Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Television B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners
Template:Vital article

I have been attempting to add information to the article regarding Trump tariffs that is getting reverted. The article currently has clear bias where we say things like "failure" based on opinion pieces and instead of data. Here are the facts:

1. The trade deficit with China went down after the tariffs were imposed. This is clear according to United States Census Data, shown here on an annualized basis: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

I added a chart with that information here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Trade_Deficit.svg

I also removed the characterization that "the deficit reached its highest level in 12 years under his administration", which is a statement that could be made about any of our recent presidents if you just look at the chart. The facts are that the results of the trade war are mixed. The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088669286&oldid=1088655265

Don't you think the chart is a better characterization of the trade war than a sentence using a single data point to characterize the effects of the trade war as "nothing"?

2. I tried to remove the highly biased statement that the tariffs were "a failure" based on sourcing to liberal and business interest opinion articles. The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088669796&oldid=1088669286

Shouldn't we avoid saying things like "failure" based on opinion pieces and stick to facts instead?

3. If we are to going say things like "failure", then I figure we should probably add that Biden has kept the Trump tariffs in place. I guess he likes failures! I added that information from this source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html

The edit was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=1088697893&oldid=1088697341

I guess because the editors here don't want Biden portrayed as a failure. That's Trump's role, right?

Look, all I am trying to do is replace clear bias in this article regarding trade with the facts of the matter. It looks to me like the editors here want to suppress any facts that don't portray Trump in a purely negative light. Is there any piece of information above regarding trade that anybody thinks we should put in the article, or has Trump derangement syndrome overtaken the editors of this article? Efbrazil (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The article currently has clear bias". That should be the end of any discussion. We do not remove bias from RS here. We document it, including non-neutral language. Also, edit warring and original research are not allowed, NO MATTER if you are 100% correct. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is in which articles are selectively used. What I was trying to do was remove opinion pieces and state facts, which I think is kind of the point of Wikipedia (consensus and facts, not one person's opinion). I did no original research, and all my edits were seeking consensus, not edit warring. Efbrazil (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deficit reached its highest level in 12 years is noteworthy because Trump had pledged to "sharply lower" it, per the source. Chart: It's not a characterization of the trade war at all because there may have well have been other factors that influenced the trade deficit, the pandemic, a war, the Ever Given, stuff reliable sources would factor into their reporting. (Also a spelling error, unless you want to include some other crisis or crises that occurred in 2008.) Bias: yeah, Trump Derangement Syndrome sounds totally unbiased. If you have RS saying Trump's trade war was a success or that it was not the failure other sources say it was, please present them. Biden: The appropriate page would be the one on Biden. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seeing "crises", corrected spelling to crisis.

Regarding the rest, by the numbers the trade deficit with China dropped dramatically in 2019, before the pandemic kicked in (and after tariffs). This is not like the size of crowds at his inauguration or his reelection loss. The result of the trade war is highly disputed and there is no "fact" that says it was a "failure", just opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of sources on fox news or brietbart or wherever talking about how it's a huge success, but it's clearly not a "success" any more than it's a "failure". It's a complicated policy issue that we are grossly oversimplifying. Here are a few sources with some good reporting describing the mixed results:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/trade-deficit-falls-2019-trump/index.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2022/02/25/what-has-the-u-s-china-trade-war-achieved/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/china-tariffs-biden-policy/index.html Efbrazil (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We need reliable secondary sourcing to draw conclusions from graphs and to indicate which conclusions are significant. The conclusions you removed were cited to eg. the AP. And it's simply untrue that the citations you removed to the Brookings institute, Bloomberg, or CNN are considered liberal and business interest opinion articles; the Brookings Institution is perhaps the most well-regarded think-tank in the world and is generally considered roughly neutral, while Bloomberg and CNN are both high-quality neutral sources suitable for statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the heck are we sourcing economics-related data to CNN? They are a news channel, not an expert source on American economic history. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The actual text here is that it was "largely characterized as a failure"; a news channel summarizing how something has been received and covered is a reasonable source for that characterization. Of course, we can use better sources if people can find them, but a mainstream news channel is a reasonable source for a brief sentence characterizing how a politician's policies have been characterized. If we could find better academic sources we could perhaps removed the characterized as, I guess. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I included a few links above to better sources that are presenting nuance, including by CNN and Marketplace. Mostly, I don't see a point in saying "failure" at all, it's a subjective and oversimplified analysis that doesn't belong on wikipedia. We should be featuring facts, not presenting opinion and speculation as fact. Efbrazil (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Efbrazil, you write: "remove opinion pieces and state facts". Of course we state facts, but we also document opinions, and we don't simply "remove opinion pieces", as they are an important part of the "sum total of human knowledge" which Jimbo told us to document. That's the reason Wikipedia exists! Dry facts make for a very boring encyclopedia and would make Wikipedia just like any other encyclopedia. No, we are very different and much more informative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously anything Trump does will have plenty of pro and con opinion about it. Should we say everything he does is a success and a failure, then include sourcing to CNN and Fox News for each "side"? Is what I'm trying to get at here is that we are grossly oversimplifying a complicated issue by treating it like the size of his election crowd or the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. The tariffs are not an objective failure, they are a subjective success or failure, depending on your point of view. Efbrazil (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just commenting to say that I reverted because this BLP should contain as little as possible info about Biden. That is better suited for Presidency of Donald Trump. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, my first preference was just to get rid of the subjective "failure" characterization. When people objected to that, I figured we could back off to at least tempering the "failure" statement by saying they were kept in place by Biden, which clearly indicates that they weren't considered a failure by everybody. If you can think of a way to fix the bias without bringing Biden into it I'm all for that. Efbrazil (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Or, we just reject your assertion that it is "biased" at all. I'm all for that choice. ValarianB (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So you think saying it was a "failure" is not oversimplifying and bias? Please review the articles I linked to above. Efbrazil (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just garden-variety WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as evidenced by the "but what about Biden!?", references to "trump derangement syndrome", and so on. Not sure their future in this topic area is going to be a net positive. ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Righting great wrongs requires that the information being presented is somehow original research. I'm just trying to correct an issue where cherry picked sources were used to present a one sided view of things. When presenting information about this guy it's easy to fall victim to biased reporting, and that's what happened in this case. Efbrazil (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the intro, "Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in 1968." Shouldn't the subject (economics) be stated? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it doesn’t relate to his notability. If you erase his media, business, and political career, and all he has is his Econ degree, he wouldn’t be notable enough to be on WP.

Also the reasons for his notability (careers in business, media, and politics), none of those three required a degree in economics. If he was a notable economist or economics professor, then yes it should be included in the lead. But it doesn’t pertain to his notability. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arctic Gazelle i disagree. it absolutely should say he graduated with a degree in economics; the subject of his study is at least as relevant as the name of the school or the university he attended. Texaseliz (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I think you are actually *agreeing* with me. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include the degree. It's not relevant in an already bloated lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a bit confusing because he really studied business administration. And I would leave the degree in because although no one's degrees establish notability, they are noteworthy aspects of their biographies, especially when they graduate from prestigious schools. TFD (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he really studied business administration, as you claim, then the body of the article needs to be changed because it says, "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. Two years later, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1968 with a B.S. in economics. In 2015, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen threatened Trump's colleges, high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released Trump's academic records." Do you have any hard evidence? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not study business administration. Where did you find that bit of misinformation? On May 20, 1968, Donald John Trump received a "Bachelor of Science in Economics", per the source in Donald Trump#Early life, page 21 of the PDF archived on the Wayback Machine. We need to leave the degree in because Wharton is mainly known for its graduate school, i.e., the MBA program. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generations of Wharton alums are spinning in their graves at the possiblilty that Trump is among their MBAs. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that something has to relate to someone's notability to be included in the intro. Even if it did, I would argue that for a business man and president of a nation, who is involved in setting the economic policy of the nation, if it's notable that he has a degree, it's notable that the degree is in econcomics. It also shows that he had an interest in economics early on in life. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an undergraduate degree. All Wharton students graduate with a Bachelor of Science in economics, but students choose areas of study called concentrations. Trump graduated from Wharton with a concentration in real estate. It shows that he had an interest in his father's real estate business. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's two extra words: "in economics". It would be odd in any biography to read that someone got a bachelor's degree at X university and then have what the actual degree was left out. That sentence is 17 words long, and it's missing the most important 2 ("in economics"). I don't see any particularly good reason to conceal what the actual degree even was. Endwise (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The degree is the Bachelor of Science. This is no different than the biographies of most other presidents. Of course, many of them also graduated from post-graduate schools, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite other examples of undergraduate majors of businessmen or politicians? What was Harry Truman's undergraduate major? What was Leona Helmsley's undergraduate major? SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "University of Pennsylvania" the standard? Just wondering. GuardianH (for some reason, the sign function isn't working for me).

Unsure, as it seems to take great pains to separate itself. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other discussion above Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 145#Modifying consensus item 18 WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wharton is branded separately and the school and its program are widely known and known to be affiliated with University of Pennsylvania. Moreover Trump the businessman has branded himself as a Wharton grad. It's not like a major in French or Chinese. It is a separate division. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CEOWorld rated Wharton the third best business school in the world in 2022.[1] While there is some subjectivity in this, there is general consensus it is in the top 10. It's a well known school and generally just referred to as the Wharton School. There are some schools that although part of universities are usually referred to by their specific names. TFD (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The London School of Economics (LSE) is part of the University of London, but is also normally referred to by itself. TFD (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a page where a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsyvlania is listed as "Wharton School." See the pages for Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, etc. All of the pages use "University of Pennsyvlania" instead of "Wharton School." It's similar to how a graduate of, say, Harvard Law School is listed as, for example, "Harvard University (JD)" instead of "Harvard Law School (JD)." GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buffett didn't graduate from Wharton, he transferred to the University of Nebraska after two years. By the standards of this page, the University of Pennsylvania shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox (we don't mention Trump's two years at Fordham University). Musk was simultaneously enrolled at another University of Pennsylvania college (College of Arts & Sciences) and obtained a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in physics. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is already being discussed above. This should probably be procedurally closed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A random check of List of Wharton School alumni shows that Wharton is more likely to be listed in their info-boxes than UPenn. We had a similar discussion about Trump's place of birth, which is listed as "Queens, New York City, U.S." Reasonably informed people can name all of NYC's boroughs and know that NYC is in New York State. There is no policy or guideline that says articles must be consistent, but we should use the same description found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Markell_West, what's with the hyphenation here, here, and here? Financial disclosure forms, property tax abatement, and consumer goods companies are non-hyphenated compound nouns, not nouns modified by a compound adjective. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, none of the sources say that it was a challenge, major or otherwise, for the media to distinguish falsehoods from mere falsities. Both words indicate untruths/untrue statements without indicating whether intent to deceive is or isn't involved. Journalists shied away from calling them lies since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive? How can journalists know what’s in Trump’s mind, even when he repeatedly says transparently untrue things (your WaPo source). Per consensus item 22, we cannot call Trump a liar or call his falsehoods lies. IMO that includes using the definition of lie, i.e., uttering a falsehood with intent to deceive. We shouldn't be using either one of these sentences without a new consensus: His falsehoods (which are intentional as distinguished from falsities which may be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity (version Anythingyouwant), His intentional falsehoods (as distinguished from counterfactual statements which might be unintentional) became a distinctive part of his political identity (version SPECIFICO). Also, do we want to get into dictionary definitions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A falsehood is a lie. A falsity is not necessarily a lie. If consensus item 22 says we shouldn’t be calling Trump a liar, then we shouldn’t be saying he has uttered falsehoods. Since we cannot get into Trump’s head and determine his intentions, I support only referring in this article to his falsities, not his falsehoods. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR and your opinion "we shouldn't..." is contrary to longstanding consensus after discussion and careful consideration by many many editors here. IMO the whole bit should come out. I tried to fix Anythingyouwant's version, but it's still against the consensus -- thanks for reminding us SpaceX. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's one definition of falsehood. Others are "something that is not true", "absence of truth or accuracy", "a false belief, theory, idea, etc.", "lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy". After your initial edit, adding the op-eds in parentheses to the sentence His falsehoods (which are deliberately false) and falsities (which may not be deliberately false) became a distinctive part of his political identity was challenged, you reinserted it with minor rephrasing 10 hours later, without discussing it on the Talk page per the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES (24 BRD cycle). Way to go! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This move came after the recent lifting of their tban. Maybe it should be reinstated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Space4Time3Continuum2x for pointing out that 24-hour rule. I haven’t edited this article in many years and didn’t notice it. So I reverted my edits. As for the word “falsehood” it has very strong connotations of lying, unlike the word falsity. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it only means the statement is false and says nothing about motives. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The leading definition of “falsehood” in the Merriam Webster Dictionary includes the word “lie.”[2]. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All lies are falsehoods, but not all falsehoods are lies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, see here. The noun “falsehood” can be used in a countable way or an uncountable way; for example, “Falsehood is common where knowledge is lacking” is uncountable. In the countable sense (“Joe spewed falsehoods”), the word “falsehood” is primarily about lies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is that source, vocabulary for elementary and junior high school kids? The problem with your edits is that they’re not supported by the sources. The sources don't discuss the merits of falsehood versus falsity, and neither one calls one of Trump's statement a "falsity". Farhi/WaPo Style uses the word once, in a definition of "lie": Could a presidential statement, no matter how blatantly false, be deemed a "lie" since, by definition, the word implies awareness of falsity and intent to deceive?. That's falsity in the uncountable sense, I believe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The leading definition of “falsity” in the Merriam Webster Dictionary also includes the word “lie.”[3]. QED. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! The policy stated at the top of this article is “Do not call Trump a ‘liar’ in Wikipedia's voice.” Presumably that means we shouldn’t say in Wikipedia’s voice that he told a lie, nor anything synonymous with “lie.” So there needs to be a lot of editing in this BLP to satisfy our rule, correct? Or we could change the rule. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we, qoute. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, if there are specific wordings you think are in violation, why not mention them here? Let's work on it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section titled “False statements” is the one that concerns me. If we mean lies, then we should say lies, but then we would have to modify the rule 22 at the top of this page. The problem with saying “falsehoods” is that many people would interpret that to mean lies (contrary to rule 22) whereas many people would interpret to merely mean untruths (or exaggerations or something else that doesn’t imply downright dishonesty). So what I’m advocating is simply that we be clear, regardless of whether that helps Trump or hurts Trump. That said, I really do feel like a newbie here (having been gone away so long), so I would rather let others ponder this issue who have more experience, and maybe I’ll chime in or circle back. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When we write "false statements", we mean statements that are false. When we write "Trump's falsehoods", we mean it, IOW his statements that are not true. We don't get into the weeds of his motives, so I don't see any problems with a single word in that section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may mean untruths regardless of intention but that is not what many people will infer from the word falsehood. So why not use a word that clearly conveys your meaning? Way back in the early 1990s, I submitted a manuscript to a scientific journal, and mentioned in my cover letter (or maybe it was in the manuscript itself) that the journal’s editor had written a falsehood in an article of his, and all hell broke loose. I got an incredibly nasty letter from the journal editor telling me how horrible I was to accuse him of lying, when actually I had meant no such thing. But if you want to keep using a word that many people will misunderstand, and will misunderstand in a way that violates our rule #22, then I hope you’ll reconsider. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we do not use the word lies, or accuse him of telling lies, just of saying things that are not true (which may be mistakes, not lies). All of which is well srouced. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to call him a liar who tells lies instead of using a fuzzy word (falsehoods) that very often means the same thing. Clear writing is not difficult. Anyway, if we keep using the word falsehoods then that requires a change to our rule #22. Or we could comply with rule #22 by using a word like “untruths” or “inaccuracies” or “exaggerations” or “misstatements” which no one will misconstrue as “lies”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, when you write "It would be better to call him a liar who tells lies instead of using a fuzzy word (falsehoods) that very often means the same thing.", you are telling us to violate rule #22 by taking sides and ourselves determining his motives. It's best for us to use the more vague and all-inclusive word which includes anything false, whether it's an outright lie or just untrue. We reserve "calling him a liar" for well-sourced uses of the words "liar" or "lies". We are not violating rule #22 with our current wordings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding occasions where this Wikipedia article currently uses the word “falsehood” in Wikipedia’s voice, there are at least five alternatives.

• First, we could keep doing so and thus give many readers the reasonable impression we are calling him a liar, thus violating rule #22.
• Second, we could erase rule #22, so it is no longer an issue.
• Third, we could speak more clearly by using the word “lie” instead of “falsehood” which would still violate rule #22 but would have the advantage of forthrightness and clarity.
• Fourth, we could switch “falsehood” to something that doesn’t suggest to anyone whether or not he’s lied, such as the word “untruth” or “misstatement” or “exaggeration” or “mistake” or the like.
• Fifth, we could rephrase statements about his untruths that are currently in Wikipedia’s voice so they are no longer in Wikipedia’s voice, e.g. by using in-text attribution.

I think the worst options would be the first and the third, because then we would be violating our own rule #22. So I recommend the second, fourth, or fifth alternatives. But if we must choose the first or third, then the third seems much better to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Period. We are not responsible for readers' own "impression we are calling him a liar" when we are not doing so. We are deliberately using a word often used by RS that can be interpreted either way, and it is the the readers' own responsibility which way they interpret it.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is some language difficulty issue here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A word that is defined by dictionaries using the term “lie” is quite different from a word that is defined by dictionaries without the word “lie.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The order of the definitions may not mean what you think ... All the senses of a word that are listed are equal, and not in a George-Orwellesque all-words-are-equal-but-some-are-more-equal-than-others sort of way. Merriam Webster. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The order of definitions in Merriam Webster is oldest definition first.[4]. Whatever we do, we should be clear, and also compliant with the rules for this page. Including the 24 hour rule. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can say he made false statements or uttered falsehoods because RS tell us he did. There also came a point, after long hesitation, where RS started calling him a liar and saying he was telling lies because there was so much information and debunking in existence that he had to have known that what he was saying was not true. He simply doesn't care. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if RS say it so can we. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole article detailing the lack of veracity for Trump's statements. The longstanding version should be reinstated. If we want to ADD an explanation about why the media changed their policy, that could be ADDED as good content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be better off waiting until he begins his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. I'm certain there'll be plenty of sourced material to add, by then. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone ought to know that what they are saying is not true, is that a lie? Major media sources thought so and literally changed their policy and started calling Trump's false statements "lies". WaPo's fact-checkers even had to create a new category of lies because of Trump.

He is part of a rare class of liars who will repeat debunked lies. Normal people don't want to be classed as liars, so they don't repeat a lie when exposed. Trump's tactic is different as he doubles down using Hitler's (his mentor) Big Lie propaganda technique.

I said "rare" but that is no longer true. GOP politicians have adopted his methods for several reasons: he gets away with it, so they hope to do the same; he pressures them to as a loyalty test; they are compromised/blackmailed, so they abandon any sense of honesty. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know whether he's a rare class of liars who will repeat debunked lies. That applies to quite a few GOP members of Congress these days. And striking opinion. We do mention Trump's use of the Big Lie, in the second paragraph of Donald_Trump#Post-presidency_(2021–present). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Feels a little like we've been given homework — "I'll give you a topic. Discuss." Without new RS to support a change to consensus item 22, I’m not inclined to do any pondering. The cite Anything added is a 2019 article by WaPo's media reporter on the news media's terminology for Trump's "many questionable utterances". It doesn't support the sentence, and the media rarely referring to Trump's untruths as lies is mentioned in the fifth paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is pointless. Wikipedia content is based on what Reliable Sources say. It is not based on our interpretation of dictionary definitions. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source says Trump “lied” then our rule 22 says we should not say he lied using Wikipedia’s voice. But we could say that the reliable source says he lied. Correct? I would think that the same applies to synonyms of “liar” (e.g. “fabulist”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article only highlights the failures of President Donald J. Trump, but fails to hightlight his victories. Surely people can do better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.215.80 (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]