Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Keep primary logo and add new logo

The page in the 2016 campaign gives you the option to see the primary logo election and general election logo.

The same should be done this time

It's evident what's going on here (Vandalism)

The edits aren't made in a natural point of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). The previous talk page bringing this topic up was filled with disconstuctive comments (the OP's arguments frequently being shut down with insults such as 'your just moaning', 'cope", and signed off with "lmao/haha"). It's quite evident at this point this page has been vandalized. Otterstone (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This comment makes little to no sense. In any case, if you don't agree that parts of the article are written from a neutral point of view, why don't you just suggest specific changes instead of making comments that do not suggest any course of action? Chillaxer45 (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What part of my comment doesn't make sense to you? I'm arguing that this page has been vandalized. Vandalized pages on Wikipedia have process of courses of action Otterstone (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

First, I don't think you understand what "vandalism" is. Second, your comment has so many English/grammatical errors, that I don't think you really know what you are saying. For example, what is "natural" point of view? Would you rather it be a "synthetic" point of view? And what is "disconstructive?" Do you actually believe that "disconstructive" is a word in the English language? As a starting point to making any progress here, please refer to an English dictionary. After that, please rewrite your comment so that it makes sense in the English language. Chillaxer45 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

My struggle with communicating in English isn't the subject of my post. These snarky remarks aren't constructive and arguably quite childish. Let's focus on the subject of the post. If you can't do that, don't reply ✨ Otterstone (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't focus on the subject of the post because you're not explaining it well enough. If I don't reply any further, it is for that reason. Chillaxer45 (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt a typo of one of the words is seriously preventing you from understanding the conversation. You're smarter than that. If you somehow aren't, then don't join conversations you don't understand Otterstone (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not about typos. Go read what "vandalism" means. Chillaxer45 (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s okay, you just need to be, unburdened by what has been. Realize the significance of the passage of time 67.0.219.251 (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

While Chillaxer's comments about your language are not valid (and shouldn't really be brought up), they're right in saying that it's not accurate to say this page has been vandalised – that typically is malicious and destructive in nature, rather than a NPOV issue.

That said, if you feel there are NPOV issues with this article you need to be specific on what/where they are and why you believe they aren't neutral. — Czello ^(music) 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope to re-examine the objectivity of both parties. Using one-sided political views will not help the construction of WIKI. —— Cbls1911 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Rhetoric Section Fails NPOV

The rhetoric section of this article is full of libel and slander towards the Trump campaign, and there is no reciprocal on the article for Harris-Walz. The inclusion of the unified reich hoax really says it all.

Either remove the partisan slander or reciprocate it on Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign. 68.151.23.122 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

First, please learn the difference between "libel" and "slander". Second, please be specific as to which statements are allegedly libelous. Chillaxer45 (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks very well sourced to me and is quite unusual for a presidential candidate. I don't see what this has to do with the Kamala Harris campaign article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I know, it’s pretty dystopian. They say trumps using violent and dehumanizing rhetoric against his opponents when literally two days ago, the view was comparing him to an insect while Joe Biden made a motion as if to squash him: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13891365/amp/Biden-pretends-squish-bug-table-View-Whoopi-Goldberg-compared-Trump-insect-following-two-assassination-attempts.html, https://www.allsides.com/news/2024-09-25-1515/politics-biden-pretends-squish-bug-tv-host-compares-trump-insect, https://thepostmillennial.com/whoopi-goldberg-compares-trump-to-a-bug-biden-pretends-to-kill-the-bug-during-view-interview, https://ground.news/article/whoopi-compares-trump-to-insect-biden-responds-by-pretending-to-kill-bug-on-table_240435, https://www.mediaite.com/tv/sick-people-conservatives-fume-over-biden-pretending-to-kill-bug-after-view-host-compares-trumps-behavior-to-annoying-insect/amp/, https://americanwirenews.com/whoopi-compares-trump-to-insect-biden-responds-by-pretending-to-kill-bug-on-table/, and The View itself. *Note, please don’t block me again, I am simply from a neutral POV covering this topic in an unbiased way by citing facts. 67.0.235.51 (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s just, at least if you’re gonna cover everything bad trump has done in scrutinizing detail, it would be fair to do it to the other side too to ensure false information and perceptions are not encouraged 67.0.235.51 (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay 67.0.219.251 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"The enemy within" rhetoric

For consideration in the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign#Authoritarian and antidemocratic statements subtopic.

I started a talk page section at Donald Trump#2024 campaign rhetoric "The enemy within" but I got the impression it may also/instead be more appropriate for inclusion here.

Donald Trump has chillingly suggested sending the military or National Guard after US citizens on Election Day. The Independent 10-13-2024

Video from FOX News via Wall Street Journal 10-13-24

"Former President Donald Trump called Democrats and others who have opposed or investigated him "the enemy from within" in an interview that aired Sunday, describing them as more dangerous than major foreign adversaries of the United States, including Russia and China." NBC 10-13-2024

Trump has repeatedly used the "threat from within" label throughout his campaign to label his political opponents, a categorization that's drawn increased attention as Election Day nears. "The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within," Trump said in that speech. "Our threat is from within." CBS 10-14-2024

In comments that further fueled fears of an authoritarian crackdown if he recaptures the White House, the Republican nominee said the military or national guard should be deployed against opponents that he called 'the enemy within' when the election takes place on 5 November. The Guardian 10-14-2024

But never before has a presidential nominee — let alone a former president — openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy. NYT 10-15-2024

The dark comments highlight Trump's increasing bend toward authoritarian rhetoric in his third White House campaign, some political scientists told ABC News."It's really classic authoritarian discourse," said Steven Levitsky. ABC 10-15-24

Former President Trump doubled down on his insistence that his political rivals are “the enemy from within,” even after similar comments drew backlash and became a centerpiece of one of Vice President Harris’s campaign rallies. The Hill 10-16-2024

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroying our country." CNN 10-20-2024

For the third time in a week, former president Donald Trump repeated his charge that Democrats allied against him are 'the enemy from within' in an interview with Fox News during which he called the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol 'a beautiful thing'. WaPo 10-20-2024

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is this more biased than HuffPost?

It repeats misinformation such as Trump supporting project 2025 in an effort to paint him in negative light.This is not bad due to freedom of press necessarily except that it violates its own NPOV rules. A solution would be to also apply heavy criticism of Kamala Harris on the article for her campaign, utilizing some of here gaffes such as: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_PvWfYTwJfY , https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2VKKp5SaXjM&pp=ygUhS2FtYWxhIEhhcnJpcyB0YWtpbmcgYXdheSBwYXRlbnRz , https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0FjjJme1aVQ&pp=ygUcS2FtYWxhIEhhcnJpcyBpbiB0aGUgY2xvdWRzIA%3D%3D ,https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fBy3CAhJtmE&pp=ygUfa2FtYWxhIGhhcnJpcyB3aGVlbHMgb24gdGhlIGJ1cw%3D%3D ,https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HBx3wcOdCR4&pp=ygUxS2FtYWxhIGhhcnJpcyBhIGZyaWVuZCBpbiBuZWVkIGlzIGEgZnJpZW5kIGluZGVlZA%3D%3D , https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=omrMRP15q9M&pp=ygUmS2FtYWxhIEhhcnJpcyBJdmUgbmV2ZXIgYmVlbiB0byBldXJvcGU%3, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uahdiibuoDY&pp=ygUfa2FtYWxhIGhhcnJpcyBzcGFjZSBpcyBleGNpdGluZw%3D%3D ,https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0iMYlJqsDcg&pp=ygUda2FtYWxhIGhhcnJpcyBpdCB3YXMgYSBkZWJhdGU%3D ,https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R4uPJhHheYE&pp=ygUga2FtYWxhIGhhcnJpcyBlcXVpdHkgdnMgZXF1YWxpdHk%3D 67.0.219.251 (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

We won't be clicking on your random YouTube links, we'll stick with the WP:RS that document the connection between Trump and Project 2025. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You just have to be, unburdened by what has been. Go get drunk at a bar with Gretchen Whitmer while the president calls 1/2 the nation garbage 67.0.220.30 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

??? what does that even mean? Gaismagorm (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Edits

Hello, I removed things that were not neutral and spoke from a neutral standpoint, thanks. Matthew4100002 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe your edits made the page less neutral. I believe BootsED also believes that. Do not reinsert your edits without WP:CONSENSUS here to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on what aspects you found to be less neutral. This would help me gain a better understanding of your perspective. Regarding my choice to use "unfounded" instead of "false," I believe both terms could be applicable in this context. My intention with "unfounded" was to convey that there is no evidence supporting the claims of election fraud, indicating that they lack a basis in fact. Thank you for your understanding. Matthew4100002 (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You did not use “unfounded” instead of false. You changed false to “assert that”. As stated in my edit summary: whitewashing, WP:WEASEL, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:OR concerns. For instance, removing "false" to describe claims of fraud in the 2020 elections, that only "some have characterized" Trump making false and misleading statements, assertion that he would only pardon nonviolent Jan 6. offenders which is not stated in the provided citations, among others. Other concerns over word choice that express doubt/ambiguity over RS consensus. Other things I noticed were additions to the lead that Trump would follow a “clean air” policy, but you did not add a source to state this and relied on preexisting sources that I checked and did not state “clean air” in them. This information should also have been added to relevant section in the body of the article instead of the lead, as per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. BootsED (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You make a valid point, and I appreciate your insight. However, I'm uncertain about where to locate a source regarding the clean air issue. I often listen to Trump's speeches, and when he addresses climate change, he emphasizes his support for clean air and clean water. I'm having difficulty finding a specific reference to support that. Additionally, I want to clarify that I wasn't implying the election was fraudulent. Rather, I was referring to the unfounded claims of election fraud that Trump has made, not dismissing the allegations against those claims. Thank you for your understanding. Matthew4100002 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Latimes about him saying it. After he spent most of his two-minute response time returning to a previous debate topic, Bash prompted him to say something about global warming. Trump responded that he wants “absolutely immaculate clean water” and “absolutely clean air.” Matthew4100002 (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok! I wasn't saying that you were making it up, I swear I also remember Trump saying that in his rallies. However, even for very small things like that we have to provide a source that states it, especially for political positions. Our memory is unfortunately not good enough.

Also, the source you provided appears to be a commentary piece, which is an opinion piece which should not be used. However, I overall wouldn't be opposed to a mention of Trump's comments that he wants "clean air" within the climate section of the page referring to his comments he made during the debate. However, the majority of WP:RS refer to his climate change denial and anti-clean energy policies, which makes it more WP:DUE to mention those policies within the summary in the lead, and not mention his clean air comment. BootsED (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "nonviolent," as you rightly pointed out that Trump did not make that statement. It's worth noting that some individuals have described his remarks as false or misleading, as interpretations of his statements can vary widely, leading to differing opinions about the veracity of his statements, others might refrain from commenting or may present the facts in a slightly distorted manner, often lacking the necessary context for a complete understanding. Matthew4100002 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So my concern regarding your edits was the use of weasel words that suggested doubt as to established consensus on the Trump campaign's use of false and misleading statements. There are an abundance of sources that describe how Trump's campaign is notable for them, and how they are unique in American political history. This is why we say things like "Trump's campaign has made many false and misleading statements" rather than "some have characterized Trump's campaign as making false and misleading statements".

The first represents the overwhelming consensus among RS that Trump's campaign regularly makes false and misleading statements. The second suggests that only some people think Trump has made false and misleading claims, but that there is debate and doubt over whether or not that is true. This second interpretation would be original research, as it implies a conclusion among RS that does not exist. RS are overwhelming in their assertion that Trump has made many false and misleading statements in this campaign, and that it is an outlier in modern political history. It is very explicit in this.

The same goes for other statements such as the campaign's use of dehumanizing and violent statements. RS are clear that the campaign is using them and that they are unusual and novel in modern American political history, and do not cast doubt over whether they are merely perceived that way. Yes, there will always be those who say that the statements are not violent, dehumanizing, or racist, and that they are merely "perceived" that way by "some". However, as the majority of RS do not state this, including or using weasel words to cast doubt on the larger consensus would be original research, break WP:FALSEBALANCE, and be WP:FRINGE.

I hope this helps explain things better! BootsED (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please explain what so I can address your concerns? thanks Matthew4100002 (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove all info about Vance having facial hair

I'm making this a Talk page suggestion rather than straight up edit it out to save on anyone complaining. I want to propose removal of the info under "Vice-presidential choice" talking about Vance being the first in nearly 100 years or whatever to have facial hair. While it's perhaps interesting trivia, I feel it's not encyclopedic. Overall let alone the fact there's 2 whole conflicting statements about the 3 bits of circumstantial trivia. -- Tytrox (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm fully in support of this. I believe there is a page on vice presidential firsts, and if this is a first then I suppose it could go there (but if it's just the first in 100 years then it wouldn't even belong there) Gaismagorm (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is as trivial as all that. It was reported on in sources, and is a reflection of changing trends. It's not as though we have dedicated several paragraphs of the article to it. BD2412 T 16:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but this isn't a case of a change in political trends, rather it is just facial hair trends which is in most cases trivial. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%, I don't think this should be controversial. That's the least I could say about the article as a whole, it still shocks me how partisan WP articles about him are. This article even cites "anonymous sources" from The Bulwark. Vyvagaba (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to split Arlington National Cemetary incident

Such incidents are unprecedented in American history; interpreting such as worthy of an individual page, I hereby vote yea towards this split. ManOfDirt (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose: per WP:TDS LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Where do you suggest, or do you think it should be a stand-alone? It's important to avoid the risk of a possible WP:POVFORK. There are a lot of unprecedented incidents involving Trump, but that's just it, they are all centered around him as a catalyst on one particular subject or another... This appears to be specifically related to Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, so WP:NETRUMP quite possibly applies in this case. DN (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism at start of page

There is text at the start of the page that says "some are good and some are bad, but they both suck" Earthquakesurprise (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

sorry if I make any mistakes, I am new to Wikipedia Earthquakesurprise (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues with tense since the election

Hi, I can't edit this because my account is not confirmed yet and the page is semi-locked. Noticed in the first paragraph: "He was elected into office, Trump should be the oldest president in American history by the end of his term, and the second to serve a non-consecutive term after Grover Cleveland.[18]" Grammatically this sentence is a mess, and it seems like the mess is due to it likely being edited into the present tense when the race was called. Would like this issue fixed quickly by someone who had edit permissions, and also would suggest several of us take the time to comb the article thoroughly for similar issues.K31r2 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

'Witchcraft' is being casted to Trump - add or no?

Trying to understand if consensus should N or Y this small, yet somehow significant coverage. Several news sources talk about it, I do not know about in-depth coverage. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Talk further if needed in the reference desk. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 03:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ehh, I personally would call that churnalism. Witchcraft is a niche interest that (as far as we know I guess) doesn't actually have any real effect beyond the occasional placebo effect. Sure, it may have been mentioned in multiple news sources, but the questions I would ask myself are these:

• Has the witchcraft had any significant impact on Trump's campaign?
• Is the subject of the coverage of any significance?
• Is the value of a single article's contents equal to the value of all the articles? As in, are they just repeating themselves?

I don't believe that this merits mention in the article, but this is still a good exercise in determining the worth of coverage vs content. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Which outlets covered it? Do you have links? -- Tytrox (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

is, is this a real question? Are we actually considering whether witchcraft was casted or not? Gaismagorm (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The claim was made, so the question needs to be asked to challenge it, ie. identifying sources. -- Tytrox (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I will admit, the fact that we need to discuss adding witchcraft to an article about politics caused me to take 1d4 psychic damage the first time I saw this discussion section. But if the claim verifiably exists and is of note, then it should be discussed, I guess? Sirocco745 (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/these-witches-are-trying-to-use-their-power-to-defeat-donald-trump/article_aabeec6a-8b27-11ef-a73c-831e92a6fb58.html

https://cbn.com/news/us/witches-report-their-spells-against-trump-arent-working-he-has-shield

https://www.wjla.com/news/offbeat/self-proclaimed-witches-say-spells-wont-work-on-trump-2024-presidential-election-politics-kamala-harris-tim-walz-jd-vance-magic-witchcraft-salem-halloween

well, this is certainly something. Not sure how to feel about the fact that three news sites felt the need to report on this. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Dancing

There is a block on editing this page, but perhaps something should be added about the joy and happiness of the dancing during the campaign and how that added to Trump's winning appeal? There are reliable sources for this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/15/trump-dancing-pennsylvania-rally https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/donald-trump-dance-finally-free.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.167.213.208 (talk • contribs)

Unless it turns into a wide spread reported meme or something, not everything needs to be documented. -- Tytrox (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a wide spread reported meme.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/raiders-end-brock-bowers-media-availability-after-question-about-trump-celebration-dance

https://www.tmz.com/2024/11/17/jon-jones-does-doanld-trump-dance-ufc-309/

https://www.voanews.com/a/a-dancing-trump-finds-internet-fame-in-china/7866062.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/argentinas-javier-milei-hits-trumps-signature-ymca-jig-at-mar-a-lago/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.167.213.208 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Contemporary Rhetorical Criticism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 18 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Breanna Petersen (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cstoneburner.

— Assignment last updated by Rorithomas (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is way too long

This page documents a number of incidents in exhaustive detail that could be summed up in 1-2 sentences or excised completely. Because of the 24-hour news cycle, hundreds of RS articles may be written about something that may turn out to be largely irrelevant to the general topic of the campaign. In retrospect, people can figure out what was actually important and what was just noise. Now that the postmortems are coming out, it seems like a good time to follow their lead in making those judgments and paring things down.

If someone were writing this article from scratch, I can't imagine them spending two paragraphs on the "Unified Reich" video, or even mentioning it at all. I also can't imagine them spending ten paragraphs on the "Arlington Cemetery Incident," although it deserves a mention. Sections that have their own articles (such as "Rhetoric of Donald Trump") could also be pared significantly. 2601:244:200:2660:2CAA:D649:1A4E:D402 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)