Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

Proposal: speedy shutdown of sections like the one above

How many times must we have the same discussions here? I have already crafted an edit notice that will display when a user attempts to start a new thread, asking them not to if they intend to ask "why doed this excist" unless and until they ahve read the deletion discussions and prior threads in the archives, and are able to advance a line of argument not already refuted again and again. If they fail to do so, I propose that such threads not be replied to and instead be either speedily closed or removed entirely, whichever. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me that removing obvious sealioning is something we needed to discuss, I've just been doing it, per WP:NOTFORUM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

deciding which falsehoods to include

I tried to see whether there was any consensus about this in an archived discussion, but failed to find it (perhaps because I used the wrong search terms, perhaps because there's never been any overarching rule, only case-by-case decisions).

I'm asking because of a recent falsehood, a story in which Trump said "I know Willie Brown very well. In fact, I went down in a helicopter with him. ... he told me terrible things about [Kamala Harris] … he was not a fan of hers, at that point.” Brown denied ever having been in a helicopter with Trump and is a Harris supporter. It turned out that Nate Holden, another Black man, had been with Trump in a helicopter that made an emergency landing [1], who also hadn't bashed Harris. Trump has doubled down, claiming that he has “logs, maintenance records, and witnesses” to confirm his story, and he threatened to sue the NYT for their reporting about it [2]. I think this false story is noteworthy in that he confused two Black men who have little in common (either physically or in terms of their careers), used it to bash his political opponent, doubled down after being corrected, and threatened to sue. But Trump also lies a great deal, and perhaps this isn't worth adding.

Is there some rubric that people use to decide which lies to include? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump is doubling down on this one [3]. Brown insists he was not there, and would not have said "terrible things" about Harris had he been there, and also the entire incident seems to predate their relationship anyway. Nate Holden has been quoted in a number of sources as being the actual black person that was on that helicopter, and has joked with the press that Trump can't tell black people from one another [4].Seems like it is maybe worth a mention. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024 use tweet ref-name not abuse dummy ref

−

|ref = {{dummy reference|1}}

+

|ref-name = TweetrealDonaldTrump_2

This actually shows the clickable ref with the URL and is the proper way to avoid cite errors with multiple tweets. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

A good list from Christakis of Coronavirus lies

Here's a nice list of Trump quotes from Nicholas A. Christakis's book "Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live". (I have reformatted the quote to make a bulleted list by date.):

"We know from subsequent leaks that the president was indeed presented with information about the seriousness of the virus and its pandemic potential beginning at least in early January 2020. And yet, as documented by the Washington Post, he repeatedly stated that "it would go away."

• On February 10, when there were 12 known cases, he said that he thought the virus would "go away" by April, "with the heat."
• On February 25, when there were 53 known cases, he said, "I think that's a problem that's going to go away."
• On February 27, when there were 60 cases, he said, famously, "We have done an incredible job. We're going to continue. It's going to disappear. One day—it's like a miracle—it will disappear."
• On March 6, when there were 278 cases and 14 deaths, again he said, "It'll go away."
• On March 10, when there were 959 cases and 28 deaths, he said, "We're prepared, and we're doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away."
• On March 12, with 1,663 cases and 40 deaths recorded, he said, "It's going to go away."
• On March 30, with 161,807 cases and 2,978 deaths, he was still saying, "It will go away. You know it—you know it is going away, and it will go away. And we're going to have a great victory."
• On April 3, with 275,586 cases and 7,087 deaths, he again said, "It is going to go away." He continued, repeating himself: "It is going away.… I said it's going away, and it is going away."
• In remarks on June 23, when the United States had 126,060 deaths and roughly 2.5 million cases, he said, "We did so well before the plague, and we're doing so well after the plague. It's going away." Such statements continued as both the cases and the deaths kept rising. Neither the virus nor Trump's statements went away."

We also cover this topic at COVID-19 misinformation by the United States and Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

References

The Christakis source quotes seem to be cumulative to the existing graphics and which are verifiable online. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Too long

At the risk of stating the obvious, it's probably about time to consider how to break this article up. The subject matter is simply too broad and there is too much material that should be included, but for practical reasons we can't jam it all in. This page reminds me of the classic cartoon gag when you open the closet door and it explodes with millions of things flying out. Suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Finding things Donald says that are false or misleading, is, in the words of Tom Cruise, a target-rich environment. Dividing the article into sub-articles would lessen its impact. It should be long. We could do some relatively minor copy editing for conciseness of language, though that is labor intensive and unlikely to offset the influx of new material in an election season. I'm OK with leaving it substantially as-is, with some of the mentioned copy editing. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree for practical reasons. Articles should not be so long that they are difficult to navigate or load for those using a device with limited bandwidth or a slower connection. And we have reached that point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Attempt at spin-off:s per topic or time-period, perhaps? Pre-presidency/presidency and onward, something like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw, article is currently at 16240 words readable prose, WP:TOOBIG indicates something should be done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a pretty good idea. Three sub articles which can be linked from here would work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)