Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Trump as source of real fake news[edit]

Several sources have accused Trump of pushing his own real fake news for years,[1][2] 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."[3] 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."[4]

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."[1] 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."[5]

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.[2]

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."[6]

Sources

  1. ^ a b Page, Clarence (February 7, 2017). "Trump's obsession with (his own) 'fake news'". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  2. ^ a b Phillips, Kristine (March 1, 2017). "Trump has been pushing fake news for years, Obama's former press secretary says". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 2, 2017.
  3. ^ Rozsa, Matthew (March 1, 2017). "Donald Trump acts as his own anonymous source in meeting with network anchors". Salon. Retrieved March 3, 2017.
  4. ^ Marcus, Ruth (May 17, 2016). "Donald Trump: Stonewaller, shape-shifter, liar". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
  5. ^ Stelter, Brian (February 6, 2017). "No, President Trump, negative polls are not 'fake news'". CNN Money. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
  6. ^ Dowd, Maureen (March 18, 2017). "Trump, Working-Class Zero". The New York Times. Retrieved March 19, 2017.

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

Discussion about fake news[edit]

Donnel B. Stern[edit]

I believe that this content is non-neutral and adds no value to our article besides piling on. We do not need a non-notable psychologist to tell us how often a politician lies. We already cite fact-checkers (and articles about fact-checkers) for that. There's no dispute among the reliable sources that Trump lies all the time, so it's undue weight to list all of sources that say that, let alone to quote them like this. R2 (bleep) 16:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV clearly states that neither sources nor a specific piece of content must be "neutral" (or notable). It is us (or "we"?), as editors, who must edit in a neutral manner. IOW no censorship or whitewashing. It has been a common complaint here and elsewhere that we don't include enough scholarly content. Well, here's a good one from a subject expert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes when you disagree with me you come up with the weirdest straw man arguments. I never said anything about the neutrality of the source, nor the neutrality of any editors. I also think that the accusations of censorship and whitewashing are more than a little over the top. R2 (bleep) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with R2 that this psychologist's opinion is undue. Besides, the quoted passages do not bring any new information to readers, so what's the point? — JFG talk 18:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh my! I'm so sorry. R2, I wasn't accusing anyone, just stating some basic and general principles I always have in my head when making editorial decisions. That's all. Sorry about any confusion I've created.
Now you both know my opinion, which will no doubt be ignored. C'est la vie. I just had to let you know my thinking. Carry on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to get input from at least one more editor before declaring a consensus. R2 (bleep) 20:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. I will abide by the consensus. I am just one among many here, and I'm used to not "getting my way", and compromise is often a good solution. In fact, a consensus usually leaves everyone a bit uncomfortable. Face-wink.svg -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
You're mistaken. A consensus usually leaves me very happy, and the people who disagree with me very disappointed. Face-smile.svg R2 (bleep) 23:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to know what this article is for, if not to discuss the Trump-lying issue in all its nuance, avoiding original research. If we just say, "Some believe that...", the results are a {{Who}} tag and extended debates about how to fairly summarize what people have said (see perceived:characterized), which are almost completely "editorial judgment" highly subject to personal bias. This guy is saying considerably more than how often a politician lies, and the issue is more complex than the raw numbers. The article survives AfD precisely because of the high degree of agreement in sources, and I don't see how it's a bad thing to actually document that. This content is exactly what we should be including, and we need more of it, not less. What we don't need is coverage of a lot of individual lies. ―Mandruss  00:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Different (and legitimate) problem. Maybe the solution here is to remove the "lies so often" sentence and keep the rest. I can see this psychology expert's conclusions about Trump's motivations as being reliable and adding something of value to the article. It's the "lies so often that some have wondered whether he has poisoned the well" that adds little value to the article. The fact-checkers are more reliable than this guy for "lies so often"; "some have wondered" is weasel wording and possibly rumor; and "poisoned the well" is a political conclusion, not a psychological one. R2 (bleep) 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't follow the objection. We don't require that the author be notable to evaluate a source as reliable. This is a peer reviewed journal published by Taylor & Francis. It's not my field and I don't know if it's a particularly good journal, but it appears reasonably established. An appeal to avoid "piling on" sounds like an argument for a false balance rather than continuing to add the best quality sources to our summary of the body of literature on this subject, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
No one is raising any concern about the reliability of the source. The concern is one of neutrality. There's no false balance issue because there's no dispute among the reliable sources. All of the reliable sources say Trump lies (or makes false statements) a lot. The issue is, should we be listing out and quoting from each and every source that says Trump lies a lot? If there are ten more, should we include a separate paragraph and a quotation from each one? What if there are 100 more? Normally the way to handle this is to just say in wiki voice that Trump lies a lot and cite the best few sources. R2 (bleep) 17:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
But we have an article about this, so we need to go into some depth beyond just saying "he lies a lot" with a few of the best sources. I take your point about the slippery slope of including everyone who has said as much, but if we're going to trim, I wouldn't imagine it would start with the academic literature. Fact-checkers are good, but we need broad coverage, and psychology seems quite relevant. At this point, in the section it's in, it's the third of three paragraphs, which doesn't seem like a big problem? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Would anyone object to me trimming the quote to the following: "We expect politicians to stretch the truth. But Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy. He lies to get whatever he wants, and he clearly feels entirely justified in doing it ... He will say anything to please what gets called 'his base' and to inflate his own sense of importance." The reasoning is that the noteworthiness of Dr. Stern's views comes from his expertise as a psychologist. His published comments about Trump's motivations are tied to that. The omitted portion (about how much Trump lies and about its effect on the political discourse) is the domain of fact checkers and political pundits, not psychologists. R2 (bleep) 15:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    I would support removing the last sentence of Dr. Stern's quote ("He will say anything to please…"), which is purely opinion on Trump's state of mind. — JFG talk 13:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. If the psychologist's opinion is noteworthy for anything, then it's for Trump's state of mind. What I'm saying is that it's not noteworthy for the frequency of Trump's lies, or for its effect on the political discourse. R2 (bleep) 16:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Lies? The news media is starting to describe Trump's 'falsehoods' that way."[edit]

While this has long been true, it's even more common now. We should follow the example of RS. A failure to do so is a violation of NPOV:

  • Lies? The news media is starting to describe Trump's 'falsehoods' that way.[1]

BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources
This is the story we've been waiting for, a reliable story describing media treatment of Trump's falsehoods in a comprehensive way. I think this is a very important source. R2 (bleep) 15:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"How Donald Trump for years used the royal family to gin up publicity for his properties"[edit]

CNN's KFILE identified "five instances where Donald Trump planted stories or spread fake claims about the British royal family joining his properties in order to get publicity..."

  • How Donald Trump for years used the royal family to gin up publicity for his properties[1]

BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ Kaczynski, Andrew; Steck, Em (June 5, 2019). "How Donald Trump for years used the royal family to gin up publicity for his properties". CNN. Retrieved June 6, 2019.

Alleged article bias[edit]

OP has been indefinitely blocked. ―Mandruss  21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No other US president, or US representative or politician, has this kind of separate article created about them. It is amply clear to anybody that this article exists because of political bias among Wikipedia editors, and completely undue weight is being put into it. This is not an encyclopedic article. This is a resource for political activism. It's a long list of minutiae for use as political ammunition by activists and journalists. This kind of personal attack against one particular politician is completely un-encyclopedic, and a disgrace. It doesn't have even a shred of neutrality about it. This is no different from highly biased wikis like conservapedia, which articles likewise consists of nothing more than long lists of minutiae to use as ammunition. This article does not belong to Wikipedia, so just remove it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a resource for political activism, especially not when it's this unilaterally biased towards one side of the political spectrum (the conspicuous lack of similar articles against politicians on that side of the political spectrum is quite telling.) Wopr (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The reason no other politician has a similar article can be found in the lead: "the rate of his falsehoods as unprecedented in politics, and they have become a distinctive part of both his business and political identity" soibangla (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This article does not belong to Wikipedia, so just remove it. We have a process to consider such arguments; you will find it documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This article has already survived an AfD challenge with widespread support, and this is noted near the top of this page.
Use established English Wikipedia processes, and respect the results; otherwise there are other wiki sites you may find more to your liking. ―Mandruss  22:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
And why am I not surprised that biased editors will never acknowledge their own bias, and vote against deleting this kind of article? If you go to, for example, Conservapedia, and suggest they remove some highly biased article, do you think that will ever happen? Of course not. Because they will never work against their own biases and towards neutrality. "Respect the results"? Yeah, respect the results of a cangaroo court, essentially. Wikipedia is extremely politically biased, and most editors are actually unashamed about it. Just be honest and stop making up excuses. Wopr (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This talk page is for improving the article, not for lodging unactionable complaints. R2 (bleep) 18:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Unactionable? The entire article is completely un-encyclopedic, blatantly breaks Wikipedia's own rules on undue weight, and is so obviously politically biased it isn't even funny, and exists merely as a resource for political activism, meticulously (and needlessly) listing irrelevant minutia for political activists and journalists to use as political ammunition. It is no different from the majority of similar articles on conservapedia. The "action" to fix this is very simple: Just remove the page. It does not belong in a website that claims to be encyclopedic and neutral. That's your action. Wopr (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
You have already been informed that the article was put up for deletion in March and the result was snow keep. Move on and accept the consensus, or you’re being disruptive. R2 (bleep) 15:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Highly telling that Wopr chose to ignore the simplest and most immediate response to their complaint - that Trump's lies are unprecedented in the extreme. Mate, if you're unhappy that we're chronicling his orchestrated litany of lies, perhaps you should tell him to stop lying instead of complaining that someone cares he's lying. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't take the bait. We're here to build an encyclopedia article, not to engage in these sorts of political flame wars. R2 (bleep) 16:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)