Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

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)

Agree. The article intro is about the presidency. Thus we focus on those 4 years, and put aside the non-political and strictly businesses topics. We retitle the article as "Disputed statements made by President Donald Trump". (That opens the way for follow-up should he win the 2024 election.) So what article titles pertaining to the non-presidential periods of his life? E.g., suggestions, that comport with (this) "Disputed statements by President ..." article? Ugh! Suggestions are needed. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest splitting in three: in general, then during his presidency, then post-presidency. The "in general" article could have the main things while the sub-articles could have more things. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Normally this proposal would make sense under WP:TOOBIG but this is an exceptional case. I am not keen in splitting into small meh articles, because it waters down the voluminous scale of Trump's Firehose of Lies. When viewers are linked to this Holy Mother of God page, it makes a huge impact in its current size. Chrisdevelop (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sanewashing Section Very Bad

The Sanewashing of Donald Trump section is rather poorly laid out.

It has 1 paragraph that reports that experts have "questioned Trump's mental state and fitness to serve" without relevance to the section. Following is an extremely long quote of a single incident, without specific relevance, then 1 paragraph saying that this response was "denounced as 'sanewashing'". Finally, at the very end of the section, the term "sanewashing" is finally described using a citation that is specifically about Donald Trump, not the term at large.

Could the section be rewritten to first describe the term (preferably using a source that is focused on the phenomenon, not on Trump specifically, to make it more useful), then explore where sources have claimed that difference incidents have been sanewashed? I think as the section stands, it doesn't engage with the term or make a good case for the trend, but a little bit of rewriting could do much better. Tomcatfish (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree (section should be shortened by 80%, or started over.). Most important of all: present an authoritative definition of sanewashing; currently it's not clear. Also, such a long Trump-quote isn't needed or appropriate in a "False and misleading statements..." article. Neither is the sentence saying several news media did not mention Trump's particular ramble; if anything, that's anti-notable. I'm OK with deleting the entire section and starting from scratch, starting with an authoritative definition of sanewashing and a clear, reliable-source expression of how it applies here. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As of the recent edit by Maykiwa, new content has been added that alleges Donald Trump has undergone a cognitive change and speaks at a 4th grade reading level. Everything can exist where it belongs, but the additions are not in a suitable Wikivoice and are also grossly irrelevant for *this* article.

I'd really really like to see this cleaned up some, but don't have perms. Tomcatfish (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Proofless claim of Kamala never working at McDonald's

For the past couple weeks now Donald Trump has been claiming without evidence that Kamala Harris never worked at McDonald's. Today he "worked" a shift at McDonald's and posted about it again on TruthSocial, and now there's a lot of news articles being written about it, like these NYT, WHY, ABC7, AP, USA, etc. I don't know why he's going to such great lengths to propagate this but I think it should be documented on the page considering how many times its come up and how blatantly false it is. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 19:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What is blatantly false? She can't verify she worked there, but there are photos of Trump at McDonald's for a photo shoot. Dhensley2012 (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I imagine if you called up Little Ceasers and asked them if I worked at one of their stores in 1990, they probably wouldn't have that record either. And even though I did, I certainly couldn't prove it now. There's no reason to retain basic records for that long, both individuals and companies routinely shred documents when they are outdated. A large company like McDonalds doubtless have written procedures on exactly when to do so.

However, saying She can't verify she worked there implies she has tried and failed to do so, which I've not personally seen in any of the reporting, probably because it doesn't seem important to rise to the bait while Trump is doing a photo-op working a fryer for a few minutes in a McDonald's that temporarily closed for this event.

Politicians tend to exaggerate their past or where they came from when it suits their purposes, there's ample evidence of that, but I suspect the reason Harris hasn't "proved" she worked at McDonalds is that it isn't seen as an important point by her campaign. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, Donald Trump is a pathological liar, and lies like most people breathe. The Washington Post published this article, titled, "No, McDonald's didn't confirm Trump's baseless claim about Kamala Harris" that says:

The restaurant chain — obviously not unhappy at the attention — sent a message to its employees that was obtained by The Washington Post. It indicates that no records of Harris's employment exist, but makes clear that this is not an aberration and not a reason to think that she didn't.

"Though we are not a political brand", the message reads, "we’ve been proud to hear former President Trump's love for McDonald's and Vice President Harris's fond memories working under the Arches. While we and our franchisees don't have records for all positions dating back to the early '80s, what makes '1 in 8' so powerful is the shared experience so many Americans have had."

The reference to "1 in 8" is to a corporate marketing program highlighting that (it claims) about 1 in 8 Americans have at some point worked for the chain. As McDonald's clearly accepts that Harris did.

The article also says, "The restaurant was closed, and the cars that went through the drive-through were supporters who had been screened by the Secret Service." Naturally. Carlstak (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Even though Trump's claims are unsubstantiated, we can't really place this information in this article because records of her working at McDonald's have probably been destroyed because it was a long time ago. Maybe it'd be better to place the information at Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, since then it wouldn't imply whether or not Trump lied and there could also be more details about Trump's McDonald's visit, since that also doesn't really fit into the topic of misinformation and is more of a campaign strategy. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 22:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, Trump is clearly trying to turn it into a last-minute campaign issue, for reasons that are not entirely clear. It's not as if he could even try to pass himself of as ever having been a working class person himself. I'm surprised the Secret Service let him handle a deep fryer. You can really get hurt if you don't know what you're doing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggested "lies" turn to be true

I've never edited wiki before. I'm aiming to be honest, so I want to edit the Spying comment. As it's been reported through Washington Post, CNN, and others that the Clinton campaign did in fact spy on the Trump campaign. I know this will go no where, not I gotta ask, will this edit get approved? Dhensley2012 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in is verifiability via coverage in reliable sources. You say it has been reported through several of these, if that's the case it would be helpful if you were to provide links to that coverage. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I can find no such reporting by Washington Post and CNN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

False or misleading statements or Alleged false or misleading statements?

I checked some of the Washington Post explanations of the "false or misleading claims" (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/) for topics I'm knowledgeable about. Some of the explanations are not in contradiction with Trump's statement; for some others, the explanation provides no proof that Trump's statement is "false or misleading"; or the Washington Post provides just a personal opinion, often because no consensus study exists on the topic; for a few others, the Washington Post provides sources that are very questionable; in some cases, Trump's statement is just somewhat oversimplified or exaggerated, but not wrong or misleading, which may be acceptable for a statement designed for a speech to a wide audience. Since clearly some of Trump's statements picked by the Washington Post are not "false or misleading statements", shouldn't the article be called "Alleged" false or misleading statements? Jacques de Selliers (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)