Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know this has been nominated a couple times, but it really does violate policy. This fits in with WP:ATTACK. Every word in this article is negative about Donald Trump. This is the only article exclusively about someones lies, if we had an article about every lie of a politician we would have a lot more than 6 million articles on the English Wikipedia. Whats next were gonna create an article about every gaffe by Joe Biden? Also, a good majority of the content is not neutral at all. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - The article very clearly meets the guidelines for notability. If you have concerns about the article's quality, then you should discuss it on the talk page. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:NPOV problems aren't a reason for deletion unless in extreme cases. This isn't one. JavaHurricane 07:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is notable and well-sourced. Anyone is welcome to create a similar article for Biden or anyone else if they can show that it is notable. If you have WP:NPOV concerns then you should raise the specific issues on the talk page and try to build consensus. JohnmgKing (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - Someone said, "Every word in this article is negative about Donald Trump." EVERY list of bad things someone did is negative about the subject. As to, "This is the only article exclusively about someones lies," that's because no other president has been a compulsive liar. Even Nixon never told ridiculous lies like, "I invented the expression 'prime the pump' last week." Verdana♥Bold 08:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the above. X1\ (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ref. this blog post by Larry Sanger.[1] I found the page in question when trying to find objective facts about Obamagate, which is redirected here, and found that I instead got what at least on the surface looks more like a generic smear page. I couldn't even find any information about what Obamagate supposedly is. Moreover, it is pretty obvious that several of the "reliable" sources have an ongoing conflict with Trump (whether that was their own choice or not) and therefore cannot be expected to be balanced in this particular context. The article is currently too far off NPOV policy and, at least on the surface, too close to an attack page for this article to be kept, at least in its current shape and form. Please remember that politics is a controversial topic in which there are always many dissenting voices. You can't simply define half of the political spectrum as "unreliable" and the other half as "reliable". However tempting that may be, such an evaluation is outside the scope of Wikipedia. When there are conflicting views, please describe all relevant views. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narssarssuaq: - WP:NPOV does not mean neutral articles, see WP:FALSEBALANCE (it means neutral editing to reflect the sources). Also, You can't simply define half of the political spectrum as "unreliable" and the other half as "reliable". - you're way off base. According to WP:RSP, right-leaning sources like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, The Hill are reliable. starship.paint (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I did not know where to find the RSP list. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • RE I couldn't even find any information about what Obamagate supposedly is: That's because Trump himself hasn't explained what he is talking about. Not even a hint. Just that whatever it is, it was the worst political crime in the history of the world and people should be in jail for it. If he can't describe it, we can't describe it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found this Wikipedia article: Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, which probably reflects what Trump refers to as "Obamagate". The article is written in a more encyclopedic style - which, by the way, does not mean that it's been stripped of criticism or allegations against Trump. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - subject easily passes WP:GNG, and it reflects the sources. Academics have stated that Trump's falsehoods are unprecedented in American politics.^[1] Naturally, the reliable sources react negatively to that, and so do we, because WP:NPOV maintains that we dutifully reflect reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 09:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 09:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 09:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article is notable due to the coverage his lying has gained in the media and public throughout his presidency. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep for the same reasons as before. This nomination offers no new policy-based reason for deletion. This is a notable topic, not because politicians lie, but because this politician has transcended the previous norms in such a way that the very approach of blatantly lying about basically everything has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Many politicians will lie about their achievements or their plans or their motives but before Trump, none have constantly tried to claim that people should believe him over their own eyes (e.g. with the size of his inauguration crowd). Iamreallygoodatcheckers probably missed the part of WP:ATTACK which explicitly says When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject. Regards SoWhy 09:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some context seems needed here. On a whim, I once started a list of honest politicians, thinking of paragons like Cincinnatus. This was deleted after some debate (AfD 1; AfD 2). So, there's no appetite for honesty and I'm now pondering whether we should have a list of dishonest presidents instead but, having browsed some sources, it's starting to look like that would be all of them – even George Washington ("I cannot tell a lie") and Jimmy Carter ("I'll never lie to you"). See this history of White House fabulists for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson: - in response to your comment, I recommend this book excerpt: [2] "All presidents lie. In fact, virtually all humans lie. This observation may lead some to a cynical conclusion of moral equivalence: all politicians lie, so they are all corrupt and deserving of contempt. But it is an abdication of moral and civic responsibility to refuse to distinguish justified, trivial, serious, and egregious lies. The most important lies of Donald Trump differ significantly from previous presidential lies". They "are egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts. If there are no agreed upon facts, then it becomes impossible for people to make judgments about their government. Political power rather than rational discourse then becomes the arbiter." starship.paint (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reminds me of another promising source book – When Presidents Lie. Wikipedia should take a long view on such topics, with a historical perspective, because "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep SoWhy and others make compelling arguments. No need for me to repeat them. Edwardx (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the other "keeps" -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources report level of non-truthfulness being unprecedented. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not reliable sources, they are partisan position pushers. Many of th debates are framed falsely in the light of this issue to advance a point of view that has to do with reasonable goals and not accuracy. This is an abuse of Wikipedia to create an attack article like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. - Flori4nKT A L K 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep SoWhy says it well. No policy-based argument for deletion has been advanced. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The very title of this article and even more so its comments are total violation of NPOV guidelines. I have never seen a more POV pushing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We need to stop letting the false notions on Kellerism control Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a news paper and it should not use the biased, unbalanced, take sides methods used by newspapers. This article clearly does and is clearly meant to and is a violation of the NPOV rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS given that the sources cover the overall truthfulness (or lack thereof) of Trump, in a way that hasn't been done before, given the extent of this president's inaccurate statements. It's not documenting each lie in a way that mirrors the 24 hour news cycle. It's an assessment of the presidency as a whole. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Moreover, I confess myself a bit baffled by the claim that the title violates NPOV. It's not "Donald Trump's pathological aversion to the truth" or, contrariwise, "Donald Trump's sterling record of truthfulness". It's ... "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump". Practically yawn-inducing. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with John Pack Lambert. Although a balanced page on allegations of falsehoods would be interesting, this article on falsehoods in themselves comes across as more accusatory than balanced. The best option is to add balance to the article. If it is implausible that it can be fixed, deletion is the best option, but maybe there is hope? Note that according to WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:AGF we should strive towards consensus in the editing. If some editors object to what they perceive as political bias, please try to take this into account somehow. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An WP:ATTACK page is a page written specifically to denounce a subject. This article may be a magnet for POV issues, but you cannot deny that the reliable sources have covered Trump's lies and other inaccuracies at length. He's in the middle of a dust up with Twitter over them fact-checking his tweets as we speak. POV issues should be dealt with on the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep It is supportable by WP:RS. Per Wikipedia:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the expanded article for the already huge Donald Trump article's "False statements" section (that could potentially also be renamed). There seems to be a misconception about WP:ATTACK by the nominator. The topic is also very notable, or it wouldn't be mentioned in the main article either. —PaleoNeonate – 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]