![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
{{
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)
"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)
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..."
BullRangifer ( talk) 04:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
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:
BullRangifer ( talk) 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
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)
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)
|
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)
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,..." [1]
Seems similar to Nixon's Enemies List. Presumably the article intended BuzzFeed News for "BuzzFeed". X1\ ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
X1\ ( talk) 20:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
other obstinations of his... such as...? starship .paint ( talk) 06:05, 8 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)
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)
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.
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.
By then, no forecasters were predicting any issue for the southern state[27] (The Independent). Ergo, Trump was wrong.
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
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)
Update? Per [28]. X1\ ( talk) 23:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
via Why President Donald Trump's Twitter typos matter on YouTube CNN Nov 3, 2019
X1\ ( talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
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)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.
gets things wrongin 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
(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)
cites
BullRangifer ( talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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 [1]
BullRangifer ( talk) 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Regarding Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy:
X1\ ( talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Example, among many examples:
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)
X1\ ( talk) 01:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Several sources have accused Trump of pushing his own real fake news for years, [1] [2] including the use of fake names which he used as pseudonymous sources to "spread favorable stories about himself or his projects" and "spread baseless gossip about his romantic and sexual exploits." [3] Ruth Marcus, in a Washington Post article entitled "Donald Trump: Stonewaller, shape-shifter, liar," described how Trump was caught masquerading as his own spokesmen, "John Miller" and "John Barron", and then lied about it. She described how "a candidate willing to lie about something so small will be a president willing to lie about something big.... [A]ll politicians lie, but there is a difference between the ordinarily distasteful political diet of spin, fudge, evasion and hyperbole and the Trumpian habit of unvarnished, unembarrassed falsehood." [4]
Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune mentioned Trump's "obsession with (his own) 'fake news'" and Trump's February 6 tweet that 'Any negative polls are fake news...' Page ridiculed the tweet: "'Fake news'? Look who's talking." [1] Brian Stelter responded to Trump's tweet: "No, President Trump, negative polls are not 'fake news'." Stelter noted that DeRay Mckesson's response was: "'Negative news = fake news' is the beginning of tyranny." [5]
Referring to the birther movement, Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary under former President Obama, told Stephen Colbert that Trump has been pushing fake news for years. [2]
Maureen Dowd, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for The New York Times, described Trump as a source of fake news: "Consumed by his paranoia about the deep state, Donald Trump has disappeared into the fog of his own conspiracy theories. As he rages in the storm, Lear-like, howling about poisonous fake news, he is spewing poisonous fake news.... He trusts his beliefs more than facts. So many secrets, so many plots, so many shards of gossip swirl in his head, there seems to be no room for reality...." He prefers "living in his own warped world." [6]
Sources
|
---|
|
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:32, October 26, 2018 (UTC)
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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)
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)
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.
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.”
X1\ ( talk) 23:48, 12 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.
[1]
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)
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:
X1\ ( talk) 07:09, 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.
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%).
X1\ ( talk) 03:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
More attempts to intimidate Yamiche Alcindor with lies:
From
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):
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:
X1\ ( talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"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." [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“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 [2]
-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 01:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
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,” [1]
Trump boasted that he is now “number one on Facebook” (in fact, Barack Obama has nearly 25 million more followers).
via
X1\ ( talk) 07:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
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:
-- Espoo ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
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. [2] [3] [4] [5]
And McEnany incorrectly stated, per a WH talking point, the Mueller probe is "the complete and total exoneration of President Trump." [6] X1\ ( talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
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?" [1] [2] [3]
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." [4] However, on April 16 he assured governors that "you are going to call your own shots" about relaxing restrictions. [5]
X1\ ( talk) 09:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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.
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.
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.”
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."
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)
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)
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, [1] Trump remarked on Fox News's Hannity that this was a "false number" and the true figure was under 1%. [2]
X1\ ( talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
{{
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)
"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)
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..."
BullRangifer ( talk) 04:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
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:
BullRangifer ( talk) 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
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)
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)
|
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)
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,..." [1]
Seems similar to Nixon's Enemies List. Presumably the article intended BuzzFeed News for "BuzzFeed". X1\ ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
X1\ ( talk) 20:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
other obstinations of his... such as...? starship .paint ( talk) 06:05, 8 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)
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)
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.
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.
By then, no forecasters were predicting any issue for the southern state[27] (The Independent). Ergo, Trump was wrong.
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
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)
Update? Per [28]. X1\ ( talk) 23:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
via Why President Donald Trump's Twitter typos matter on YouTube CNN Nov 3, 2019
X1\ ( talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
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)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.
gets things wrongin 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
(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)
cites
BullRangifer ( talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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 [1]
BullRangifer ( talk) 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Regarding Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy:
X1\ ( talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Example, among many examples:
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)
X1\ ( talk) 01:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Several sources have accused Trump of pushing his own real fake news for years, [1] [2] including the use of fake names which he used as pseudonymous sources to "spread favorable stories about himself or his projects" and "spread baseless gossip about his romantic and sexual exploits." [3] Ruth Marcus, in a Washington Post article entitled "Donald Trump: Stonewaller, shape-shifter, liar," described how Trump was caught masquerading as his own spokesmen, "John Miller" and "John Barron", and then lied about it. She described how "a candidate willing to lie about something so small will be a president willing to lie about something big.... [A]ll politicians lie, but there is a difference between the ordinarily distasteful political diet of spin, fudge, evasion and hyperbole and the Trumpian habit of unvarnished, unembarrassed falsehood." [4]
Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune mentioned Trump's "obsession with (his own) 'fake news'" and Trump's February 6 tweet that 'Any negative polls are fake news...' Page ridiculed the tweet: "'Fake news'? Look who's talking." [1] Brian Stelter responded to Trump's tweet: "No, President Trump, negative polls are not 'fake news'." Stelter noted that DeRay Mckesson's response was: "'Negative news = fake news' is the beginning of tyranny." [5]
Referring to the birther movement, Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary under former President Obama, told Stephen Colbert that Trump has been pushing fake news for years. [2]
Maureen Dowd, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for The New York Times, described Trump as a source of fake news: "Consumed by his paranoia about the deep state, Donald Trump has disappeared into the fog of his own conspiracy theories. As he rages in the storm, Lear-like, howling about poisonous fake news, he is spewing poisonous fake news.... He trusts his beliefs more than facts. So many secrets, so many plots, so many shards of gossip swirl in his head, there seems to be no room for reality...." He prefers "living in his own warped world." [6]
Sources
|
---|
|
BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:32, October 26, 2018 (UTC)
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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)
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)
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.
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.”
X1\ ( talk) 23:48, 12 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.
[1]
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)
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:
X1\ ( talk) 07:09, 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.
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%).
X1\ ( talk) 03:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
More attempts to intimidate Yamiche Alcindor with lies:
From
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):
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:
X1\ ( talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"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." [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“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 [2]
-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 01:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
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,” [1]
Trump boasted that he is now “number one on Facebook” (in fact, Barack Obama has nearly 25 million more followers).
via
X1\ ( talk) 07:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
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:
-- Espoo ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
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. [2] [3] [4] [5]
And McEnany incorrectly stated, per a WH talking point, the Mueller probe is "the complete and total exoneration of President Trump." [6] X1\ ( talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
References
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)
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?" [1] [2] [3]
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." [4] However, on April 16 he assured governors that "you are going to call your own shots" about relaxing restrictions. [5]
X1\ ( talk) 09:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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.
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.
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.”
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."
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)
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)
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, [1] Trump remarked on Fox News's Hannity that this was a "false number" and the true figure was under 1%. [2]
X1\ ( talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References