Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Donnel B. Stern

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. -- 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. 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)

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

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

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

Sources

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

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.

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)

Alleged article bias

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)

"Obama got outsmarted"

This business of Putin supposedly "outsmarting" Obama one way or another when they invaded Crimea, it's been a happening thing for a couple of days, and I think we've heard it before. How many times does the president have to repeat a lie statement lacking any veracity before it gets its little section here? Even the Washington Examiner reported on it--because Shep Smith said it wasn't true. I mean, that's pretty serious. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"Trump allies raise money to target reporters"

To include here or elsewhere?

Trump political allies are attempting to raise at least $2 million to investigate reporters and editors. "Under "Primary Targets," the pitch lists: "CNN, MSNBC, all broadcast networks, NY Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, and ..." & "group claims it will slip damaging information about reporters and editors to "friendly media outlets," such as Breitbart,..."

Seems similar to Nixon's Enemies List. Presumably the article intended BuzzFeed News for "BuzzFeed". X1\ (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Video tweeted by President Donald Trump — September 6, 2019.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

phone call from China, boost markets

Include lie about there being a phone call from China regarding trade talks / Trump tariffs?

Though Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin insisted there had been "communication," aides privately conceded the phone calls Trump described didn't happen they way he said they did. Instead, two officials said Trump was eager to project optimism that might boost markets, and conflated comments from China's vice premier with direct communication from the Chinese.

• A rattled Trump scrambles for victories ahead of election August 28, 2019

X1\ (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump’s false ‘facts’ on the environment

New item for consideration: Trump’s False ‘Facts’ on the Environment. Posted on September 5, 2019 from FactCheck.org. X1\ (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe instead at Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration? X1\ (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

hurricane path

Worthy of inclusion? Examples: [1][2][3][4][5]

X1\ (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Hurricane_Dorian. X1\ (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

667 696 words about the latest kerfluffle-of-the-week? Are you serious? No, it's not worth 66 words, and this is exactly what I've warned would happen if we allowed detail level in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not merely the latest kerfuffle. It demonstrates that no lie is too small for Trump to go the utmost extremes to vindicate the most petty of his grievances, even if it means inflicting perhaps lasting damage to an entirely apolitical scientific agency the nation relies upon every day. This is a BFD. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That has already been demonstrated many times over, starting with inauguration crowd size (if you ignore pre-election stuff). Could your POV be any more blatant? That content won't stand, trust me. Unless it has solid consensus within a week, it will be out or I'll start an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about your opinion of me. soibangla (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To Soibangla's point: The short arc of a Sharpie captures the long arc of Trump, it is indicative. X1\ (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been found noteworthy in mainstream press and comment because of the transparency of the misstatement, Trump's obstinacy in denying his error, his enlistment of government officials in defending same, and in the impact of a falsely illustrated map that conjures memories (or anticipations) of the kind of maps that JFK, e.g. used to illustrate the Cuban missile buildup and other presidents have used to tell the Americans about overseas military engagements. Worthy of some mention. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't impressed with Trump maligning a reputable federal agency (again), but find this issue to be minuscule compared to other obstinations of his.--MONGO (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: - other obstinations of his ... such as...? starship.paint (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Fun word: obstinations. X1\ (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• No enduring notice - Give such thing a 48-hour waiting period and look ... two days later it seems vanished from the press. No big WEIGHT, no enduring mention or real impact -- not really worth a mention, let alone that many words. (Though p.s. I notice a similarity to weather track in debate below, the image here does sort of look like it crosses central Florida and goes to Alabama.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - 48 hours have long passed, this issue started on September 1 [6], and it's still relevant right now. [7]. Also, Markbassett, that video you shared, is of CNN reporting on the hurricane on August 28 (before Labour Day Weekend as the video states). The problem is that Trump on September 1 claimed it was going to hit Alabama. His information was inaccurate because it was not up-to-date. starship.paint (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  To further on Starship.paint's comment, see Brian Stelter rips Trump for 'celebrating his own ignorance' (Published on Sep 8, 2019) for perceived significance. Of further significance: see NOAA staff warned in Sept. 1 directive against contradicting Trump. (Sep 7, 2019) and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is said to have warned employees not to contradict Trump’s Alabama claims. (Sep 8, 2019). Also note: it is illegal to give false weather reports, per Title 18 of the United States Code Chapter 101: Records and Reports § 2074. A White House official said Trump was the one who drew on a NOAA map with a sharpie. X1\ (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  User:Starship.paint Nope, 1 September is before any sharpie. The “sharpie” coverage seems to be 4 Sep to 5 Sep, just a one-day or two-day flap. Just look at the date on cites above. There was a preceding tweet given no great coverage and there may well be latecomer articles out on the edges — but no new developments and stopped being novel or getting prominence at BBC, CBS, CNN, etcetera about four days ago now. No big WEIGHT, no notable impact to him, just not a big thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. The whole drama began on Sunday morning with the Trump tweet, which Birmingham NWS contradicted. Then Trump went after Jon Karl for reporting it. It went on until yesterday, although it remains to be seen if it's actually over. soibangla (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - have you read this article? Just because it was labelled Sharpiegate by some people doesn’t mean everything has to do with a Sharpie. The issue started on September 1 when Trump gave a false weather warning based on August 28 prediction. That is the crux of the issue. September 1: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. September 2: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] September 3 [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] - all before Sharpie appeared on September 4. starship.paint (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've renamed this section from Sharpie-gate to "hurricane path" in attempt to avoid more potential confusion, following tip from the Brian Stelter video (above), to add DUE weight to what is significant (i.e. not Sharpie (marker) brand). Also, this President Trump Displays Altered Hurricane Dorian Forecast Chart Showing It Was Expected to Hit Alabama (published September 4) item is useful since embeds a video with text of Trump saying "I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know," when asked if the weather chart had been altered with a Sharpie. This was mocked, for example at Trump Keeps Lying About Hurricane Dorian and Alabama: A Closer Look (at 6:00 of 10:56) published on Sep 5, 2019. X1\ (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It continues: Commerce Chief Threatened Firings at NOAA After Trump's Dorian Tweets & Ross threatened to fire top NOAA staff after office contradicted Trump on Dorian: report (both published Sept. 9), this news following NOAA's chief scientist will investigate why agency backed Trump over its experts on Dorian, email shows. & NOAA's chief scientist to probe agency's defense of Trump's Dorian claims amid backlash from forecasters (Sept. 9). X1\ (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Mocking continues, newer example Trump's Sharpie Scandal Has Triggered Multiple Investigations: A Closer Look, published on Sept 12, 2019. X1\ (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Maybe it’s you who missed the thread title was “Sharpie-gate” or that all the cites given were about an edited map, on the day after, asking if worry of inclusion... and no other scope. Editing the map still seems a small story, a bit of one day amusement. That you now instead offer a number of other cites and different story, all of which predate the map marking seem implicit agreement that the aspect of Sharpiegate is not apparently not something worth mentioning. But those other cites were not the question of this thread as started by X1. And if you want to discuss that the earlier Dorian map did look headed to Alabama or there was some confusion on that, then it’s not done by the apparently general grab 1 Sep to 3 Sep news bits, as those seem just a three day progression from story about Trump wrong statement, into story 2 Sep stories about what other stories said, into 3 September coverage. There just seems just no continuity there about a topic. Maybe you should start a different thread - with the question of is a sharpie marked map important agreed as “no”? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: - if you can't understand that Sharpie-gate first spawned from the actions of Trump on September 1, ([24] the so-called Sharpiegate scandal from the past week … On September 1, Trump inaccurately claimed on Twitter that Alabama was among the states "most likely to be hit (much) harder than anticipated" by Hurricane Dorian - then it appears that you do not have a fundamental understanding of this incident. I have provided enough sources for you to read and understand. Sharpiegate is essentially: false information from Trump on September 1, and essentially Trump denying he provided false information every day after that, including providing an edited map on September 4. starship.paint (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  User:starship.paint You seem to not have understood my post. The thread as stated was titled “Sharpie-gate” , the complete question statement was “worthy of inclusion?” and five cites solely on the topic of a sharpie marked map. Posting different cites predating that is not responding to the Sharpie thread question of the 4 Sep coverage. The collection of 3 prior days in apparently random Trump coverage without any apparent topic nor continuity of topic seems pointless. Again, if you would like to actually state what you are discussing, I suggest start a new thread. If you want to discuss maps, please note the two already mentioned that - factually - looked like Dorian was heading for Alabama. If you want to discuss connecting things as stated above, you’re going to need a new thread and cites that actually say so rather than OR synth. If you want to stick to whether the 5 cites above are worthy of inclusion, making an argument they belong because they are part of an unsupported OR synth seems arguing in reverse. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - again, you have not understood this incident. The latest link I provided above, Newsweek, September 8 [25] I will provide it again, it explains it for you.

  RE: The collection of 3 prior days in apparently random Trump coverage without any apparent topic nor continuity of topic seems pointless. Newsweek: so-called Sharpiegate scandal from the past week ... On September 1, Trump inaccurately claimed on Twitter that Alabama was among the states "most likely to be hit (much) harder than anticipated" by Hurricane Dorian. In response to the president's warning, the National Weather Service (NWS) in Birmingham, Alabama, tweeted later: "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian. Translation: the Newsweek article is connecting Trump's September 1 comments to Sharpiegate.

  RE: If you want to discuss connecting things as stated above, you’re going to need a new thread and cites that actually say so rather than OR synth. Newsweek, same article: But the president dug in further, insisting that his warning was accurate. In a White House briefing, Trump sat next to a map of the storms' predicted path, including a small additional bubble that appeared to be drawn in with a marker over part of Alabama. Translation: the Newsweek article is connecting Trump's September 1 comments to Trump's September 4 actions. No synthesis.

  RE: factually - looked like Dorian was heading for Alabama - that was a forecast on August 28 [26]. Trump's incorrect statement was September 1. By then, no forecasters were predicting any issue for the southern state [27] (The Independent). Ergo, Trump was wrong.

  ... and that exhausts my patience with you on this topic. If you can't even understand the incident, then your vote lacks merit. starship.paint (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:starship.paint - Again, you are OFFTOPIC. The question specifically titled “Sharpiegate” and asked re five cites about 4 September map marking. And again I said anything else and OR synthesis needs is unrelated to that question or my input. I’m happy that 1 of the 15 apparently random cites got explained — but it’s just unrelated to my input about the 4 September events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Syria (& Turkey) ... new section?

Starter for a new section?: Trump’s False Tweets on Syria by Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore, FactCheck.org posted on October 10, 2019 X1\ (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims over 993 days.

Update? Per [28]. X1\ (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well BR did this and I tweaked it. Is there a "latest tally" elsewhere in this article that needs update? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: my apologies. Thank you both. X1\ (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Blue lie

I wonder whether the expresson "blue lie" is approriate here. It is new to me, so I searched the web. It seems to have started as the lie that police tell a suspect, something like, "Your friend has confessed in order to get a reduced sentence. You might as well confess, too." And then includes a false story about a crime told to the public, in order to trap the guilty. I'm not sure that the there is enough backing for using the expression as descriptive of false statements of Trump. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the recent statement about withdrawing troops from Syria, followed up by military action could be excused as a "blue lie", but I am not aware of any such claim. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

useful? Factba.se

• https://factba.se

via Why President Donald Trump's Twitter typos matter on YouTube CNN Nov 3, 2019

X1\ (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Why was my statement;'Mirabile dictu, now we have the likes of sports-betting sites being prepared to take bets on Trump's "inaccuracies", based on numbers from the Washington Post's Fact Checker!." removed?Ériugena (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record, you put the statement in the article, not on this page. Such mirabile dictu commentary has no place in any Wikipedia article. If you want to suggest that knowledgeable editors add encyclopedic content to the article about said betting, please do so on this page and provide links to a few solid reliable sources to establish weight. Someone will consider it, though there is no guarantee anything will be added. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What are we doing?

Is this really what we want from wikipedia? Another partisan tool? I feel like we had the chance to do something good here and it's being used for character assassinations. Is it possible to hold negative opinions about a political figure without regurgitating them all over the symbol of a free and prosperous internet? 2600:6C42:7400:248:F1BD:5F8E:FF9F:DF40 (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This argument has been brought up before. Please view the result of the argument discussing the article's deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump In short, it's a noteworthy subject that has been covered extensively by numerous verifiable sources in media, business and academia. Savager (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. Where is the page for Veracity of Statements by Bill Clinton? Wikipedians are allowing the site to be used for political propaganda. 2605:6000:1900:8C0:80B4:5FB0:D834:2900 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's almost as if no one has ever lied as prolifically as Trump. — Red XIV ^(talk) 15:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not in recent times, and what other people do or ever have done is irrelevant. You are welcome to start creating an article about Clinton in your personal space and then see if it can become an article. No one denies that politicians and all humans lie, but Trump is in a category of his own. Fact-checkers have never encountered anyone like him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that is the worst Article deletion discussion I've ever seen. Non-admin speedy closure and all. It should really be renominated 12:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1900:8C0:80B4:5FB0:D834:2900 (talk)

No, the subject is extremely notable and documented in myriad RS, but is hidden or denied on unreliable sources. We document what RS say here, and we do not engage in whitewashing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on neutrality (WP:NPOV) is complex and nuanced, but its first paragraph expresses the first 80% or so fairly well.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Thus, if you can provide reliable sources supporting your viewpoint, proportional content summarizing them can be added to the article, emphasis on proportional. You can consult WP:RSP about current consensuses on the reliability of many of the major sources, including links to the discussions that have formed those consensuses.

This is what we tell people every time this comes up, and we never see those reliable sources, strongly suggesting that the article has it about right. Simply crying BIAS!! is not useful at all and is a complete waste of your time and ours. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that sources that traditionally have been reliable and credible have thrown all neutrality and credibility out the window after Trump became President. Yes, Trump exaggerates a lot, he speaks a lot unprepared, without teleprompter or notes, and sometimes he gets things wrong. But these fact-checkers used as sources for this article are all in the pockets of the Democrats, and they are all strongly biased against the President. The vast majority of the "fact-checking" by the Washington Post of Trump's statements, are inaccurate, misrepresenting the facts, presenting jokes as serious statements, and labeling *opinions* that they disagree with as "false". It is pure political propaganda, and now Wikipedia has become another platform for promoting those lies and propaganda. There is a strong overweight of left-leaning moderators on Wikipedia, and with the help of the enormously biased US media, they are able to push through rubbish like this article that should not have any place on any serious encyclopedia, and certainly not Wikipedia. And well, I'm commenting on this, but I do not have any hope of seeing any improvement, Wikipedia is being ruined by political propaganda. This is a fundamental problem on Wikipedia, with almost everything that has to do with U.S. politics, not just this article. NeutralCheck (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So, we have dozens of institutions consisting altogether of tens of thousands of people whose careers depended on reliably presenting information on one side... and on the other side an individual who (before entering political office) took payments for completely worthless degrees, used junk bonds to fund a casino (that bankrupted, no less!), and was sued by investors and even the SEC for fraud... And the latter individual is totally the more trustworthy of the two groups? Yeah, that's totally a reasonable conclusion and not partisan gullibility on your part at all. And it's totally not a delusional conspiracy theory to assume that it's because those dozens of institutions consisting of tens of thousands of people whose careers depended on reliable information decided to turn on an individual consistently gets things wrong in his favor, no matter how much he's corrected. Yes, the problem lies in moderators who only stick to what these sources by those large institutions who survive based on their accuracy, instead of one person who is naively upset that we don't just repeat their favorite propaganda verbatim. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: see here. X1\ (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy. Ever heard of herd mentality? You're exactly the type of person he was referring to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knglerxt (talk • contribs)

Again, you've got thousands of people whose job is presenting reliable information against an individual with a history of fraudulent activities, and the latter is the more trustworthy of the two? See Gullibility. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody gets to nullify the power of the press – a completely essential element of any democracy – by calling any and all criticism "fake news" and ignoring the substance of the criticism. When we start allowing that we can kiss democracy goodbye. Many of us in the U.S. are praying that it is not already too late. To claim that Wikipedia should ignore its policies because sources are biased (prove it) is to engage in exactly the same disingenuous and dangerous tactic. There is thankfully no basis for that kind of reasoning in Wikipedia's principles and policies, period, and there is a good reason why such claims are routinely ignored by experienced Wikipedia editors. I will now otherwise ignore this one from two or three users with no visible history of editing experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

sortable table?

It's been brought up off-wiki that maybe the examples would be better presented as a sortable table. I think I like that idea but it would be a considerable amount of work and I probably won't be the one doing it so ...long story short: what does everyone think of that concept? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Sorry, I'm drawing a blank. What examples are you referring to? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The "Specific topics" section. And just to be clear, I haven't figured out how one would do this, I thought I'd just float the idea and see if there is any interest in trying it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear why those off-wiki (and/or you) think this might be an improvement. (BTW I continue to oppose anything about specific cases in this article, believing it should be limited to higher-level treatment of the overall issue.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Where IS the neutrality?

Thousands of false/misleading statements during his presidency? They aren't even verified to be false! FIX it! 81.98.82.229 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide RS that counter the RS we use in this article. The evaluated statements are indeed false or misleading. Trump is the exceptional person who rarely speaks the truth, and then only when it serves him well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/6F0F4CF6-6A98-11E9-ACD3-B8209797A16B

Well, at least one author found them to be inflating the numbers. Slywriter (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

At long last, an actual source (see #What are we doing?, above). In my opinion that merits the addition of a sentence countering WaPo's fact-checking (I'm feeling mentally lazy, but feel to propose one and I'll likely support it or suggest improvement).

Given the overwhelming and unprecedented reliable-source coverage of Trump's strained relationship with the truth, it doesn't merit more than that one sentence. Even if that piece is correct and WaPo inflates by 25%, and we correct for that, Trump has made 12,330 false and misleading claims in 1,055 days, and I would submit that there is little meaningful difference between 12,330 and 15,413. "Mom you're treating me unfairly! I didn't fib 20 times last month – it was only 16!" ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL! It's a good thing there are other fact-checkers who also keep track of these things. At least Goldstein does share this: "It’s also important to stress, that the Washington Post exaggerating the truth about Trump is not to say that the president isn’t uniquely untruthful. Even if you accept the 25% figure I come up with, and give another 5%-to-10% leeway for comments pretty close or almost true, Trump does spout untruths on a daily basis, sometimes wildly at odds with the facts." -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And, point done. Wikipedia is left wing to the fullest extent and you cannot change my mind. SamRathbone (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

SamRathbone, I strongly encourage you to present evidence to counter the left-wing bias you perceive, in the form of reliable sources showing Trump is overwhelmingly honest. soibangla (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla mate, back to you in the studio. On the bias, um, yeah, maybe the last few edits on this thread? Take a look from a right wing perspective and see how the bias allegations could indeed be justified. SamRathbone (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

SamRathbone, maybe you should consider the frustration many editors experience from repeatedly seeing others vehemently asserting on Talk pages that an article is totally biased and unfair but not making the slightest effort to demonstrate that by editing the article. This whole thread began as nothing more than a vague rant about the unfairness of it all. soibangla (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I edited the article about a month ago. Oh, what happened? Not quite come not quite come... Ah yes. Thats it. It got reverted. Shocker😮😮. SamRathbone (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean, these two? No shocker, they violated WP:NPOV and were reverted. Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, I was about to object to demonstrate that by editing the article, which should have been "demonstrate that by editing the article in conformance with Wikipedia's content policies". Don't like Wikipedia's policies? Find a different encyclopedia more to your liking. And, no, you don't get to link to WP:NPOV and say "This isn't neutral! Why? Because I say so!". Sorry but it just ain't so easy, just as being a U.S. president ain't so easy as to dismiss any and all press criticism, with a wave of the hand, as fake news. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. The guy before Mandruss said that my edits were not neutrally composed. In the words of an MP whose name I have forgot, what are you playing at? What are you doing? You are not children in a playground, you are constructive Wikipedians! And Mandruss, I was once blocked for socking. The reason I stay on this site is to make up for the past, to repay this community no matter how idiotic I think it can be. So no, I'm not going to find another site. End of. Happy Saturday! I don't make the rules, I know. But I can still dispute them. SamRathbone (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Great. Want to repay the community? In my view, which admittedly may be a minority view, the project would benefit from more editors who can represent a pro-Trump viewpoint within the system and within policy, rather than just (1) arm-waving about the out-of-control liberal bias and (2) saying that we should ignore hundreds of reliable sources because we think they're unfairly biased against Trump, thereby turning NPOV policy upside down. I won't ping him but user JFG is a good model for that in my opinion, and there are others. Further, there are editors who strongly oppose Trump in their real lives but work hard to check that at the door when editing Wikipedia, with some success in that regard; I think they (we?) deserve a bit of credit for that. Take an objective look at Donald Trump, if that's possible, and ask yourself what negative things it could say but doesn't; that's no accident, and JFG didn't do it alone.

It has been 30 hours since I called for a proposal for a sentence to counter WaPo's fact-checking per the source above, but no proposal has been forthcoming. I think it would be more constructive for you to provide such a proposal than to complain about widespread bias – "and you cannot change my mind" – in a venue where it can't possibly have any beneficial effect. That pretty much sums up the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your advice onboard. SamRathbone (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Sam, actually, you do make the rules. But coming back to the point at hand, perhaps this will make you feel better, and I mean this sincerely: let's say that you are correct, and the vast majority of media are biased against DJT. What should be one's attitude as an editor at this article, faced with this knowledge? Per the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia (especially WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:DUE) you don't do anything special here at all; you merely do what you do at any article here, namely, to faithfully represent what the independent, secondary, reliable sources have to say on the topic. If the vast majority of the reliable sources are all, or mostly, biased in some direction, then a properly written Wikipedia article which strictly follows policy will be biased in the same direction, no more, and no less, than the reliable sources. Your task as an editor, and mine, is to be sure that nothing of our own opinion leaks into the article (even if we know we are right), and that everything on the page faithfully represents those nasty, reliable press articles and books. The reason for this, goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. One thing it is not, is an advocacy instrument, or a place to publish one's one's own ideas. As an encyclopedia, we are bound to follow, not lead. If it will take 20 or 50 years for published books, journals, and the press to catch up with how biased the press was back in the ol', twenty-teens, well then, Wikipedia will have to wait 21 or 51 years to have unbiased articles about the subject. That's just the way it goes, with an encyclopedia.

Another way to look at this, is that you are asking the wrong question about Wikipedia articles, or measuring the articles by the wrong yardstick, namely, that of "bias" and "accuracy". It's absolutely fair and right to judge the press itself about what it publishes about DJT; did WaPo and NYT lie or completely skew what DJT said about something? Slam them in a letter to the editor or on your blog; criticize them in Medium or Reddit. But you cannot criticize a third party source like Wikipedia, for faithfully representing the lies told by reliable sources such as those, because Wikipedia is not about Truth with a capital T; it's about distilling the sources that are out there, whether they be accurate or not. That is the definition of what we as editors, do here at this third party encyclopedia. There are a couple of topic areas here where I edit against my own core beliefs, because the reliable sources don't agree with my convictions (read, biases) about a topic. This both rankles a bit, and I prefer not to do it too often, but it's also a salutary exercise, and not only is it good for the encyclopedia, it's good for me as a person, and I heartily recommend it.

I have a challenge for you, let's see if you can accept it: go find a reliable mainstream source that has documented some supposed "lie" of DJT, but isn't in the article, yet (I mean, the source isn't). Find one you personally disagree with, that nevertheless seems to have broad mainstream support. Now make a citation for it, and add it to the article. After going into the corner to vomit, feel free to come back here and yell, "Eureka", or "Gag me", or whatever comes to mind. If that makes you feel violated, or dirty, you'll get over it. Think about being a reporter in a war zone, where some awful stuff is going on: you don't have to approve of it, to write down or film what is happening, and show it to your readers. (A better analogy, is to sit at home, summarizing what the war reporters are saying, without editorializing or offering any interpretation on it, even if you think they've got it all wrong because they're focusing on one, tiny aspect and missing the big story.) Don't worry—the one tiny bit you added to the article contrary to your own feelings about the subject, is not going to cause a groundswell of antipathy for DJT. Now, measure your own reaction: if you felt good about it, congratulations! You're an unbiased editor. To the extent that the exercise revolted you, or if you were not able to do it at all, you might want to examine whether you are biased or not in this topic area, and whether it affects your ability to edit the article with proper adherence to policy and guidelines. Note: bias in this sense, does *not* mean that you are very-pro, or very-con DJT or anything else; it just means that you have a gut reaction in favor of, or against, adding some material to an article that is clearly supported by reliable sources. If you try this exercise, and find that you are completely unable to do it, you might want to consider simply not editing in topic areas where you find this to be a difficult or impossible exercise. If you thought about it in your mind while reading this before even trying it out, and found the very idea of it revolting, it's probably a good indicator you should stay away from this article.

Again: our role here as editors is pretty simple: read, digest, and understand what the reliable sources are saying about a topic, and then summarize those ideas here in a neutral way, with due consideration for majority and minority viewpoints (ignoring tiny minorities). That's it. That's all we do in this article, and every article. If you happen to be a recent college grad, or if the ideals of scholarship are still fresh in your mind, where a PhD or a Master's thesis requires you to write something original, and the more original and striking it is, the higher marks and notice you're likely to receive, remember that here, it is the exact opposite: anything original here will be struck down, and cut out with a scalpel. We're more like the middle schoolers, or average-to-good high school student, reading the sources, and parroting what they said, in our own words. If it's too hard for you to do that here at this article, I understand; there are a couple of articles that just make me shake my head, and I don't go there. That's your task as a good editor: find the articles where you can help out, and avoid the ones that make you edit poorly because you're too close to the topic. I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC) P.S., I was serious about the "exercise"; do you want to try it? If so, awesome! If not, that's cool; it's a big encyclopedia out there.

Long thread; love it! Dedication. Will take up your challenge! SamRathbone (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(moved from RCraig09's talk page)
As much as I know it's Trump himself that's calling these sources out as partisan, opinion pages on the WP, the NYT, and even a few mainstream television networks clearly show partisanship. I think this complies with WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL; the first one because even though voices of certain editors are their own opinions, when there's a line of best fit there definitely will be bias, and b); even independent sources [29] <--- like shown there have callouts to partisanship. I request that I can revert this; pls reply asap. SamRathbone (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@SamRathbone: Observations like that expressed in the Marketwatch article might conceivably find a place in another article (if there were a Fact-checker article, or maybe in The Washington Post article or Mainstream media), but a politician or one publication (Marketwatch) assailing another publication (WashPost) definitely does not supersede Wikipedia's established standards for reliable sources (WP:RS). Further, what you are trying to do here—because you personally believe opinion pages "clearly show partisanship"—is a step removed from determining what's permissible in this article, so wp:synthesis and wp:original aren't really applicable to this issue in any event. If you want to tackle a particular news source in general, you can (I think) argue at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources though I doubt you'll get to first base there when it comes to major news sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Is there a "neutrality disputed" template? SamRathbone (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Before one of these "badge of shame" templates can be put atop an article, there must exist a serious and specific issue of imbalance about what reliable sources say about the article's topic: the veracity of Trump's statements — not a general assertion that wp:reliable sources aren't reliable. You must understand the difference. Without reliably sourced content to controvert the article's current content, plus a convincing argument presented on this Talk Page that such countervailing content isn't fairly represented in the article, such a template would be inappropriate and would be immediately removed. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

But if there is a dispute about how neutral the article is, plus the comments in the early stages of this thread don't exactly nullify my point, then that template should be there. Good day sir, 81.98.82.229 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Significantly, the foregoing dispute is about the sources themselves, not directly about unfair weighting or representation of the sources in this WP article:

Source1 (Marketwatch) ---> Source2 (WashPost) ---> WP Article

Your dispute is about Source2, not about the WP Article. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, is there one for "Sources may not be neutral"? 81.98.82.229 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that I know of. If such a template were to exist, the next step would be... whether or not Source1 is a reliable and neutral judge of Source2... and whether Source0 is a reliable and neutral judge of Source1, ... and so forth, leading to endless arguments.

Basically the Wikipedia community makes underlying assessments about the reliability and neutrality of sources, the assessments taking place "in the background" (not within particular articles). WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is the closest thing I know of, that judges the neutrality of sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump says it does not matter whether he lies to us

• Trump says it does not matter whether he lies to us

cites

• Trump says 'it doesn't really matter' if Iranian general posed an imminent threat

BullRangifer (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

add factoid? . . . Veracity graphic/chart

Trump made 67 false claims last week, with 27 of them related to the impeachment inquiry: [30]. X1\ (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I plan to supplement the existing fact-check charts File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png as soon as either the Washington Post updates its statistics, or after the former Toronto Star fact-checker (now at CNN) updates his statistics. One week's statistic is not notable: 67 false claims is not unusual for this president. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll be updating the chart within 24 hours. The Washington Post just updated its Trump Claims Database. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RCraig09, thanks for maintaining this. Keep up the good work! -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: The journalist who fact-checked for The Toronto Star before moving to CNN, has just released a fact-check chart for roughly the last half of 2019. I'll be updating the lede's graphic File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png in the next couple of days (a non-trivial task). I announce this so that no one spends time needlessly duplicating effort on this project. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Done already. I just couldn't wait! —RCraig09 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: Chart now includes Washington Post data just announced for December 2019. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Fact check: 65 ways Trump has been dishonest about Ukraine and impeachment

Fact check: 65 ways Trump has been dishonest about Ukraine and impeachment

BullRangifer (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

References

emails released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, add update here (too?)?

Regarding Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy:

• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/sharpiegate-fake-hurricane-map-emails
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/02/01/new-emails-show-how-president-trump-roiled-noaa-during-hurricane-dorian
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/help-newly-released-noaa-emails-show-uproar-over-trump-s-n1128471

X1\ (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

add mental health question of Trump?

Example, among many examples:

• President Trump Congratulates 'The Great State of Kansas' After Chiefs Super Bowl Victory regarding Super Bowl LIV and Missouri's Kansas City Chiefs.

While remembering the "Goldwater rule", maybe similar counter-argument as Ronald Reagan § Alzheimer's disease and Iran–Contra affair, i.e. dementia (insanity defense relating to crimes) / mental health, regarding self-perceived "veracity". X1\ (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I would generally say no, just based on concensus at the main article.[31] PackMecEng (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The Lies Aren’t Meant to Be Consistent, add?

• The Lies Aren’t Meant to Be Consistent; The goal is merely to disrupt the truth from being exposed. Nancy LeTourneau Washington Monthly February 18, 2020

X1\ (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

SARS-2, add ?

Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic examples (there are, of course, more):

Trump blamed Wall Street’s meltdown on the “Fake News Media” and the Democrats for trying to “inflame the CoronaVirus situation.” Trump also tried to cast the decline in oil prices in positive terms, tweeting: “Good for the consumer, gasoline prices coming down!” Trump added: “Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on.”

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/09/markets-economy-coronavirus/#link-PKBLYOVI2JFBJDFVJJGMWITGGU
• https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/09/trump-attacks-biden-and-media-as-markets-tank-coronavirus-spreads.html

The Trump administration claimed that the coronavirus outbreak was “contained” even as the number of U.S. cases have surpassed 250, more than double since Monday earlier in that week, and test kits remain in short supply. Kellyanne Conway told reporters that “It is being contained,” challenging a reporter who suggested it isn’t. “Are you a doctor aware of it not being contained?” Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, echoed Conway, saying the outbreak “looks relatively contained.”

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-06/trump-aides-say-virus-is-contained-while-u-s-count-grows
• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/how-many-americans-have-been-tested-coronavirus/607597/
• https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-06/chaos-at-hospitals-due-to-shortage-of-coronavirus-tests
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/dozens-of-passengers-on-a-stranded-cruise-ship-are-infected-by-coronavirus-that-number-could-soon-grow/2020/03/06/17cf1974-5fdb-11ea-b014-4fafa866bb81_story.html

While on Fox News, Trump contradicted the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that the global mortality rate for SARS-2 coronavirus is 3.4%, calling it “a false number.” While the WHO’s estimate is likely to change as more is learned about the virus, Trump said his “hunch” is that the real figure “way under 1%.” The 3.4% figure was reached using the latest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths. Trump also speculated that “thousands or hundreds of thousands” of people might have recovered “by, you know, sitting around and even going to work — some of them go to work but they get better.”

• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/trump-coronavirus-scientists-on-edge-122121
• https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-claim-death-rate-coronavirus-word-health-organization-2020-3

Trump blamed Barack Obama for making it harder for his administration to respond to the coronavirus outbreak. While it’s not entirely clear what “decision” Trump was referring to, he called it “very detrimental” and claimed that it hampered his ability to enact widespread testing for the virus. Health experts and government officials during Obama’s presidency, however, said they were unaware of any policy or rule that would have affected the way the Food and Drug Administration approves tests related to the current crisis.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-obama.html

Trump called the coronavirus the Democrats’ “new hoax” and accused them of “politicizing” the deadly virus, which has now spread to China, Japan, South Korea, Iran, Italy and the U.S. Trump also blamed the press for acting hysterically about the virus, downplaying its dangers while he compared it to the flu. Experts say that the coronavirus is significantly more contagious than the flu and a vaccine is at least a year to 18 months away. Trump, however, told a a group of drug company executives at the White House to “get it done” on vaccines and antivirals to combat the coronavirus. Trump also authorized new travel restrictions after confirmation of the first coronavirus death in the U.S., saying there’s “no reason to panic” but additional cases in America were “likely.”

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721
• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/28/trump-south-carolina-rally-coronavirus-118269
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/politics/trump-coronavirus-outbreak/
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/joe-biden-trump-coronavirus-hoax-claim
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-02/trump-to-visit-u-s-health-agencies-as-coronavirus-deaths-mount

X1\ (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Partially  Done; since have items relating to (lack of) airtight containment and "hunch" vs. WHO. X1\ (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Good summary article, which relates directly to veracity (avoids WP:NOR issues, including WP:SYNTHESIS): "Fact check: A list of 28 ways Trump and his team have been dishonest about the coronavirus" <ref name=CNNcoronaFact_20200311>{{cite news |last1=Dale |first1=Daniel |last2=Subramaniam |first2=Tara |title=Fact check: A list of 28 ways Trump and his team have been dishonest about the coronavirus |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/politics/fact-check-trump-administration-coronavirus-28-dishonest/index.html |agency=CNN |date=March 11, 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200311214647/https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/politics/fact-check-trump-administration-coronavirus-28-dishonest/index.html |archivedate=March 11, 2020}}</ref> —RCraig09 (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done X1\ (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

X1\, Yes I strongly support the addition of this content to the article. The misinformation publicized by Trump over the virus ("a Dem-organized plot", danger to public, testing, etc.,) has been covered extensively by RS. Mgasparin (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, support inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• I support the inclusion of this material. I've been watching this page for some time and it is relevant to the article. Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

And it continues: Reading from a prepared script, Trump incorrectly described his own policy, saying that the travel restrictions would impact a “tremendous amount” of trade and cargo. The White House later clarified that the ban would not include cargo. Trump urged Americans to heed the CDC’s guidelines for Americans to protect themselves and others from the spread of the virus – instructions he has repeatedly contradicted, ignored, or downplayed over the last few weeks – and claimed the government was moving “very quickly” to fix a chronic shortage of coronavirus test kits (see COVID-19 testing). Trump, however, provided no specifics about how many Americans would be able to be tested, and when and where those tests could occur.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/besieged-trump-announces-drastic-measures-in-effort-to-stem-coronavirus-pandemic/2020/03/11/e99983a4-63dc-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-address.html
• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/11/trump-oval-office-coronavirus-address-126121
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/politics/coronavirus-trump-foreign-virus/
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-announces-travel-europe-restricted-amid-coronavirus-threat/story?id=69543646
• https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/trump-mistakenly-announces-ban-travel-imports-europe-backtracks/

So much, so fast, and will likely continue; so, what to choose? X1\ (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

How ironic: Mike Pence said people are using “irresponsible rhetoric” to downplay the seriousness of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak. On Monday, Trump said the “fake news media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything to inflame the coronavirus situation.”

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/pence-says-there-s-been-irresponsible-rhetoric-people-downplaying-coronavirus-n1156371

X1\ (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Including COVID-19 testing  Not done yet. X1\ (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Travel restrictions  Not done yet. X1\ (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Significant: repeated deception regarding the Trump Administration's disbanding of the US Pandemic Response Team headed by Rear Adm. R. Timothy Ziemer in 2018.  Done X1\ (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Include related Travel restrictions related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic link? X1\ (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• ? Not sure what edits you are being looked at from this but: the first two items here are arguably POV-correct, the next two are factually correct for the date on cites, etcetera. Seems often presuming an unstated falsehood when there isn't one or isn't clear that there is one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump made his first public comments about the coronavirus on Jan. 22, saying “we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” List of Trump’s attempts to downplay the coronavirus threat, per:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/opinion/trump-coronavirus.html

X1\ (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll add the NY Times "List" article to content within the hour (an FYI to avoid duplication of effort). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

37% of Americans say they have trust in what Trump says about the crisis, while 60% say they don’t trust what he’s saying.

• Domenico Montanaro Poll: Americans Don't Trust What They're Hearing From Trump On Coronavirus March 17, 2020 NPR.org

X1\ (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

42% of Americans trust Trump to protect the country from the coronavirus, compared to the CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (75%), National Institutes of Health (68%), and the World Health Organization (66%).

• https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-axios-surveymonkey-poll-6cec0f29-bff2-4d1e-bcc8-811e7981f0fe.html

X1\ (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

—"Calendar of Shame": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxH5h3-xKJs . . . Not a reliable source itself (I saw it on "Occupy Democrats" on Facebook), but it's an instructive overview video if you want to be more systematic about presenting the story. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

RCraig09, it is cited in this RS: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/18/21184945/trump-coronavirus-comments-then-versus-now. Here is the original source: https://therecount.com/watch/trump-coronavirus-calendar/2645515793 It's also cited here: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/03/the-president-and-the-pandemic/ I first saw it on either CNN, ABC, or MSNBC. -- Valjean (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Snopes a reliable source?

I noticed this article has several sources from Snopes.com. I find it quite staggering if Snopes is considered a reliable source, because I have found it, in my experience, to be a systematically misleading outlet, certainly on some issues. Asgrrr (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Snopes is considered a reliable fact-checking website. It is consistently in agreement with all the other major fact-checkers, such as PolitiFact, FactCheck, and Washington Post. If you think they are wrong about an issue, you should probably change your mind about that issue and stop believing the sources which push the views you find attractive. -- Valjean (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the issue involves a lack of understanding/confusion of what constitutes facts, evidence, reliable sources by some people, arguably far more prevalent in conservative political circles, but certainly not exclusively to them. An example of this is the term, "theory." The word theory is used in general discourse. However, in scientific and academic fields (and academia in general), the word theory has a very specific meaning. Used colloquially, the word theory is primarily pejorative, meant to cast skepticism regarding the credibility, implying that it is spurious, the result of an opinion that was arrived at without evidence. In science, gravity is a theory, one that can be easily and routinely tested by simply dropping something to the ground, but classified as a theory nonetheless. This does not prevent those who do not "believe" in evolution, for example, to say, "well, its just a theory." They are using the colloquial understanding of the word theory to suggest that evolution is somehow less credible than the theory of gravity, which it is not. (Or they know and understand all of this and are just throwing things at the wall and seeing if something will stick.) The theory of evolution is harder to instantly and simply demonstrate compared to the theory of gravity however. Similarly, when wikidpedia is said to be "leftest" or is biased against right-wing beliefs and ideas, conservatively-inclined persons may be misunderstanding various qualities of the information promoted by Wikipedia, including the rules around credible sources. It can seem, from their perspective, that the differences between the theory of creation and the theory of evolution is simply one of opinion and belief and not based on consistent applications of scientific criteria used to critically weigh differences of various ideas based on repeatable, credible, peer-reviewed evidence typically presented in a manner that includes the possibility of a null hypothesis conclusion. The same or similar phenomenon may be taking place with the writer above who doesn't feel that snopes.com is a reliable source. Not sure if this is helpful or not, but here it is.... - S — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShannonMcCoven (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be good to do a RfC Snopes (along with FactCheck.org) at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so it can be added to WP:RSPSOURCES. X1\ (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

more Trump lies on SARS-2 federal response, add?

More attempts to intimidate Yamiche Alcindor with lies:

From

• David Smith ‘That's a nasty, snarky question’: Trump’s media assault rages on in midst of coronavirus crisis; Donald Trump’s intemperate outbursts may be a sign of a leader cracking under the pressure, if it weren’t for the authoritarian tone theguardian.com April 1, 2020

Yamiche Alcindor of PBS NewsHour put the US president’s own words to him. “You’ve said repeatedly that you think that some of the equipment that governors are requesting, they don’t actually need. You said New York might need –” Trump interrupted twice: “I didn’t say that.” Alcindor stood her ground: “You said it on Sean Hannity’s, Fox News.” [on Thursday] Then Trump lied: “I didn’t say – come on. Come on.”

X1\ (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Revisionism (thinking of Ministry of Truth & attempt at memory holing):

• Brian Stelter, Journalists challenge Trump's 'revisionist history' regarding coronavirus response CNN March 31
• Trump Pretends He Never Compared Coronavirus to the Flu on YouTube April 1, 2020 Late Night with Seth Meyers = with some humor

X1\ (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

From Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 6 § Governors status, add here or ... ?, related to Alcindor interaction:

• Daniel Dale and Tara Subramaniam Fact check: Trump falsely denies saying two things he said last week March 30, 2020 CNN

X1\ (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Major lie Missing: Trump lied, claiming to have graduated ‘first in his class'.

"Trump has repeatedly claimed (and allowed media outlets to report on his behalf) that he graduated ‘first in his class’ from the Wharton School at Penn. In fact, he wasn’t close—Trump graduated without honors. Some schools base honors on GPA percentile, but Wharton bases them simply on GPA, which means that in order to graduate without honors, his GPA had to have been less than a 3.40—or else that he was sanctioned for academic integrity or student conduct violations. What’s interesting about this is that it’s not the GPA itself, but the lie, that Trump may have been concerned about. Trump’s college GPA wasn’t a big deal until he made it a big deal by speculating about Obama’s GPA, lying about his own records and threatening his schools if they released them." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Sorry, but that's not a reliable source. See WP:FORBES. If you can find some reliable sources that support your proposal, we can work on including in the article. - MrX 🖋 12:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Had no idea. Author identified as a "Senior Contributor". Wait, WP:FORBES doesn't have consensus.... But we aren't citing anything else by author... Oh, and there's the discussion history linked from there, example.... OK. I guess that's why other sources I've seen just have the parenthetical. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What about "The president has claimed he graduated first in his class at Wharton, which is — prepare yourself for a shock — an easily documented lie." from the New York Times! More complicated... It cites the above article. And WP:RS/P for the Times refers us to WP:RSOPINION. I'll see what else I can find.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Just this: [His] --50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we can safely and should say that the Times reported, "The president has claimed he graduated first in his class at Wharton." It's the Times. They are stating it as a fact. We report what RS say.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncontested. So: Under a new "==Education==" section header:

“The president has claimed he graduated first in his class at Wharton, which is — prepare yourself for a shock — an easily documented lie. He graduated without honors,” wrote the New York Times’ Contributing Opinion Writer Jennifer Finney Boylan

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: That is largely opinion. Also, please make sure to establish consensus before using the {{editprotected}} template. Aasim 01:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

False. (Your statement lacks veracity, pun!

What part of

Uncontested

do you not understand? Thwack!

{{edit request}} Under a new "==Education==" section header:

In 2019, the New York Times’ Contributing Opinion Writer Jennifer Finney Boylan wrote, “The president has claimed he graduated first in his class at Wharton, which is — prepare yourself for a shock — an easily documented lie. He graduated without honors,”

If you have reliable sources containing alternate views about the accusations, feel free to put them here for further discussion, but Neutral point of view does not mean creating a false balance.

some aas: It's not my opinion that the New York Times published that statement. It's a fact. It reported that. My source proves it. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Many independent reliable sources say he was not valedictorian; since that's what the sources say, that's what Wikipedia says.

Obviously you're not going to add it, but don't provide a non-answer again or I'll thwack you again.50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(not) “number one on Facebook”, add?

Trump boasted that he is now “number one on Facebook” (in fact, Barack Obama has nearly 25 million more followers).

• Matthew Yglesias America has no federal response to this crisis; Trump is playing president on television instead of doing the job. April 3, 2020 Vox.com

via

• Trump Brags About Facebook Ranking During Coronavirus Press Conference on YouTube April 3, 2020 Late Night with Seth Meyers = with some humor

X1\ (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Too minor of an incident. Mgasparin (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

disinformation

We really should consider renaming this article or at least making a new section on disinformation and add things like these, of which at least these should also be added to the main article on Trump:

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/28/time-magazinetrump-fake-covers-golf-clubs
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42121402

--Espoo (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the current title, it would be more constructive if you could at least propose an alternative. Edwardx (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Administration talking points: McEnany's first briefing, misleads within 15 minutes of "never", add?

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany held the first daily news briefing in more than a year. "I will never lie to you,” McEnany promised reporters. "You have my word on that."

Fifteen minutes "later, she raised the subject of Michael Flynn, which no one had asked about, and offered a false claim that an FBI note "says, quote, we need to get Flynn to lie, quote, and get him fired." The FBI note, however, is phrased as a question of possible ways of confronting Flynn – not a plan of action: "What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" McEnany is Trump’s fourth press secretary.

And McEnany incorrectly stated, per a WH talking point, the Mueller probe is "the complete and total exoneration of President Trump." X1\ (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Comments

As a financial economist, I am concerned about some of the statements made in this article about Trump’s claims on the economy. While my intention is not to defend Trump, I don’t believe that his economic statements cited in the Wikipedia quote below can corrected be labeled “falsehoods.” It should be noted that those making such claims are journalists or activists, not expert economists. Specifically, I have problems with the following sentence:

“As of March 2019, Trump's most repeated falsehoods, each repeated during his presidency more than a hundred times, were that a U.S. trade deficit would be a "loss" for the country, that his tax cuts were the largest in American history, that the economy was the strongest ever during his administration, ...”

I believe the following four paragraphs could be added to make the article more neutral:

“Concerning the claims that Trump has promoted hundreds of falsehoods concerning the economy, one must be circumspect. First, it should be noted that those making such claims are generally journalists, not expert economists. Further, those making such claims appear to hold political views diametrically opposed to Trump.

“Turning to the economic falsehood claims directly, first consider his statements concerning the trade deficit. A trade deficit with another country leads directly to a loss in GNP. Generally economists look at GNP (and its sister GDP) as a measure of the material well-being of a people. Thus, from an economic point of view, a trade deficit is a loss, so Trump’s statement is hardly a falsehood.

“Whether Trump’s claim for his tax cuts are correct or not depend upon how one chooses to measure those cuts. Politicians most frequently use the actual size of an economic variable to promote or detract from a particular policy, just as Trump has done in his claim. But, one could also look at the number as a percentage of GDP (or GNP). Neither measure is “right” or “wrong.” It all depends upon one’s purpose and how the number is to be used. Thus, Trump’s claim is not a falsehood.

“Finally, Trump has often claimed that his economy was the strongest ever (before the COVID_19 pandemic). His claim rests heavily on the unemployment rate in his term - specifically the record low unemployment rates for African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians. Low unemployment is a primary measure of economic strength and well-being; a view supported by almost all economists, the Federal Reserve, international economic institutions, and even most of Trump’s political adversaries. “

Thanks for considering my comments. Markpittsusa (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I might suggest you read (or re-read) WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles do not have to be bias-free or neutral, but the MUST reflect the bias exemplified in the reliable sources (which usually try to mimizie their bias anyway). Also, quality journalism (such as the articles that come out of the NYT or WaPo) requires that the journalist consult with an expert source (such as a professional economist). While I certainly believe that your suggestions can be incorporated into the article, I don't believe that the article is unduly biased one way or another. Mgasparin (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

missing month, add here?

From edits removed from 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States:

During his April 13 briefing, Trump screened a compilation of news clips to counter claims that he had taken little effort to control the early spread of COVID-19. The video focused almost exclusively on his initial travel restrictions involving China, containing a montage (taken directly from the March 26 episode of Fox News program Hannity) of clips of other media outlets featuring guests who downplayed its threat, and audio of The New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman praising the travel restrictions as a "pretty aggressive measure against the spread of the virus". However, it contained few references to statements and events that occurred in February, and the Haberman audio was abridged to remove a sentence that followed, stating that the travel restriction was "one of the last things that [Trump] did for several weeks". When asked by a CBS News reporter about his lack of action in February, Trump replied "what do you do when you have no cases in the whole United States?"

Despite stating in a previous briefing that he preferred to have mitigation measures be controlled by individual states because it was compatible with the Constitution, Trump claimed at the April 13 briefing that he had the "ultimate authority" to order when to phase out such measures, saying "The president of the United States has the authority to do what the president has the authority to do, which is very powerful. The president of the United States calls the shots." However, on April 16 he assured governors that "you are going to call your own shots" about relaxing restrictions.

X1\ (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

X1\ Sure, add it. Mgasparin (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems rather undue. PackMecEng (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

include historical negationism ‎regarding Administration's pandemic response?

Miscalculation at every level left the U.S. unequipped to fight the coronavirus. A shortfall in masks lays bare the blunders by hospitals, manufacturers, and the federal government.

The Trump administration further weakened the safety net as it rejiggered the HHS’s main emergency-preparedness agency, prioritized other threats over pandemics, cut out groups such as one that focused on protective gear and removed a small planned budget to buy respirator masks for the national stockpile, according to former officials.

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/miscalculation-at-every-level-left-u-s-unequipped-to-fight-coronavirus-11588170921

Trump and Jared Kushner engage in revisionist history in boasting of success over coronavirus. “We did all the right moves,” Trump said. “The federal government rose to the challenge, and this is a great success story,” said Kushner.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/politics/trump-kushner-coronavirus-revisionist-history.html

Trump claimed he’s done a “spectacular job” handling the coronavirus pandemic, despite more than 60,000 Americans dead, a million infected, and 30 million filing jobless claims. While economists warn of serious long-term damage to the economy, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office he’s anticipating a major rebound in the coming months and a “spectacular” 2021, saying “I think we can actually surpass where we were – I feel it.” He then added: “I think sometimes what I feel is better than what I think, unfortunately or fortunately.”

• Jill Colvin and Kevin Freking, Trump predicts ‘spectacular’ rebound as economy plunges 30.April AP

X1\ (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump – providing no evidence – promised that the U.S. will be able to carry out more than five million coronavirus tests per day "very soon" after a Harvard University study said the U.S. needed to be capable of carrying out at least 5 million tests a day by early June – and 20 million per day by late July – in order to safely reopen the economy.

He later claimed that he never said that, blaming it on a "media trap." Since the beginning of the year, however, the Trump administration has conducted 5.7 million tests in total. And, the largest number of tests conducted by the U.S. in a single day was 314,182. Trump didn’t offer how his administration was going to account for the 1,500% increase in testing, but assured those at the briefing: "If you look at the numbers, it could be that we’re getting very close," adding “I don’t know that all of that’s even necessary." Trump also credited expanded testing for the 1 million confirmed cases of coronavirus that the U.S. has reported, saying “It’s a number that in one way sounds bad but in another is an indication our testing is more superior." On March 6, Trump said that anyone who wanted a coronavirus test could get one. Dr. Fauci, however, said Tuesday that "Hopefully, we should see that as we get towards the end of May, the beginning of June."

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/29/fauci-coronavirus-tests-month-away
• https://www.vox.com/2020/4/29/21241120/trump-us-coronavirus-testing-problem
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-29/trump-credits-testing-for-u-s-surpassing-1-million-virus-cases
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-backtracks-5-million-tests-day
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-messaging/index.html
• https://time.com/5828843/trump-coronavirus-testing-giroir

X1\ (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

For related testing RSs, see Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 8#Testing has slowed, add?. X1\ (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure add it. This appears to have WEIGHT and is DUE as it is appropriately covered by RS. You do fine research by the way. Mgasparin (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Gzz more virus stuff? Fails due weight in general. PackMecEng (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 case/death count, add?

• Jonathan Swan and Sam Baker Trump and some top aides question accuracy of virus death toll Axios 6 May 2020
• Katie Sanders, Aaron Sharockman, and Amy Sherman Donald Trump’s 4 biggest falsehoods on ABC News 6 May Politifact.com

Besides potential case/death count, Politifact RS also includes attempt at deception related to the Strategic National Stockpile , COVID-19 testing, and Chuck Schumer. X1\ (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In context:

44% believe the number of Americans dying from COVID-19 are higher, while 23% say the number is lower. 32% of Americans believe the reported coronavirus death toll numbers. Among Democrats, 63% say the number of reported deaths are higher while 24% of Republicans say the same.[32] X1\ (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

retain coronavirus Death Rate "hunch" here?

Lost in edits at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States:

After the World Health Organization announced a 3.4% mortality rate for the cases on March 13, Trump remarked on Fox News's Hannity that this was a "false number" and the true figure was under 1%.

X1\ (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said below, most of this stuff is DUE for addition. Yes to this as well by the way. Mgasparin (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Same with all the other virus stuff, give it time. NOTNEWS. PackMecEng (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References