Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Requested move 17 June 2023

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)

---

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)

• Yes, this is much better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

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

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

@.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)

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)

"File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png" — based on language of fact-checkers

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

• Support False or misleading statements by Donald Trump as the subject of the article. starship.paint (exalt) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

    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)

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)

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

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

"False or misleading claims" — language of fact-checkers

• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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

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

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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.

"the consistency of falsehoods"?

What does that mean? Is there a better way to say it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The biggest Pinocchios of 2021

• Analysis | The biggest Pinocchios of 2021

References