Wid777

Question for administrator

Hello, I posted two edit suggestions to the talk pages of "Social media use by Donald Trump" and "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump". I believe the phrasing of some passages in those articals are inappropriate. Mainly the statements determining validity of assertions made by Former President Donald Trump. In the aforementioned talk pages I outlined how rephrasing certain passages would be objective, fair, and appropriate. I do not think Wikipedia should determine validity of statements made by public officials but only to describe the media resources opinion of them. I find these things in opposition to the integrity of Wikipedia. I hope you can assist in my inquiry, thank you. --Wid777 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins do not settle content disputes. Wikipedia summarize what independent reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control say. The vast majority of them say that Trump's statements are false. The sources are provided to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves, to make a decision as to what to believe. You are free to not believe what is written about Trump here. You were asked to cite a specific Wikipedia policy that is being violated or requires your interpretation of article content. I suggest that you do that, if you cannot, then you will need to move on from this. If you have sources (with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control) that say Trump's statements are true, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, I would suggest that you read WP:TRUTH and WP:FALSEBALANCE. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for answering my query. The excerpt from the link 'WP:Truth' you provided states that "Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia." In the statement from the page "Social media use by Donald Trump" reads "For most of Trump's presidency, his account on Twitter, where he often posted controversial and false statements,[6][7][8][9]. To me in my honest opinion this could be worded much better. Why not allow the reader to determine what is true or not? Wid777 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We do allow the reader to determine what is true. It is not a condition of accessing Wikipedia that you must believe what you read here. You or any reader is free to read that statement and disagree with it and encourage others to not believe it. But we don't exclude it or reword for a false balance, for that reason because that is what independent reliable sources say. If you think those sources are in error, you need to communicate with them, not us, and get them to issue corrections or change their reporting. Or, as I said above, if you have sources with a reputation as I described stating that Trump's statements are true, please offer them and the community can discuss how to incorporate them into the article with proper weight depending on the proportion of sources that make that claim.

The article about Earth does not give the claims that the Earth is flat equal weight to the two millenia-based scientific consensus that the Earth is a sphere, or tell readers that the shape of the Earth is controversial. This is not Wikipedia telling people that the Earth is roughly spherical shaped, it is telling that science says that. It is the same here. Wikipedia has not made a determination that Trump's statements are true, we are telling that reliable sources say that. You are free to disagree. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The statement "For most of Trump's presidency, his account on Twitter, where he often posted controversial and false statements...". Here It sounds a lot like Wikipedia is determining fact. Not explaining it's the media opinions on said issue. The amount of population engaged in dissent involving Trump's honesty is very large, certainly much larger than flat earth theory disputes. You must agree. Wid777 (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Rephrasing that statement to something like: "During his term as president of the United States of America, many news outlets and reports claimed that Donald Trump had been making tens of thousands of misleading, false, or controversial statements." This, to me, seems much more appropriate and perfectly acceptable. Wid777 (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was making a point that we don't provide equal time or a balance of views when reliable sources do not. It depends on the proportion of coverage of a particular view in reliable sources. As I said, it is up to you to provide reliable sources saying that Trump's statements are true if you want to at all change the well sourced statement that his comments are false. It's not Wikipedia determining what is true, it's Wikipedia saying that others have done so. Again, you are absolutely free to disagree and encourage others to. You aren't the first person to give this viewpoint.

You are free to propose that wording on the article talk page, but I don't think it will be accepted. However, it won't be up to me as, again, admins do not settle content disputes. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll say this in summary. This is the stuff that matters to me personally when or when I don't try to engage objectively in public spaces. Everything is fine when you accurately convey that it is the groups opinions on subjects. That it is not YOU or me making those determinations. Wid777 (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)