The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per discussion below. Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Speedy keep Larry Sanger whining that we cover Trump's very real scandals but not Obama's manufactured ones is not a basis for deleting the former. Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I'm with XOR'Easter that it's baffling to think a title this boring and unspecific is too biased against Trump. The title doesn't accuse Trump of being a liar, it simply states that this article covers various instances of Trump making statements whose accuracy was covered significantly in reliable secondary sources. An alternative title like "allegations of falsehoods" would make it sound far too subjective or 50/50 (see WP:NOTNEUTRAL). It would be erroneous to use Wikipedia's voice to make it sound as if it's just a matter of opinion whether or not, for example, the National Hurricane Center's forecast for Hurricane Dorian was that it would hit Alabama. Two things can be true at once: 1) this is not an attack page and 2) we should not present things as being subject to opinion if they are not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An WP:ATTACK page is a page written specifically to denounce a subject. This article may be a magnet for POV issues, but you cannot deny that the reliable sources have covered Trump's lies and other inaccuracies at length. He's in the middle of a dust up with Twitter over them fact-checking his tweets as we speak. POV issues should be dealt with on the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep It is supportable by WP:RS. Per Wikipedia:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the expanded article for the already huge Donald Trump article's "False statements" section (that could potentially also be renamed). There seems to be a misconception about WP:ATTACK by the nominator. The topic is also very notable, or it wouldn't be mentioned in the main article either. —PaleoNeonate – 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep SoWhy succinctly explained how this article does not violate WP:ATTACK.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely notable enough to be worthy of its own article. The OP asked why there isn't an equivalent for other politicians - certainly, if it's notable, there should be an equivalent article for them too. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 20:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit: On a related note, it is possible that the page has become a wp:list instead of a discussion of the veracity of the subject's statements. The page does read like a lengthy review of examples as opposed to a review of his general truthiness. Perhaps a refactoring may be in order. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone WP:SNOW close this? A third AfD with the pretty much the exact same rationale is disruptive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fact-checking service or trivia website.--Darwinek (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle you are right. In practice, however, it is used as a trivia website. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this is an encyclopedia article. Perhaps not a terribly well-organized one, but a legitimate one nevertheless. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you point out an article in any other encyclopedia that shows similarities to the current article? Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Narssarssuaq: - can you point out anyone that reliable sources say tells falsehoods on the level of Donald Trump? Or can you find the previous person who told an unprecedented number of falsehoods in American politics? I brought seven sources above showing what academics wrote about this subject. What can you bring to the table? starship.paint (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Anyhow, Trump was voted in because many people carefully judged that he was the more truthful candidate. So apparently you don't agree with some people on this. Many of these people will possibly hold that truth may not only be about one's level of accuracy when it comes to factoids, but also about one's understanding the broader picture. You thus need to define truth, and, by extension, understanding. You may start here: Epistemology. Good luck. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narssarssuaq: - some people carefully judged that Trump was the more truthful candidate, and these people are at odds with the reliable sources presented. You claim that Trump understands the broader picture, no, instead he has [3] "often lied about facts in ways that distorted reality to his political advantage", then he "expected others to accept his version of reality and dismissed disagreements as partisan attacks on him or 'fake news'". In fact the same source concludes that his consistent lying has undermined enlightenment epistemology because people are now disagreeing on what the facts are. starship.paint (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That paper seems relevant. By the way, you misrepresented what I just wrote. I did not claim that Trump understands the broader picture, but that some people think he does. Are you able to spot the difference between these two? Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narssarssuaq: - yes, I can spot the difference, but why does it matter for this page what voters think? This page is about Trump, here you are talking about voters. starship.paint (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narssarssuaq: Please don't bring philosophical obfuscation into this. WP:RS exists for a reason. userdude 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This is easily notable and not an attack. If repeating your words back to you is considered an attack, then I think the issue is with what you are saying. Also, I find it odd that users are saying that how the media's reporting of the seemingly unlimited number of lies from the president is somehow Wikipedia's narrative. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work in deletion discussions, and this isn't the place to address POV issues. Nihlus 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not only does every word violate in this article violate NPOV, the entire idea of the article violates NPOV. That can't be resolved in the talk page. I can't say that this doesn't pass GNG (it does), but it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. I could probably find a million local, sub-national, national, international sources on every world leader (Bush, Reagan, Obama, G. Washington, Boris Johnson, etc.) talking about their dishonesty. I don't think it's possible for an article of this nature to ever be neutral, every source that is talking about his lies is biased. Keeping an article like this opens up a can of worms, Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased like this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - you have fundamentally misunderstood WP:NPOV, it does not mean neutral articles, it just means that editors must neutrally reflect the POV of the sources proportionately, and that POV may very well be not neutral. Put another way, WP:NPOV calls for no Wikipedia-editorial bias, not no source bias. Also - the sources are clear. Politicians tell untruths, but Trump tells more. He is exceptional. starship.paint (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. In addition to all the other keep and speedy keep votes I have some unique contributions. There is an article on Bushisms. That's not an attack page. Many politicans have a "Public image of" page on Wikipedia. Not all of those are positive (as not everyone has a positive public image). Plus, this has been nominated twice and not deleted. Nothing has changed in that time. Going through this process is not going to be constructive.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting use of statistics. The article does not attack Mr Trump - it merely documents the veracity or otherwise of a certain proportion of statements recorded as coming from him, attributed to him, or issued in his name. - Jandalhandler (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. An objective encyclopedia is much more useful than a neutral encyclopedia (Sorry Larry Sanger) and trying to provide a neutral point of view to all situations is honourable but otherwise wrong see Criticism of Holocaust denial. Since this is the third nomination this page should be protected. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. After all we have reached the End of history, and everyone agrees on what's good and what's wrong. Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is perfectly fine, all it does is describe and document some of Donald Trump’s more controversial statements. As long as it stays neutral, it is a useful article that should not be deleted. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:FALSEBALANCE. userdude 17:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  userdude 17:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about closing this as speedy keep, but felt an opinion forming so decided to vote instead. Speedy keep This topic is widely covered on RS and, speaking as a non-American, represents one of the aspects of Trump's presidency that is most internationally notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and ban User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers from articles relating to US politics. This was a snow keep only a few months ago and a snow keep earlier last year. Iamreallygoodatcheckers should never have nominated it, and by doing so, is showing clear bias. Looking at other edits, they have also been controversially removing content from the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as relevant through extremely wide coverage and notability. - DVdm (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.