is quite large, having been broached in many different ways and many different angles by RS. My approach to article creation starts with notability: Has a subject caught my attention because multiple RS are dealing with it? Then maybe there's something for a new article, or at least a new section in an existing article. I then collect all the RS I can find, and I create several Google Alerts to keep me up to date. I then group like with like to get an idea of how many angles there are to the story: history, notable persons or events, controversies, consequences, etc.

This subject is huge as everyone has noticed it, is affected, and all RS have mentioned it, often quite a lot. It also has international attention. World leaders don't trust or believe Trump.

The title must be NPOV, yet describe the scope. It must be both specific and vague, enough to define the outer limits of the subject, while allowing for growth within those limits. Too specific a title can demand a list article. This subject is far too large for that.

Here are titles going from wordy (the full scope), to simple, which still allows that full scope:

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

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

3. "Trump's relationship to truth"

I have an outline which my collection of hundreds of RS has naturally created, with multiple RS in each section:

   1.1 The Trump family lie
   1.2 Trump's relationship to truth and lies
       1.2.1 "Truthful hyperbole"
       1.2.2 "Alternative" and "fake" facts
   1.3 Trump's war on truth and the media
       1.3.1 Trump calls negative stories "fake news"
       1.3.2 Trump as source of real fake news
       1.3.3 Seen as an authoritarian tactic
       1.3.4 Killing the truth
       1.3.5 Attacks on the "lying press"
       1.3.6 Use of the "Big Lie" technique
   1.4 Media's hesitancy to label him a "liar"
       1.4.1 Liar or bullshitter?
   1.5 "Gaslighting" the public
   1.6 Followers in spite of lies
   1.7 How big a liar?
   1.8 Post-truth President and campaign
   1.9 Types of lies
       1.9.1 Some notable examples
       1.9.2 Lies about charitable giving
   1.10 Truthful statements and self-contradictions
        One item found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/09/trumps-claim-that-the-number-of-officer-deaths-in-2016-increased-56-percent-from-2015/
   1.11 Motivations
   1.12 Lies as a test of loyalty
   1.13 Lying as an aspect of his mental health
   1.14 Trump's ignorance and lies
   1.15 Damaged reputation and credibility
   1.16 James Comey's statements under oath
   1.17 Involvement of Trump's surrogates and defenders
   1.18 Fact checking Trump
   1.19 Biographers and ghostwriters
       1.19.1 Mark Singer
       1.19.2 Tony Schwartz
   1.20 Article series
       1.20.1 "Trump and the Truth", New Yorker series of 14 articles
       1.20.2 "The Problem with Trump", Los Angeles Times series of 6 articles
           1.20.2.1 REACTIONS to LA TIMES SERIES

Not all of those sections should be used or even included, but many of them have enough stuff worthy of inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• The answer has been hiding in plain sight the whole time: Veracity of Donald Trump. Satisfies all of the above-mentioned problems. wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I considered it before making the article. It doesn't work because this is not about Trump as an object. It is about his statements. We have no evidence as to the objective truthfulness of Donald Trump except by examination of what he says, tweets, and writes. It would be wrong thus to present the article as being about Trump, when it is actually about what Trump says, tweets, and writes. These semantics are important. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

How about Veracity of Donald Trump's rhetoric as a valid WP:SPINOFF article of Rhetoric of Donald Trump? wumbolo ^^^ 10:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape

That article mentions the following attempt at deception, but we need to condense it for use here. Although Trump stated "I said it", he later tried to sow doubt about the tape's authenticity, including that it might not be his voice. Here's what it says now:

In 2017, it was reported that Trump had questioned the authenticity of the tape in multiple private conversations that year, including one with a Republican senator, even though he had already acknowledged that the voice was his, and apologized, after the tape was revealed.

In January 2017, shortly before his inauguration, Mr. Trump told a Republican senator that he wanted to investigate the recording that had him boasting about grabbing women's genitals.

How should we mention this? It's pretty notable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if we simply focus on his claim the tape isn't genuine, when it has been proven that it is. It might be possible to highlight the duplicity of his rhetoric. This could help expand the 2016 campaign section which is a bit weak and only covers some conspiracy theorists at the moment. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

"Super" falsehoods

I understand the difficulty of making distinctions between flatly false statements and "lies." No one can prove that Trump is knowingly making flatly false statements. He could, after all, be delusional (which is arguably worse than being a liar, but I digress). It's the Constanza Doctrine: it's not a "lie" if you believe it.

That said, Trump repeats certain flatly false statements long after they've been decisively debunked by multiple factcheckers. Case in point: on several occasions he has asserted that US Steel is opening six, then seven, and most recently "a minimum of eight" new steel mills — well after it was confirmed that, in fact, US Steel has not announced any new mills.

IMO, these habitual flatly false statements should be highlighted in this and/or another spinoff article. If, say, at least three of five recognized factcheckers (NYT, WaPo, AP, Factcheck, Politifact) have determined that a Trump statement is flatly false (not merely misleading), and yet Trump continues to repeat those statements afterward then we should present that statement with some designation (color-coding?) to indicate to readers that it's a particularly brazen falsehood. Then the reader can assess for themselves if that constitutes a knowing and willful falsehood, more commonly known as a "lie." soibangla (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Trump also has "a proclivity to repeat, over and over, many of his false or misleading statements." As of August 2018, "they have counted nearly 150 claims that the president has repeated at least three times, some with breathtaking frequency."

To place them in their own section, or mark them, is a good idea. A few can be noted here, and many more in the new list article, when it starts. Keep up your momentum. You've got something really good to work on here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

We need to stop making new sections. I have merged some already and think the article would flow better if it was a simple chronological narrative. Starting with his business career, moving through his publishing and media phase, the 2016 campaign, and into the presidency. The presidency section will be the biggest, and may need 3rd level subsections as it develops. Otherwise the article will be lots of little fragments and the readers will not be able to follow the evolution of the issue and see how the number and magnitude of false statements build up over time. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, @Frayae: I think your merges are very helpful. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC).

Frayæ, in this move, the chronology is reversed. I deliberately placed the "family lie" as a precursor to everything else (what we normally would have in an "early history" section), since Donald was born into a deceptive (salesmen) family, and as an adult he even embellished and added to the family lie. Take a look at it.

I think we need to think in more fundamental and broad terms than just individual "false statements". We need to look more broadly at his "relationship to truth". Otherwise we end up with so narrow a scope that we can replace this with a list article. There is far more written about the larger ethical issues than just about individual statements. Leave room in the arrangement and title for that. It's not all a chronological issue.

A section for commentary and analysis is needed. I have lots of very notable content from important people for such a section. This also has international aspects regarding credibility, as his reputation, and the reputation of the USA, is seriously damaged. Our foreign policy is suffering because no one trusts him. Our relations to foreign intelligence agencies is also damaged, as they no longer dare to share intelligence with us, since Trump's carelessness with classified information, and direct line to Putin, endangers sources. The moment Trump (and Devin Nunes and Dana Rohrabacher) learns something of a classified nature, the Russians and Chinese also learn it. RS comment on this aspect too.

Bishonen, I definitely like this change to more NPOV language. That was originally from an essay of mine and needed cleaning up. Thanks for doing that.

Otherwise this is looking good. Just think broader and not only about individual false statements. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree on the need more a broader look at the relationship to truth and credibility aspects. I think wherever possible commentary and analysis not about his presidency can be put in the other sections and then it can be added as a third level subsection in presidency. It is the presidency section that needs the most work because it's the most relevant period.

I don't think the Trump family lie works well as a early section. It is completely reasonable for an unscrupulous salesman to sidestep national prejudice during WW2. It is only when Donald Trump decided to continue and embellish it later for no good reason that it becomes relevant.

The chronology I am aiming for here is that Trump's own sightly shady early business history becomes the "early history" section. This is followed by his publishing and media career where he gains confidence in spinning the presentation of the truth to his advantage. He then builds up the rhetoric in his 2016 campaign, which then lunches straight into his presidency, where what he says is obviously of international importance. The majority of the research, commentary, and fact checking focuses on his presidency. This is why I am reluctant to allow many level two sections in the article, as what is really needed is a set of subsections focused on his presidency. Eventually there will be a post presidency section as a sort of conclusion. See the outline below. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

Lead section

• Business career
• In The Art of the Deal
• 2016 presidential campaign
• Presidency
  • Fact checking
  • Credibility
  • Commentary and analysis
• Post-presidency
• See also
  • Notable false claims (spinoff linked in see also)
• References
• External links

Sounds reasonable to me. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

List of Trump's misleading and false statements (SPINOFF article)

This subject (Notable false claims) is a clear candidate for a SPINOFF list article, with a shorter section, with the most notable false claims and a "main" hatnote, left in this main article.

Possible titles, which would also define the scope (which is much narrower than this article):

• List of Trump's misleading and false statements. Lots to choose from. We have very long list articles, and this could be one.
• List of Trump's false statements No misleading statements, just the unequivocally false ones. This could still be quite long.

There should be a section for those falsehoods which have been debunked, but which he keeps repeating. His followers don't even know what he's doing to them.

Keep in mind that he has a record number of "pants on fire" statements to choose from. As he would have it, "no one tops Trump". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• He doesn't have a record ratio of "pants on fire" statements and total false statements. The only reason he has a high ratio of "pants on fire" statements and all statements is because he has a high ratio of false statements and all statements. wumbolo ^^^ 10:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Ratio"? Not sure what you're trying to say. He tops everyone else in shear quantity of false statements, so far that he's in a class of his own. Fact checkers have never seen anyone like him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I tried to say that we shouldn't give his "pants on fire" statements too much weight, or its own article. wumbolo ^^^ 15:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Do you believe that the President's false statements are more or less notable than his true statements? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• My impression is that his "false" statements get way more independent coverage (the "fake news" as he like call news). I've seen only a few cases where the news reports on him saying something true (I tried to find some); maybe less coverage just because it happens less? Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, false statements get more attention than true ones, for obvious reasons, and that applies to everyone, especially notable people. Honesty is a fundamental necessity for the proper functioning of any successful society and for relationships. Those who lack honesty draw unwelcome forms of attention because they violate the norms of civil society. They cannot be trusted, and this damages their relationships. With Trump, it was part of why he was shut out from New York business society and denied loans by banks, an unheard of situation. Whoever heard of a bank that would not loan money to a very wealthy person, let alone all banks boycotting him? So yes, the fact that he far surpasses all others in the dishonesty category draws lots of attention. He's a bit of a curiosity, in that any true statements are liable to be seen as the exception that proves the rule. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Documenting Trump's relationship to truth

Find ways and places to include these:

• In 2016, the "post-truth" label was widely used to describe the deceptive nature of Trump's presidential campaign, including by Brogan Morris writing in Salon, Professor Daniel W. Drezner in The Washington Post, Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian, Chris Cillizza in The Independent, Jeet Heer in The New Republic, James Kirchick in the Los Angeles Times, and by several professors of government and history at Harvard.

• "I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace

• "[W]hat we have never had is a president of the United States who uses lying and untruth as a basic method to promote his policies, his beliefs and his way of approaching the American people and engaging in the world.... Uniquely, we have a president who does not believe in truth." -- Carl Bernstein

• Dana Milbank, columnist for The Washington Post, has described how Trump's concept of truth is unrelated to evidence: "The Trump White House is the ultimate faith-based initiative — and The Donald is the deity. Things aren't true because they can be proven via the scientific method or any other. They are true because Trump believes them to be true."

• "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward." -- David Zurawik

• Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.' -- Tom Toles

• "...what's even more amazing than a President who is averaging -- repeat: averaging -- more than eight untruths a day is this: Trump's penchant for saying false things is exponentially increasing as his presidency wears on." -- Chris Cillizza

• Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann, journalists for NBC News, discussed Trump's "post-truth presidency." After listing a number of Trump's "biggest whoppers since taking office," they noted "what's extraordinary about Trump is the frequency, the sloppiness, and the ease with which to spot the false or unsubstantiated claim." They then wondered "What happens when a president cries wolf so many times? Can anyone believe him — even on matters like wars, national tragedies, and natural disasters?"

• Comedian and Senior Correspondent on The Daily Show, Hasan Minhaj, blasted Trump at the 2017 White House Correspondents' Dinner, calling Trump, who was boycotting the dinner, the "liar in chief", and reminding the press to do their job:

"We are here to talk about the truth. It is 2017, and we are living in the golden age of lying. Now's the time to be a liar, and Donald Trump is liar in chief. And remember, you guys are public enemy no. 1. You are his biggest enemy. Journalists, ISIS, normal-length ties. And somehow, you're the bad guys. That's why you gotta keep your foot on the gas."

Sources

-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Zurawik, Toles, Minhaj: Mostly substance-free ad hominem. Their journalism credentials don't change the fact that those statements are indistinguishable from the kind thrown around by morons all over the internet. Let's try to keep it above that level, please. We don't need it, and it cedes some of the high ground. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Striking them. They're still notable and interesting, especially Minhaj, whose very serious comment (start at 10:46) was seen by millions. Experience demonstrates that Zurawik's wisdom should be our de facto approach to whatever claims Trump makes. Any betting man would do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Treatment of facts

Thread copied from Talk:Donald Trump

There's an endless stream of reliable news articles about Trump's false statements, and about his treatment of facts more generally. E.g.: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-leaders.html When are we going to have more than 5 sentences on this subject? Isn't it past time for a spinoff article? R2 (bleep) 16:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see enough for an article, since you could probably tell the whole story in 15 or 20 sentences. We are not going to enumerate the falsehoods, that wouldn't be encyclopedic and at that level of detail we're limited to just a few sources (notably WaPo). You could probably count the different major viewpoints on the fingers of one hand.
I've long felt this article needs more on the subject per WP:WEIGHT, but we've yet to achieve consensus for that, not for lack of talking about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There's more than enough for a fairly long article about this, his most defining trait (all through his business and public life, and likely private life since childhood). Other matters are populist political positions, not deeply ingrained character traits. The only reason we don't have an article is that it won't be allowed, largely because of attitudes like yours, backed up by those editors here whose top priority is deleting or blocking anything negative about Trump, no matter how well-sourced. The struggle to create the article would be too daunting, so we give up before we even start (okay, I do have a substantial article on the drawing board, with sources...). (I say "we" because I suspect I'm not the only one who sees a need for this article.) The wikilawyering wall is too high to be worth the grief. Until admins start handing out DS sanctions and topic bans, this won't get off the ground. Political protectionism must be stopped firmly.

Stop and think about it. His MOST notable and BEST documented trait, which affects everything he does, and affects America's fate, is absent from the encyclopedia. There is a huge and obvious hole in our coverage. We're failing in our mission here. Any subject this notable should have an article. Do you not see that lack, and the reasons why, as a symptom of a deeper problem? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

what a bunch of bunk there are lots of negative Trump content here on Wikipedia עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not the subject here. This is about his dubious relationship to truth, facts, and reality, IOW habitual lying and deception. Fact checkers have never encountered a more deceptive person, and place him in a category of his own. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• As mentioned above this has been talked to death far to many times. If you have a specific change in mind feel free to purpose it. Otherwise this should be closed. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• I doubt that Trump has any relationship – dubious or otherwise – with truth, facts, or reality but RS do not use "lie", verb or noun. WaPo's latest Fact Checker analysis (Sep 13) counting more than "5000 false or misleading claims" uses "lying" once, and it's not about Trump (One of his campaign aides has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Until they do, we're stuck with false and misleading, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• WP:NOTBLOG - Please propose edits or go make a page, do not just retweet what URL you saw in your mornings feed here. There could be a long amount about facts vs truth vs Truth, misinformation, dismediation, media manufactured controversies, alternative facts, hyperbole vs joking vs spin etcetera -- but it would be SYNTH to do so and definitely not stuff for the Trump biography article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Way to go Mark. I think "clueless" is the word. There are huge amounts of very solid RS about this subject. If you used RS you would have noticed it every single day. That you are clueless about this indicates you don't, or are just being a POV obstructionist running interference for Trump. I'll AGF and trust it's the former. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• User:BullRangifer Not a good response. I stated facts that they'd just put that mornings URL here and asked a question. (Perhaps indignantly demanded a response would better characterize that.) I pointed out the WP guide BLOG, and that of TALK being to discuss actual edits. So I have fact and policy, and that's the way TALK is supposed to proceed. Alternative guidelinesor discussion on application is fine, and implied motives simply do not alter what facts and guidance is. Instead it led to a close and now further oddness ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Mark? When you call "WaPo's latest Fact Checker analysis (Sep 13)" a BLOG, what else was I to think? It sure sounded like a "clueless" response to Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment, and since it was consistent with your political POV and typical comments from you on similar topics, it was natural to assume that's what you meant. Also your comment "long amount about facts vs truth...definitely not stuff for the Trump biography article" ignores the fact that myriad very RS document myriad false statements, and that Trump's dubious relationship to truth is a very notable subject worthy of a large article. You can't just dismiss the subject with a "definitely not stuff for the Trump biography article". (Also, the new article is not an attack page. It is fully within policy to document so notable a subject.) I only have your track record and words here to go by. If I have somehow misunderstood you, I apologize deeply. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer - ah, you were misreading the indent then. No idea what you're talking about, but not related to anything WaPo. My input about R2 post is re simply dumped that mornings URL from NYT into here with a question in demanding tone. Not any oh look at umpteen things easily findable in archives. I'd thought of summarizing exactly WHY NOT is said in the archives, but went with the redirect the general misbehaviour -- do not just dump your mornings URL here, TALK is for edits and NOTBLOG. Can't say the result is good either -- a rush to make a page without having a consensus to do so is fraught, and the created page is run a bit amok. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I do indeed owe you a big apology. I'm very sorry. I'll try to read more carefully next time, and if in doubt, will contact you for clarification first. Fair enough? It's better to prevent misunderstandings than act on them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be good. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I undid the following inappropriate close by PackMecEng: "Closing before this gets out of hand with personal attacks. If there is a purposed edit, open a section on it and we can discuss it. PackMecEng (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)}}" Please don't censor my good faith and specific proposal. R2 (bleep) 16:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not censorship, also no assumption of bad faith was made on your part. You stated no specific proposal, just gave a source and said there should be more. As they say post a specific change x to y or add x. PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I said that we should have a spinoff article on Trump's treatment of facts. That's a specific proposal, and it deserves discussion. To my knowledge there's no "change x to y or add x" requirement for talk page discussions. R2 (bleep) 23:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• This issue is unlikely to be resolved here. I have started a page at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and would encourage people to contribute. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  this is a useful enough source to expand the article, though as with Mandruss I'm dubious if there is enough high level stuff for a full article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

My philosophy here is that as people have managed to write decent articles on Donald Trump on social media and Racial views of Donald Trump there is a good chance that this article is viable. The difficulty is only in the controversy and political sensitivity of the subject. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Frayae for starting this page. A general request to everyone here, please ping me if this article comes up for deletion. I am a "concerned editor" so this would not be canvassing. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Frayæ - sorry,you should have discussed this -- instead it looks like an ATTACK page or POV fork running a bit amok. Aggravated by TALK of using personal essays, media 'hesitancy' (false portrayal phrasing), Did You Known nomination, spinoffs and to change scope (include conspiracy theory and his family lies) and title and Hollywood tape ... people spending time when this just was not focused or conduct stated in advance enough to be ready to go to an article I think. Markbassett (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's one person's opinion. I doubt it's the consensus. You have plenty of support, Frayae. R2 (bleep) 04:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)