Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Proposal withdrawn as too radical, but there are some good suggestions below, so I have opened a new rename/move discussion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Mendacity of statements by Donald Trump – One thing I do get from the section above, and something that has long irritated me, is the fact that the current title is a bit misleading. It does not accurately describe the real topic. Mendacity of statements by Donald Trump is the real topic here, so the title should reflect that fact. "Mendacity" is a pretty accurate description. I suggest we move the article to that title. What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "falsehood" is a better antonym to "veracity" (despite "mendacity" rhyming better): "falsehood" asserts only that a statement is false to fact; "mendacity" can (like its synonym "lying") carry the additional implication that the speaker *knowingly*, *intentionally* spoke falsehood... which normally requires mind-reading, unless there's evidence of that knowledge and intention beyond the false statement itself. When someone *inadvertently* gets facts wrong, e.g. due to bad information sources or bad memory, that's "falsehood" but not "mendacity". We can't always know which is the case. Nevertheless we should debunk the falsehoods for the sake of others who might trustingly believe them, or think of the speaker as always reliable on facts. Does this make sense? – .Raven  .talk 22:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense, in a certain sense. The idea that we must be mind readers has been rejected by RS in the case of Trump. For a very long time, all RS resisted the urge to use the words "lies", "liar" about him, but there came a time when they finally broke down and all began to call Trump a "liar". Literally all RS. They wrote that there was enough evidence that he "should have known the facts", and that by making false statements that contradicted those facts, he should be called a "liar". We don't need to know his motives.

A thesaurus gives us these synonyms for "mendacity": deceit, deception, prevarication, falsehood, falsification, fraud, lie, lying, untruth, and untruthfulness. Yes, he occasionally tells the truth. All liars do, but he literally (it's been counted by official experts) can't speak 3-5 sentences without there being some form of the above. His modus operandi is to grab the center stage by denying the obvious facts. The very idea of "truth" does not exist in his mind. That tactic automatic guarantees he is the center of attention, and all those who speak the truth are suddenly pushed aside and he sucks the air out of the room. Even his opponents in the media repeat his lies! The Big Lie tactic works very well for him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Veracity was likely the most neutral term, though given just how blatantly false many of his statements are, I do wonder if we've come to the point where it's actually neutral to label it as Falsehood... I think Mendacity is a word that isn't used enough by English speakers to be immediately understandable by readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Locke Cole, nice to see you here. A fellow old-timer. I understand your point about the word "mendacity", and another word might be better. BTW, we say this in the lead: "Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics." The "neutral", ergo "accurate" term would be something synonymous with "the lack of veracity" of Trump's statements. What's a better word than mendacity?

The antonyms for veracity are: deceit, dishonesty, falsehood, lying, unfairness, falseness, hypothesis, imprecision, inaccuracy, inexactness, infidelity, and theory. "Dishonesty" is the most accurate description, and everyone understands that. Donald Trump's dishonesty has a nice ring to it. It rings true.

We chose this title at a time when RS were barely beginning to call him a liar, and we were too conservative, ergo not being really neutral by speaking the truth. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you too. I think Inaccuracy may be at least moving the needle in the right direction, as Veracity seeds the idea with readers that there is more truth than not I think. Inaccuracy at least sets the expectation that, more often than not, statements are false or misleading. I should mention that we should carefully consider WP:AT and perhaps look for a common name that our sources use to describe coverage of his statements as there's a risk when we choose names that we introduce unintended bias. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump. That's certainly better, because, as you have noted, and I have long felt, "veracity" implies something positive, that what he says has veracity, which is not true at all. The current title is misleading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first suggestion, many years ago, was Donald Trump's relationship to truth and facts, which is too long. By now, we know he has ZERO relationship to truth and facts, and an NPOV and better title should come firmly down on the side of identifying that fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. First of all, some form of WP:COMMONNAME should apply, because "veracity" is a more widely-known word than "mendacity" (I'd like to think of myself as fairly literate, and I had to google it). But I disagree that the current title implies his statements are true. In fact I think it implies the opposite purely by existing: if all his statements were true, there would be no need of having this article (we don't have Veracity of statements by Abraham Lincoln, after all). The article is about how true his statements are (i.e. veracity), and if most of them just happen to be false, well, that's still what the article is about. I do believe the suggested move would violate NPOV. WPscatter ^t/_c 01:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wpscatter, in what way would it violate NPOV? (Keep in mind I helped write that policy.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Valjean, I'm not sure why I'm meant to care who wrote the policy, but anyway... To me, this pretty clearly violates WP:NDESC (which isn't technically part of NPOV to be fair, but still policy). I don't think I'll be able to convince you, since my opinion is essentially that "mendacity" is an opinionated title while "veracity" is not, and if you agreed with that then you wouldn't have made the nomination in the first place. But I feel as though, in the English language, we tend to use positive terms neutrally. I can talk about anyone's wealth, even when they don't have much wealth at all, but it becomes less neutral when I start talking about someone's despondency (even though it's still just as correct when inverted). WPscatter ^t/_c 03:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure of the best way to illustrate this, but NPOV does not mean a middle or neutral position, in the normal sense. (This has nothing to do with the left-right political spectrum.) It means that editors stay neutral and do not interfere with what RS say. We document biased content and preserve the bias of the sources and topic in the article. Below is a drawing, with the C being the Center, and the S'es being the Subject limits. The top line shows a truly middle-centered/neutral topic, and the title should be totally neutral. The bottom line shows where the topic of this article lies. It is not in the center, so the title should describe that fact. It should not be like the top topic. It's not about Trump's statements in a general sense. It's about his dishonesty, so the title should say that.

|xxxxxxxxxS---C---Sxxxxxxxxx|

|xxxxxxxxxxxxxxS---C---Sxxxx|

NPOV does not require neutral sources or content, just neutral editors. We do not neuter or neutralize topics. We show the bias of the RS and that produces biased content and titles, but not any bias from editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of how NPOV works. The only way I would grant that the new title does not count as an editor's bias is in the presence of RS that say a majority of Trump's statements are false (simply noting that a large number of individual statements are false and claiming that most are is OR/SYNTH). And even then, the proposed title is just as descriptive and accurate as the current one (noting again that "veracity" as a property can still describe a low level of it), and I still oppose the move on the basis that "veracity" is a far more common term in this context. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "Mendacity of statements" has very few hits on Google (I get only 5, and one of them is the RM notice for this article). On the other hand there are plenty of other articles that use "veracity of statements" in the title, which is the case even if you strike out Trump-related results. If I showed someone the current title, I would expect them to get it, I can't say the same about the proposal. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A bunch of those "veracity of statements" hits refer back to this WP article, one way or another. If we'd titled it anything else originally, THAT phrasing would now get a bunch of hits. – .Raven  .talk 03:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're referring to is citogenesis, and it happens a lot with Wikipedia. Which makes requests like this harder because it's difficult to properly weight the RS when some (or many) may be referring to the name we chose. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I am well aware of this. However, this article only dates to 2018, and I was referring to hits that don't have anything to do with Trump. (I didn't mean to specifically mention titles, though, so that's my bad. I moreso meant that "mendacity of statements" is seemingly not a phrase used at all, whereas "veracity of statements" is.) Nohomersryan (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Politely oppose. I appreciate the original poster's perceptions, but mendacity seems to refer to the person and not to his statements, while veracity applies to statements. Also, veracity is definitely more neutral. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the article is about him, the person, and that's okay. His statements cannot be separated from him: "Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics." We are to be neutral to the topic, not to some artificial "neutral center". We should align the title with the topic. Right now the title and the article are not lined up with each other. BTW, this is also for brainstorming. Other suggestions are welcome. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merriam-Webster defines mendacious as "given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth", and gives the use-example "mendacious tales of his adventures" — that "mendacious tales" clearly referring to the statements. – .Raven  .talk 05:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We must be careful to distinguish the noun mendacity (which is under consideration) from the adjective mendacious (which, you note, indeed applies to statements). —RCraig09 (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      So are we talking about The mendacity of Donald Trump or The mendacious statements of Donald Trump? Which one covers the topic best? Which one is the better article according to RS? Let's talk about that. Look at the article, and tell me what you see. Then give that an accurate title. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— I've thought about this question generally, many times. I've looked at thesaurus.com in hopes of finding a single word that summarizes what the article is capturing; no luck, as veracity yielded all positive words and mendacity yielded all negative words. I avoided the term mendacity as it's categorically negative and—especially given the prominence of an article title—is arguably a violation of WP:BLP, which states "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia..." I've considered "Degree of truthfulness of statements by Donald Trump" (very neutral) but I thought that title too wordy, though it is an option. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, in English we often use positive words in a neutral tone, which is ultimately why I feel as though the current title can and should stand. Even in your "very neutral" example, you say "Degree of truthfulness". Why is that more neutral than "Degree of falsehood"? I argue that "veracity" in the title contextually refers to "degree of veracity" (again, that's just how English works) which is as neutral as we can get. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RCraig09, you wrote: "is arguably a violation of WP:BLP". That can certainly be argued. It would only be a violation if it was "unsourced" negative content, but that is far from the case here. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of his business and political identities. Scholarly analysis of Trump's tweets found "significant evidence" of an intent to deceive.

Failing to call a lie a lie is also misleading (Reich, 2018). Our title should describe the content of this article. Right now the title describes the neutral center of the full and theoretical possible topic area of truth vs lies, whereas RS and the article describe how Trump and his statements are far from that center and centered over his consistent use of lies as a distinctive part of his identity. He rules by deception. I would contend that dishonesty is his single most defining character trait, one that affects everything else in his life and politics. Therefore the title should move to a position centered above that reality and state the clearly negative fact of Trump's negative/absent relationship to the idea of truth. That is what NPOV requires. It does not require a theoretical "neutral" stand we take in relationship to the whole topic area, but how we reflect the RS description of this specific topic. Trump doesn't even begin to overlap the idea of truth in any sense. Even when he tells the truth he misuses it to deceive.

I am not wedded to the word "mendacity" or "mendacious". I just think we need a word that is far from the center and more accurately prepares the reader for what they will discover in their reading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your assessments and I understand your sentiments, Monsieur Valjean :-), but I don't perceive that ~100% of RSs agree, to the point where we as Wikipedians could characterize/summarize Donald or his statements as 100% mendacious/dishonest etc. For example, some of Donald's strawman-ish bluntness does expose the shortcomings of being overly politically correct, even if many pronouncements are jaw-droppingly, face-palmingly hyperbolic. Then there's the issue of proving Donald knew something was false to justify calling it a lie and not just a falsehood. I'm afraid that our inability to be as blunt as Donald is in claiming "Everybody knows it!", is why he's the Teflon Don (so far). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "characterize/summarize Donald or his statements as 100% mendacious/dishonest etc." – Not really the issue here. We're not listing every statement he ever made, categorizing, then totting up the true/false percentages, just listing those proven false. It's an old observation that even liars tell the truth sometimes... except perhaps those in logic puzzles like the old "Cretans always lie (said a Cretan)" head-twister. – .Raven  .talk 21:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Raven, I'm LMAO! "Cretans always lie." Being a PK, I'm familiar with that Bible quote. The first (and only) time my wife and I visited Crete, we immediately ran into that situation. A taxi driver almost convinced us that the only way to get to the opposite end of the island was by using him, which would have been a very large bill. Crete is not a tiny island. We discovered the bus station was on the other side of the parking lot. That was much cheaper, and we had a great vacation there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great story to tell (not so much to fall victim to)! But that wasn't a Bible quote, nor at all Christian in origin: that was the Epimenides paradox from the 6th-century-BCE philosopher, prophet, and devout worshiper of Zeus. – .Raven  .talk 22:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that cite! – .Raven  .talk 23:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That might be "Dishonesty of statements by Donald Trump", then; the very word you used. – .Raven  .talk 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster again: mendacity, definition 1: "the quality or state of being mendacious"; definition 2: "LIE". – .Raven  .talk 07:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per others. Furthermore, I wonder why this article isn't simply called False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. Veracity of statements by Donald Trump sounds like a prime example of bothsidesism. The article is primarily about how notable it is for someone in his position to lie compulsively. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, it seems like you actually agree, but would prefer a different title than the one suggested. Keep trying to find a better title than the one we currently use. Failing to call a lie a lie is also misleading (Reich, 2018). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. IMO what we have is the perfect title. "Veracity" means truthfulness, but it rarely seems to be used except when someone's veracity is doubted. I found veracity defined as "conformity to facts; accuracy", but the two examples given were "officials expressed doubts concerning the veracity of the story" and "voters should be concerned about his veracity and character".[1] In other words, it only comes up when there are doubts about someone's truthfulness. So it's the perfect word to evaluate Trump. He is unique here in even having an article "Veracity of"; apparently nobody else has come close to him in that area. The mere fact that we have an article about whether you can believe what he says or not (and thus implies not), kind of calls attention to his situation, without calling him a liar in the title. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making a great case for changing the title because, as you admit, it implies he's truthful. How the word is often used is irrelevant. The impression of the title is misleading. We need a title that leans the other way, such as Donald Trump's dishonesty. That's factual, and both NPOV and BLP-compliant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This reply is totally disconnected to the comment it's replying to. It was directly opposed to changing the title at all, and didn't admit that the title implies he's truthful (in fact, it states that it implies the direct opposite). WPscatter ^t/_c 02:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you miss that ""Veracity" means truthfulness." and "veracity defined as "conformity to facts; accuracy""? That it is often used when veracity is questioned is another matter. The title stands alone and gives the opposite impression of what the article documents, and that is that Trump has no veracity. Therefore we need a title that straight out describes the contents. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you miss the entire rest of the comment, which clearly disagrees with you? Yes, it stated the definition of veracity, but only to demonstrate that it's normally used when there is doubt. And yet again, the current title does describe the contents; it is about the veracity of his comments, it just so happens to describe a low level of veracity. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are saying the same thing. I described how I did see "the entire rest of the comment" where Melanie describes how (now my words) "it is often used when veracity is questioned", and I disagree because that "is another matter." I see what she's doing and do not buy it. It is disingenuous to use a word in the title that means the opposite of the content of the article.

So I agree with Melanie that the word is often used that way, but by itself, in the title, it means "truthful" and implies that Trump is truthful, when the article says the opposite. We need a word in the title that does not mean truthful. It should mean the opposite, IOW it should line up with the article content. The article describes his dishonesty, so we need a title that means the same. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps: "Low veracity of statements by Donald Trump" ? – .Raven  .talk 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the right idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary of suggestions from brainstorming. Let's look at some of the ideas so far:
  • Veracity of statements by Donald Trump current title, but implies he's honest. It literally leans the wrong direction.
  • Mendacity of statements by Donald Trump by myself
  • Donald Trump's dishonesty by myself (my favorite)
  • The inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump sort of by Locke Cole
  • Donald Trump's relationship to truth and facts by myself, but too neutral because the RS are not neutral on this question
  • The mendacity of Donald Trump by myself
  • The mendacious statements of Donald Trump by myself
  • False or misleading statements by Donald Trump by Zxcvbnm
  • Low veracity of statements by Donald Trump by .Raven
• More suggestions, please. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you believe the current title is unacceptable for the article and I understand why you believe it. However, there is a clear consensus against that. A large majority of participants in the discussion oppose the move outright.

That said, I would support a move to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. I do not think Donald Trump's dishonesty would be an appropriate title since it implies intent to lie, and while I understand we have RS that claim he does generally lie, most of the RS fact-checking statements in this article do not claim intent. The other suggested titles are just clunkier. WPscatter ^t/_c 14:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: the falsehood (or misleading nature) of so very many statements is the main point. We don't need to assert intent in the title. – .Raven  .talk 14:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wpscatter, take a look at the section below: #"significant evidence" of an intent to deceive -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen it. The article is, broadly, not about his dishonesty, as few of the sources about the statements discussed in the article assert intent; they just debunk them for being false or misleading. I take NPOV issues with an article titled "dishonesty" with a vast majority of sources claiming nothing stronger than falsehood. It seems to me like an article about his general propensity to lie would have a different scope than this one. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think simply Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump remains concise and is only a simple word change from the current title. False or misleading statements by Donald Trump would also work as a more verbose variation. I think both of these would pass WP:NPOVTITLE and match what our sources state. While I see a consensus above against the proposed RM title, it seems like most contributors agree the current title is not accurate, it is simply the word choice that seems to be opposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That also works for me. – .Raven  .talk 16:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comments. We're getting much closer to a resolution. My original suggestion was too radical. Others have come with better suggestions. Let's work on using one of them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump, as suggested by Locke Cole? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above discussion. (And thank you for your adaptability to other ideas.) – .Raven  .talk 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adaptation=survival (Darwin) We operate collaboratively around here and seeking to find a consensus version usually involves compromise. One of the benefits of discussions at RfCs, AfDs, and RMs is brainstorming, and the exchange of ideas. I tend to cut to the chase and be a bit too direct. Tact has never been my strong point. Therefore, I often have to bend, give up my original ideas, learn from others, and become a new and hopefully better person who learns from my mistakes and the wisdom of others. At 72 I'm still learning. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. A consensus to move to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump has been clearly established. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump → Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump – As the current title is quite misleading ("veracity" stands alone and thus implies his statements are truthful), I am rebooting the move discussion above, as it was not really finished. This last good suggestion was proposed by Locke Cole and is supported by myself and .Raven. Feel free to suggest even better titles. Please read the discussion above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this is much better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my !vote to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump per a growing consensus for it. It is more accurate and based on RS, so it is "neutral" per NPOV. When the content and title are aligned with RS, no matter whether they are left, right, up, or down, the content and title are "neutral". When editors edit in a way that deviates from the RS, the editors are not editing neutrally. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Well expressed. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold it, Valjean. In the discussion above, all of the first seven reactions were "Oppose". All of them. In each case you posted arguments and suggestions for other wording - the term WP:Bludgeon comes to mind - and other people discussed your suggestions and proposed others. But the fact remains that the overwhelming consensus in that thread was to oppose a change and keep the current wording. So your reaction is to abandon that thread, start a new one, and hope this time the seven opposers will not take the trouble to repeat their opposition. Sorry, this is not legitimate discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW just to be absolutely clear, I still think "veracity of" is the best title and I reaffirm my opposition to the changes you have suggested. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  AGF. One of the purposes of these discussions is to see where consensus lies. It rejected my suggestion as too radical, so I did the honest thing and closed it. It was that suggestion which was rejected, not the basic idea of a possible change. There were a number of suggestions for less radical titles, so it is logical to see if there might be a consensus for one of them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though I opposed the original "mandacity" language, Valjean's engagement with other editors definitely shows a good faith approach to solving a genuine, however difficult, issue. It's worth pursuing. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all of the first seven reactions were "Oppose" Please don's misrepresent my comments again. I did not oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A statement's veracity can still be analyzed even if it is a correct statement. If we change the title, it will not cover statements which are correct but still analyzed by the RS. We should move this to Statements by Donald Trump instead.

95.12.119.26 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been "cover[ing] statements which are correct but still analyzed by the RS." So the "Veracity" title doesn't fit; nor would Statements by Donald Trump. – .Raven  .talk 20:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@.Raven You have an opinion about the article's content but it is wrong. Because you are completely missing the point and your statement contradicts the available data. If you read the article once again, you will see that there are factual errors in your comment. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I *did* read the article again, before replying. It does not attempt to "cover statements which are correct but still analyzed by the RS." I should note that "cover" in this context (cover a topic) does not mean "to briefly mention occasions in passing". The history of one nation may briefly mention that other nations around the world exist, but does not cover them. – .Raven  .talk 23:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle: I definitely prefer False or misleading statements by Donald Trump because of the longstanding lead image, File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png^{(Disclosure: which I uploaded)}—which is sourced to two fact-checkers. In any event, Inaccuracy... is an improvement over Veracity..., which is actually too positive a term. —17:03, 17 June 2023 Full reasons presented below (21:01, 24 June), in Re-listing was not necessary. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• RCraig09, I too like that title better, but from the response in the previous RM, I doubt it would be approved. In spite of all the evidence, there is still quite a bit of reticence to actually clearly stating what RS say, IOW a reticence that violates NPOV. We should be echoing what RS say, not neutering, censoring, or whitewashing them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Actually an exact echo of RCraig09's "Support in principle", save that *I* did *not* upload that pic. :) Also as per my comments on the prior RfC, which I hope I don't have to repeat here.

  ---

  ETA per request below: per WP:PRECISION: "... titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article,..." — as "Veracity" does not.
  Cf. Wpscatter's question immediately below: "is the purpose of this article to list only the false statements Trump has made, or to take stock of his statements as a whole and report the veracity of them?" – .Raven  .talk 19:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is the purpose of this article to list only the false statements Trump has made, or to take stock of his statements as a whole and report the veracity of them? Obviously many, many of them are false and so the article is in its current state, but what is its purpose? Should RS come out in a month that confirm Trump as broadly telling the truth in his statements for that period, does that belong in this article? Under its current title (and perhaps its original intent) then clearly they would. But it seems like its subject is only his false statements and the unprecedented amount of them. If that is the case I would support moving to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump as the article is about exactly those statements and no others. If that is not the case, I would weakly support moving per nom as the inaccuracy clearly outweighs the veracity, but still prefer the original title as it is just as correct and descriptive. WPscatter ^t/_c 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a person tells the truth, it's not notable for such, and is therefore not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia if based only on the fact of its truthfulness. The basis for this apparently one-of-a-kind article, then, is Donald's pervasive, enduring, compulsive dishonesty which exceeds Wikipedia's notability guidelines out of the starting gate. I therefore perceive this article is about Donald's falsehoods and misleadinghoods^{(see what I did there?)} and not about canvassing for true statements as well. Accordingly I concur with User:Wpscatter's reasoning that False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is therefore the way to go—which follows the language of language-careful, neutral fact-checkers whose data is charted in the lead image. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the sourcing so far supports this name far more than the current one. It's also troubling that there appears to be a bit of citogenesis going on with the current article title. Also, per my comments in the prior RM that was abandoned. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And just to add, I'd also support False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation: Here I'm definitely seeing a lot of support for False or misleading statements by Donald Trump which is based on fact-checker language. I'm also seeing support in the 11 June Requested Move (though one editor remarked it was verbose); I don't see a basis for Valjean's 20:29, 17 June perception that "from the response in the previous RM, I doubt it would be approved". I think it is being approved here—as a successful write-in candidate no less!!! :-) I've changed my !vote above. Procedural quandary: start a new RM? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• RCraig09, you're right. We can certainly go with the better title, and I'll change my personal !vote. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• VERY meta discussion: Procedural quandary: start a new RM? I think it's early enough in the RM that anyone else coming in will see the write-in option. I generally hate the perception that RM locks us in to the initial proposal, I'd almost prefer they be forced to be submitted as a "list" style (numbered A, B, C, etc.) with the default being just an "A" option (unless the person proposing the move has additional ideas at the outset of course), and other editors being allowed to add additional bullets during the RM process if a better idea is exposed during discussion. A courtesy ping to inform participants of additional choices if a discussion is further along would seem to be enough to avoid a full restart (and with that being said, we should probably ping the folks in the above RM to let them know there's a restarted discussion). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Valjean, .Raven, Locke Cole, Wpscatter, Nohomersryan, Zxcvbnm, MelanieN, Estar8806, and Ad Orientem: Since you have already shown interest in the Rename/Move Request discussion(s), if you have not already done so, please weigh in now on the apparent growing consensus to rename as False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. We'd like to avoid a third formal Move Request. Sorry for any bother. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to it whatsoever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to either the proposed title (by nom) or the alternately proposed title. The current title is definitely a little problematic, and while the proposed solutions may not be perfect, I guess they're better than what we've got. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: abundantly documented consistent zero veracity should at least be relabeled to inaccuracy, but, following the quality of the sources, False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is more appropriate. - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump per my previous comment as it seems like the article is scoped to only those statements and not Trump's statements as a whole. WPscatter ^t/_c 21:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't like it, but I have to admit that it does describe what the article is about. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as indicated above by echoing RCraig09.

  ---

  ETA per request below: per WP:PRECISION: "... titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article,..." — as "Veracity" does not.
  Cf. Wpscatter's earlier question: "is the purpose of this article to list only the false statements Trump has made, or to take stock of his statements as a whole and report the veracity of them?" – .Raven  .talk 01:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be clear from my comment above, but to remove any doubt, Support this as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Inaccuracy" is a rather limited term. You can be broadly truthful but inaccurate in details. "False and misleading" is more accurate, but it assumes more purpose and a bit more POVish. To be honest, I'd rather leave it at "veracity", as it is the degree of truth-content that is being measured and its lack or shortness that leaves the statement to doubt. It also the most neutral. Walrasiad (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Dishonest statements by X" would be calling "X" dishonest, even though the adjective modifies "statements".
"False statements by X" expresses no such thing. One may utter false statements by error, e.g. ignorance or bad sources.
"Misleading statements" likewise may be uttered inadvertently, e.g. by simple carelessness of phrasing, only to require "What I *meant* to say was..." corrections.

It's when false or misleading statements are uttered repeatedly after correction that intent can fairly be inferred. – .Raven  .talk 23:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to either "inaccuracy" or "false and misleading statements" Andre🚐 03:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support False or misleading statements by Donald Trump as the subject of the article. starship.paint (exalt) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I do not trust anything Trump says without fact checking it. But I believe Wikipedia should be encyclopedic. "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" implies the statements are objectively evaluated. "Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump" sounds like we're starting out saying he's inaccurate, then going from there. That doesn't sound like an encyclopedia to me, it sounds like an editorial and a biased claim. Alden Loveshade (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alden Loveshade, you should read the comments above. "Veracity" implies his statements are true, but RS say they are not. The title stands alone, so when readers actually read the article, they are in for a surprise, and that is not allowed. The title and content should harmonize, and because RS and fact-checkers have analyzed and described his statements as false and misleading, it is not a violation of NPOV to do so. -- Valjean (talk)(PING me) 20:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for you comment. I agree that "Veracity" by itself implies truth. But followed by "of" it can imply an examination. For example, Merriam-Webster uses the example of "We questioned the veracity of his statements" at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veracity I believe that applies here. As an alternative, perhaps the article could be named something specifically neutral such as "Examination of statements by Donald Trump." Alden Loveshade (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You're correct about the usage of the word "veracity" but that isn't what the article is about. The article doesn't examine Trump's statements as a whole. It examines his false and/or misleading ones. WPscatter ^t/_c 20:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Reading the discussion, the support or oppose vote are comprised primarily of opinions, with little basis in WP policy. Given a lack of consensus, I would recommend users to elaborate their votes with the policies on the basis of which they have cast them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the reminder. We should always do that anyway. – .Raven  .talk 20:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-listing was not necessary: I perceive a strong, though not unanimous, consensus for False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, and I do see definite policy-based reasons even if not always specifically enumerated by all editors. For example, WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NPOVTITLE are followed because of fact-checkers' use of exactly these terms, and as well explained by Valjean above at 23:30, 19 June: "When the content and title are aligned with RS, no matter whether they are left, right, up, or down, the content and title are 'neutral'." Contrary opinions that "false or misleading" is non-neutral miss the point that we are not generalizing about Trump the man in a biography (WP:BLP), but accurately describing the content of the article which is about certain of his statements. Further, note the existence of articles such as List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and COVID-19 misinformation by the United States which may seem disparaging but are supported by reliable sources. More generally, WP:CRITERIA mentions (1) Recognizability, (2) Naturalness, (3) Precision, (4) Concision, and (5) Consistency. Recognizability and naturalness are clearly met. Precision is fulfilled, as it has generally been agreed above that the article doesn't examine all of Trump's statements but presents the statements that are false or misleading. Conciseness was discussed above, but the new title is only one word longer than the current title. Consistency is not an issue, as this article is apparently one-of-a-kind. For these reasons, this Requested Move should be approved. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second all of this, and to be perfectly clear, the scope of this article are those statements by Donald Trump which are false or misleading. Not his statements as a whole and how true or false they are. Thus the new title is more appropriate per WP:PRECISION. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I third this as well. A relisting was not necessary, and my !vote was firmly based in the WP:PAGs discussed above. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh come now colleagues. I'm thinking that there's a level of disdain for this person and that is coloring our responses. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. It's only human, but still -- it's not the Wikipedia way, and it's not excellent. I watch and guard the articles of some blackguards I hate, it keep my NPOV chops sharp, and I recommend it as a good growth exercise.

On the merits, we want to be fair, but we also want to be seen to be fair. The existing title kinda-sorta implies "Here's some famous or important statements made by Trump, and our reporting of what notable, neutral sources say about their analysis of their veracity". The proposed title kinda-sorta could be taken to say "Here's some cherry-picked statements by Trump where, as usual, he lied". Even if you like the article, it's not a good look, and just the kind of thing the Atlantic or Buzzfeed or whomever could pick up to say "Look at this article title, proof that the Wikipedia is biased". And they'd have a fair point. It's not a vote, and I call on the closing admin, who is sworn to protect the Wikipedia, to consider this.

Besides, Trump does say true things sometimes. Here is the Foreign Minister of the UK saying so. Here is Politifact giving some examples, and Politifact is legit NPOV I think. If we change this article name, we are kind of signaling "We don't want any true statements he made here, as that does not fit our agenda". True or not, justified or not, it's not a good look. Let's not.

If we make this change, I will claim the right to write Inaccuracy of statements by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama or somebody. OK? I'm sure they've made some inaccurate statements, they are politicians, they make a lot of statements, and they have agendas and are fallible. If you change the name of the article, it'll give full cover to someone wanting to do that. Yeah I know that this guy's different but that's a slippery slope to start down. We don't need to lead the reader. Let the reader read the article and figure out on her own what they think. Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Editors are free to compose comparable articles for, as you say, AOC or Bernie or Barry, assuming WP:NOTABILITY guidelines etc. are met. I don't think this is a slippery slope because it's not only you who says "this guy's different"—it's reliable sources who say "this guy's different". By any rational measure, Donald's "False and misleading statements" are WP:NOTABLE. Separately: I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says we should draft articles to avoid the perception that "it's not a good look"; in any event, the existing title doesn't prevent that perception either. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Valjean has stated many (perhaps too many) times in these discussions, NPOV requires us to consider what reliable sources are saying, not to give equal weight to both sides of every point. You're correct when you say this guy's different and the reliable sources say so too, which is why this page even exists in the first place. For that sole reason I think this argument is bunk. It's no different than any other page on the wiki. WPscatter ^t/_c 04:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query: is it unfair or non-NPOV of us to have articles titled 18th Street gang, Nathan Larson (criminal), or John List (murderer)? Those titles also imply value judgments... but also reflect our sources. – .Raven  .talk 23:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, as shown in the plots. "Veracity" obfuscates the content of the article. If we're to publish a WP:ATTACK page, we should own it. Xan747 (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chuckle... Documenting how RS and fact-checkers cover how he constantly shoots himself in the foot and unceasingly lies to his supporters is hardly an attack article. His mendacity is so far beyond anything seen before that the phenomenon was/is so notable it earned its own article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No dispute. You were intended to laugh. Xan747 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had a sneaking suspicion. 🤣-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we done? Does Paine Ellsworth's "result=procedural close" mean the move/rename can now take place? —RCraig09 (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly no, the move review was closed because apparently people don't understand what a "move review" is. Which is why I'm sorely tempted to take the whole mess to MFD as being utterly useless. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Locke Cole, what do you mean? Explain what the "move review" was about. Also, what would be the object and purpose of an MFD? What is there to prevent a close and move the article to the new title? There is a good consensus to do so. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the confusion for drive-by admins results from the June 17 RM being started for Inaccuracy of statements by Donald Trump but a consensus arising for False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. Should we start a third RM, to start clean? Would that not solve everything, albeit slowly? RCraig09 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an option that would get rid of any confusion. The first RM established a consensus for a change, just not the suggested change. It was too radical. The second one was based on a small consensus around another suggestion, but a new suggestion quickly gained traction, so that's where we are. If we start a third one around that version, we should be able to reach a more solid consensus for it, and that would be the best outcome possible. That's the whole purpose of discussions. So should we do it? Would there be any unforeseen problems with doing so? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't foresee any unforseen problems, but that's what makes them unforeseen! I think we can go for it. Third time's the charm. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand any of this. There's a clear consensus (IMO) for a move to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. It shouldn't matter that the RM was opened for a different name, the closing admin is meant to read the discussion to assess consensus. No, relisting in the first place wasn't necessary, but it shouldn't have hurt anything. Now that consensus is clear it should just be closed and moved. No need for any of this RfM or Move Review nonsense. Unless maybe there's disagreement about whether consensus has been established, but... other than that I don't see why any of it is necessary. WPscatter ^t/_c 16:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The move review was linked at the top of this RM. It was an attempt to seek a review of the "relist" closure. Apparently people at Move review aren't up to the challenge of discussing anything other than a move/not moved binary choice. WP:MFD would be one way to close down that apparently worthless process (Wikipedia:Move review). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand this correctly, we can ignore all that as just unnecessary distraction and proceed with discussions, !voting, and even get a close and hopefully just move the article? If so, are we at a point of clear consensus? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I don't know of any rule that RM participants are iron-bound to the original suggestion of a name – particularly if that RM's proposer is open to the alternatives. If the floor is open, and if a consensus has indeed been reached after discussion, the closer can surely see that and acknowledge it in closing. The relist only gave this process more time – perhaps unnecessarily (since it was not close to a deadline anyway) – which didn't harm it at all, as far as I can see. – .Raven  .talk 16:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, also, think we have clear consensus. Who among us is so WP:BOLD? If there's a serious doubt afterwards, then the doubter can start an RM. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend just waiting, since apparently @CapnJackSp's relist action is going to be allowed to stand. If we involved take action, it would make it easier to question the legitimacy of the result. Better to let an uninvolved editor or administrator close this properly. If you want to accelerate that, apparently the only way is to go to WP:CR and ask there. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the point of pinging me here. You are getting far too upset over a relist, which is a mostly irrelevant procedural thing. Nothing stops this from being closed at any point. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's rude not to when I'm talking about you? But so be it, I won't ping you again, ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. My analysis of the WP:CRITERIA roughly matches RCraig09's. The negligible conciseness loss is worth it for the improvements in precision, naturalness, and recognizability. Google News hits, only a very rough indicator, suggest that even a mouthful of a phrase like "false or misleading" is about four times more common in news media than "veracity" when it comes to Trump. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Narrow support for false or misleading claims: I actually disagree with the editors suggesting that "veracity" implies the article only discusses his true statements or that the statements are truthful. Put simply, that's just ... not how language works. If I say an article's subject is "the truth value of statements by Donald Trump" ... it'd be unreasonable to interpret that as "Donald Trump's statements are true" or "here's some true statements by Donald Trump". And, while the use of "of" makes this a non-issue, it's worth noting that veracity is (most?) commonly used when a source's truth value is being explicitly contemplated or called into account. Consider the first usage examples from Oxford Learner's Dictionary ("They questioned the veracity of her story.") or Dictionary.com ("He was not noted for his veracity.") or the most-recent example provided by Merriam Webster ("this man called into question the conduct and veracity of Anthony Fauci").
  However, this article seems chiefly dedicated not to discussing Trump's general propensity for inaccuracy, but to documenting the false or misleading statements he made. As such, "false or misleading claims" is a more apt title.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]