Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Suggestion of structure for the section Second term.

[edit]

Greetings.
I suggest this structure for this section, which is similar to the one followed for the inter-presidency period.
In the future, these general subjects could be separated in more specific ones.

Move review for False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

[edit]
A 2-month-old account cannot initiate a Move Review of a 2 year-old discussion, this is plainly disruptive. Zaathras (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I would like to request a [[Wikipedia:Move review#{{{1}}}|Move review]] of False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. Many Wikipedia readers (including myself) disagree with the title, as many of the things he said were true or were said jokingly. I would like to propose changing the name to Controversial Statements made by Donald Trump, to avoid controversy. Vanleos (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate oppose. It's very hard to tell when he is joking. And this article's title isn't wrong, technically. 'Controversial' seems like whitewashing it. ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 17:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trim?

[edit]

This is long... to say the least. I feel like a bit of cleanup is in order, but I'm not sure which areas to trim. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has previously been discussed to split this up by date somehow; pre-presidency/first term/second term, maybe. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this proposal. I would also support a split-off of all political statements to a separate article, although the classification would be a bit nebulous and may have OR concerns. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think it's useful to have a single, cited, source to show people all the lies and deceptions. The length of the article just reinforces it. Fixedd (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support single article but disagree with the reason stated here. The only reason these are listed is because they are notable falsehoods from a very notable, newsworthy individual. Wikipedia has no general duty to call out all falsehoods or make truth claims, only to summarize references of them by others TheWikiJedi (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible statistic quoted - is it a mistake?

[edit]

In the section "Between terms: False and misleading statements by topic: Immigration and crime", there is text that states "Trump has falsely claimed that 107% of jobs are taken by illegal immigrants". However, 107% of jobs is an inaccurate, impossible statistic, as you cannot have people take more than 100% of jobs.

The source also quotes Trump as saying "107% of jobs", so I would like to know if it is an error with wusf/politifacts, (e.g it was supposed to be 17%, but someone accidentally added a 0) or if Trump did make the claim that 107% of jobs are taken by illegal immigrants. If it is an error with wusf/politifacts, I advise that this mistake be corrected on the Wikipedia page and in the original article. Otherwise, would it be worth adding a note that "Trump made a factually impossible statement regarding how many jobs in the US are held by illegal immigrants"?

[See source 478] FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/ GMGtalk 18:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a link to google's home page. Forgive me for not understanding, but what did you mean by this? FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It means go to google and search whether he actually said this if you doubt the accuracy of the sources currently used. GMGtalk 19:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a transcript of the speech in question, and it says he claimed "The data shows that 100 percent, listen to this part, of all new jobs, net job gains in the past year have gone to illegal migrants."
This is the transcript I used.
The statement is at 00:15:00-00:15:26
Should I update the information for the page? FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong speech. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know where the original 107% claim comes from?
Many of the claims made across both speeches are similar or identical, so you can see why I made such a mistake. Though, I checked the dates, and the old source was published July 19th, 2024, while the "new" speech is from November 1st 2024. FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: A new source was added, with an article about how "107%" makes no mathematical sense. I'll check there. FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fact-checkers could not find his source. He makes up shit on the fly, and facts really are irrelevant to him unless he can use them for his own benefit. All we can do is quote him and document what RS say about the matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was "At a town hall event on Thursday in Wisconsin". Since the source was produced on a Friday (30th August 2024), the Thursday in question was either the 29th or 22nd of August.
I googled "Was trump in wisconsin on the 22nd August 2024" and found several articles about his appearance in a Wisconsin town hall on the 29th. So, we have the exact date and location the claim was made, with sources showing why it is incorrect. That should be everything.
Though, how was the article initially linked to the claim published on the 19th of July, 2024, if the speech was on the 29th of August, 2024? I'll see if there's anything saying it was edited after that date. Otherwise, I'm just confused. FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing saying the source was edited. Yes, it was published on the 19th of July 2024. The source is titled "Politifact FL: RNC Speech...", but it's still about the speech in Milwaukee he wouldn't give for over a month. FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other source attached to the claim is also dated the 19th of July. Unless there was another speech made by Donald in Milwaukee where he made the false, and again, impossible, claim of 107% of jobs being taken by "Illegal aliens". Specifically 107%, before the 19th of July. FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found the problem. The 15th to 18th of July, 2024 was the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Convention was the 19th to 22nd of August, 2024. Is it possible he made a similar 107% claim in the Republican National Convention (Because he was there on the 18th, and it was in Milwaukee)?
This information is from the 2024 Republican National Convention Wikipedia page. FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using google's "Advanced search" to filter out results from before the 19th of July 2024, and searching for "107% of jobs are taken by illegal immigrants", I was able to find a few results about Trump's statement, including a clip of him saying it from the Daily Mail tiktok account.
Problem solved, at last.
He made the claim on the 18th of July, 2024. FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for researching that. Detective work is sometimes part of editing here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the sourcing and added a quote from a source. Trump isn't good at math. The FSB's evaluation of his IQ seems to be right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

[edit]

"Many news organizations initially resisted describing Trump's falsehoods as lies, but began to do so in June 2019." This is a terrible sentence. The cited article is from June 2019, and it notes that by then multiple news outlets had referred to Trump's falsehoods as lies. The media did not suddenly begin to refer to Trump's falsehoods as lies in 2019. Changing one word would make this much clearer:

"Many news organizations initially resisted describing Trump's falsehoods as lies, but began to do so by June 2019."

I'd make the change myself, but the page is protected. Be-Plants (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]