Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for Comment: Should the article state that Trump said he would be a dictator on "day one", as cited in reliable sources/discuss the topic of Trump and dictatorship?

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.

---

Reliable sources agree that Trump said that he'd be a dictator on "day one," and use this exact phraseology: the Atlantic "Donald Trump, the former president of the United States who tried to steal the 2020 election, says he’ll be a dictator on day one of a second term. That’s not the rhetorical excess of the mainstream press, nor is it the cynical spin of a political rival. It’s just what Trump said." "Trump says he'll be a dictator on 'day one'", CBS "Trump says he would be a dictator only on Day One if he wins", NY Times "Trump says he wouldn't be a dictator, except on day one", USA Today "Trump says he will be a dictator only on day one." Some editors believe Trump didn't say exactly that and this statement shouldn't be included and/or the article should ignore this topic entirely. QUESTION: Should the article state, as claimed by reliable sources, that Trump said he'd be a dictator on day one of his presidency, and discuss the wider topic of Trump and dictatorship, which has been extensively covered in reliable sources? 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I just want to clarify a bit. There was recently an edit to the page that said Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator on day 1. Here are the six sources that were used in the edit to back up this claim.

The edit in question is the following (the six sources were included in an efn template to reduce their visual impact on the body of the article which was removed for the purposes of this talk page owing to the efn template not working the same on talk pages):

On December 5, 2023 in a recorded television interview with Sean Hannity, Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency,

and avoided Hannity's question that he would not "abuse power, to break the law, to use the government to go after people."

BootsED (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Further information: the former edit previously used the word explicity and refused, in which I agreed to remove explicitly and changed refused to avoided to use more concise language and be more accurate with what the sources said. The issue is, that some members refused to admit that Trump even said he would be a dictator on day 1, which goes directly against what the provided sources state. BootsED (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Support Yes, this was an "off-the-cuff remark" but the reason he was asked to address this topic is because it was already highly notable and generating widespread coverage (see the bibliography of 75 recent sources from prior to the current incident.) The notability and wider relevance of this subtopic long preceded the interview; indeed, the inherent notability of the topic is why Trump was asked to address it even by a cheerleader like Hannity in the first place. It is an unavoidable topic in discussing the Trump campaign: even Republicans like Kagan and Cheney each published on this topic in the previous week. I thus strongly favor expanding the article to include full discussion of Trump's plans for dictatorship, which, I submit, is likely the most notable aspect of this article topic. I believe there is an overwhelming consensus in reliable sources to atrribute Trump as having said that he said he'd be a dictator on "day one" and that his remarks meant precisely this. That's more than enough. We don't need every editor to personally agree that he precisely said that. All we need is a consensus of reliable sources on what was said. Remember: if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Malformed RFC - There's no question being asked, or options being presented. Again, Trump didn't say he'd be a dictator. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "Should the article state, as claimed by reliable sources, that Trump said he'd be a dictator on 'day one' of his presidency and discuss the topic of Trump and dictatorship, which has been extensively covered in reliable sources? I truly am at a loss as to how to assume good faith here. Either you clearly knew a question was asked and decided to write "No question is asked" anyway or you didn't read the RfC before responding and making a spurious objection to it. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You've yet to show me a video, where Trump says he'll be a dictator. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a case of WP: I don't like it or WP: Competence is required? I don't need to show videos to put something in an encyclopedia. We don't put things in based on what an editor thinks is said after watching a video themselves directly. We operate off of what reliable sources agree was said. I've already showed you countless times that every source attributes him saying that he would be a dictator on day one, and yet you shockingly think your own personal views on what was said are a better basis for writing an encyclopedia. I'm truly aghast at this incredible disregard for sources and apparent belief that we should put our personal views above the consensus of reliable sources on the matter. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Best to let others chime in. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Best to reflect on the very serious problems with your editing I've called to your attention here, instead of ignoring them. It is absolutely inappropriate to substitute your own opinion for that of reliable sources. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: If this content is to be included in Wikipedia, it should be in the BLP as part of a broader discussion of the evolution of his rhetoric from authoritarian (for years) to fascistic (in recent weeks) to dictatorial (now). As it stands now, none of this is mentioned in the BLP. I have not tracked the BLP persistently over the years, but I cannot fathom that the omission of this elephant in the room is a mere oversight, but rather might have been a deliberate effort to exclude it. soibangla (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is not a legitimate policy reason to oppose discussing the notable topic of Trump and dictatorship or Trump's authoritarian tendencies in his campaign article in general, or the particular comments in the interview in particular. I agree the omission of such material from the main Donald Trump article is a monstrous omission. That does not mean or imply that it should not also be included here, where it is of course quite pertinent. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  The evolution of his rhetoric pertains to the man, not his campaign, so the primary focus should be on the BLP. Of course that does not preclude a mention in this article. soibangla (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  soibangla, can you explain how Trump-the-man is neatly separated from Trump-the-candidate, please? Why in the world would the encyclopaedia not mention this incredible notable facet of the current

  campaign here, and the evolution of his authoritarian rhetoric on his BLP? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support: The sentence in question is clearly backed up by reliable sources. Reliable sources clearly agree this comment was said by Trump. Opposition to this edit largely falls along the lines of "I disagree with the sources." This edit should be put back in the body of the article. BootsED (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - It was a stupid off-the-cuff remark, of which he has made thousands. And what does dictator for a day mean? If the point is to document his well known respect for absolute power, this would be a distraction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support because it seems that WP:RS disagree with my initial reasoning that it's a self-serving distraction (this piece convincingly debunks that premise), and that they prefer to take him at his word when he makes overt threats. The statement has been not just covered, but analysed in practically all US news outlets, is relevant to his 2024 campaign (it's in-scope), and complements existing content about his authoritarian rhetoric, so it is due. And I disagree with soibangla: the main article is hard to change, so the only option is to start in subarticles to "demonstrate" the strength of the sourcing. DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Who actually said, if Trump won the 2024 election, there'd be no 2028 election? Such a change, would require an amendment to the US Constitution, approved by 38 of the 50 states. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not attributing that statement to anyone nor did I suggest the statement be added to the article. Certainly, that is the implication of the idea that Trump will rule as a dictator though. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  So... you were giving a personal opinion. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi GoodDay,

  There actually was a comment made by Trump about “terminating” the Constitution in order to reverse his election loss. However, 67, we shouldn’t make the claim that there won’t be an election in 2028 if Trump wins in 2024. I noticed you added that to a previous comment of yours. I would recommend removing it to avoid over complicating this rfc. The main goal here is to simply reach a consensus, ideally that Trump did in fact say he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency, and that the provided sources agree with that statement, and that it deserves to be mentioned in this article; not going ahead and saying that this means there won’t be an election in 2028. BootsED (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at the source-in-question. It appears to be Christie's claiming Trump said it. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi GoodDay. Please read the whole article, they rate it as “true” and describe the comment Trump made. Here’s a Snopes Fact Check on the claim. BootsED (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm looking for a video of him directly saying these things. Instead of interpretations by others, of what he may have meant. Anyways, I'll leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  GoodDay, you appear to be unaware of a vast body of RS reporting on what Trump and his coterie have said and done, and you appear also not to know how elected heads of state have historically transitioned to install themselves as autocrats, even with periodic mock elections after their initial ascents. The US came close to that kind of transition in 2021. Your comment about a constitutional amendment is nowhere reflected in detailed scholarly discussions of the mechanisms of manipulation that could be used and have been openly discussed by Trump and the Republicans. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Biden becoming US president at Noon EST on January 20, 2021, was hardly in doubt. You're forgetting that the the USA has been through much tougher tests to their Constitution, in its history. The American Civil War, comes to mind. I know we're never going to agree on this general topic, so we'll only be wasting each others time, from here forward. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your personal opinions, yes, are a waste of time. I am referring to published RS, many of which you've seen me cite on this subject on the main Trump page. The point is that one must read RS and discuss applying them to article content. I don't see any comment from you based on that. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Hamilton movement tried to persuade enough Trump electors to go faithless, in order to 'at least' put the 2016 prez election into the hands of the House. But like IP 67 says, we're going off the rails. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  We are getting a bit off the rails here, but the problem with your analysis is that the constitution is not self-enforcing. It cannot rise and enforce itself; it relies on people to carry it out. When Trump asked Pence to ignore the constitution and throw out the votes for Biden, and recruited fraudulent electors to do so (see Trump fake electors plot), the plan only failed because other actors declined to participate in Trump's illegal scheme. No one seriously disputes that this is illegal and unconstitutional. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi GoodDay. I’d like to post the previous comment 67 made to your previous assertion about not seeing a video:

  “Is this a case of WP: I don't like it or WP: Competence is required? I don't need to show videos to put something in an encyclopedia. We don't put things in based on what an editor thinks is said after watching a video themselves directly. We operate off of what reliable sources agree was said. I've already showed you countless times that every source attributes him saying that he would be a dictator on day one, and yet you shockingly think your own personal views on what was said are a better basis for writing an encyclopedia. I'm truly aghast at this incredible disregard for sources and apparent belief that we should put our personal views above the consensus of reliable sources on the matter.” BootsED (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Likely best, we end this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi GoodDay, thanks for the comments on my talk page. Again, apologies I came off too harsh. BootsED (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose It was a joke. Trump decided to own the reputed accusation forwarded by Hannity in that softball interview and make a joke of it. Immediately after the comment, he stated explicitly what he meant by "being a dictator": closing the border and increasing oil drilling. Those are executive orders, which are legal (until/unless Congress votes to override), and thus do not constitute being a dictator in the conventional sense. Having any kind of statement in the article that Trump said he would be a dictator would simply be taking a joke out of context and portraying it as sincere. Michaelmalak (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is your opinion, based on your own reading of the primary source material. Reliable sources don't describe it or treat it as a joke, nor should we. Please correct me if I'm way off base here, but doesn't policy require us to abide by the universal consensus of reliable sources, rather than the original research and personal opinions of our editors? If I got to put my opinions in the article it would say that the 2024 election will be the last American election ever held if Trump wins, but luckily we don't have to put either your opinion or mine in the article, we can just put in what the reliable sources say. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the first reliable source listed above [1] and it largely corroborates what I said: that his self-professed dictatorship would be limited to one day, and to only two actions. "No, no, no, other than day one. We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator." Any heading or statement that states an unqualified "Trump intends to be a dictator" would be a lie. Michaelmalak (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michaelmalak,

The original edit in question stated that "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency, (correct)" not that "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator if he won the presidency (which is technically correct)" or "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator for his entire term (not correct)". I want to be specific with my language. You also admit Trump claimed that he would be a dictator for one day, so the statement, "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency," is accurate. This is also what the provided sources say. BootsED (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

To be specific, substitute "for" for "on", as in "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator for the first day of his presidency". But even that would need to be qualified with the two actions he intends. Michaelmalak (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The provided sources don't state that Trump would "only be a dictator for the purposes of closing the border and drilling." I don't really know how that would work anyways. The RS all state that Trump said he would be a dictator "on day one" of his presidency. They don't talk about the oil and drilling comments other than in the transcription of the entire sentence. I believe this would fall under original research as the sources do not "directly support" this conclusion. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Just now took a look at the second reliable source listed above. [2]. It poses as a legitimate question: "A one-day dictator?", stating that they sought clarification from the Trump campaign but did not receive it. So at best, it's inconclusive. It might be best to just present the quote in full and let readers draw their own conclusions. Michaelmalak (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly that may be the best way forwards. BootsED (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:No original research. BootsED (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Just want to throw this out there, here is a recent AP article that specifically states, "Trump himself has been vowing “retribution” against his enemies and ramping up his use of violent and authoritarian rhetoric, including saying he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his second term." Yet another RS that states that Trump did indeed say he would be dictator on day one of his presidency, and has been saying increasingly violent and authoritarian rhetoric. BootsED (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. “Trump says he won't be a dictator if elected, 'except for Day One'”. I’d have no objection if we say what that MSNBC headline said. But because it’s apparently being suggested that we slant that headline by omitting that he promised to not be a dictator after day one, then of course I oppose. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I personally would not object to a compromise in which we describe it in something like this fashion. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I think this simple solution can solve our problem. BootsED (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is an invalid RFC, which is required to have a brief, neutral question. This should be shut down and if somebody wants to actually follow the requirements of WP:RFC rather than try to game the process through an objectively non-neutral and long-winded opening comment they should do that. nableezy - 16:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  In agreement @Nableezy: - This RFC should be shutdown & another opened, with a 'neutral' heading & question. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  COMMENT: Please note that this editor previously tried to "shut down" the RFC by falsely stating that "no question is being asked." Since it is unambiguous that the RFC contained a question, ("Should the article state, as claimed by reliable sources, that Trump said he'd be a dictator on day one of his presidency...?) only two conclusions are possible. 1) This editor attempted to shut down an RfC with which he disagreed without reading it; or 2) This editor deliberately engaged in willful misrepresentation as to the RfC contents in order to shut it down. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which is the case. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless it states what he said, specifically, When asked if he would be a dictator, Trump responded no, "except for day one". - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Recommend the RFC question be shortened & more compact. In its current form, it might be confusing to editors. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay! I was unsure if we were allowed to edit the format of an rfc once it was live but I agree this looks much better. BootsED (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi again everyone, I posted an updated edit on the article page with this rfc in mind that makes it clear that Trump only said he would be a dictator "on day one" of his presidency and not after, and added the Trump campaign's statement explaining his comment afterwards. I also added in the Biden campaign's response to the statement and political analysis stating how they believe it will harden Biden's decision to make democracy a central pillar of the 2024 campaign. I put this under a new sub-sub-subsection entitled "Trump's dictator comment" which is under a new sub-subsection entitled "Authoritarian and antidemocratic statements" which include references to the many magazines, historians, and commentators who allege Trump's authoritarian statements have increased or are "fascistic," some of which were already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I included this sub-subsection under the subsection entitled "Rhetoric" which is itself under the "Platform" section. Please let me know if you think this edit addresses everyone's concerns. BootsED (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see Anythingyouwant removed the political analysis part about how Biden's campaign reacted to the comments. I'm not sure I agree there but fair enough, this probably deserves a mention on Biden's campaign page anyhow. We don't want this one to get too long. BootsED (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@BootsED: Now that you've made updates to the page, since this RFC was opened. Does that change what this RFC's proposing? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Close & re-do

@Redrose64:, I believe the RFC's title & question (if that's what it is), may be reasons for shutting down this RFC & starting another one. This RFC's opening statements/question, doesn't come across as neutral in nature. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe this rfc should be closed not due to neutrality concerns, but simply due to the fact that I believe its main points have been addressed and already added into the article with the addition of a new sub-sub-subsection and new sub-subsection I described in my comment above. BootsED (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

They shouldn't have been added to the page, while the RFC is in progress. A consensus should've been established for such additions. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If BootsED's addition is disputed I would support closing this RfC and reopening it with a proper WP:RFCNEUTRAL/brief question. Pinged for this RfC by FRS WillowCity^(talk) 00:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Look, if I wanted to be non-neutral about this you'd know it. I described the conflict in perfectly neutral terms. Everyone agrees that the sources state that Trump said he'd be a dictator on "day one." Some editors think he didn't actually say just that and we should ignore the sources. The question is simply, should we? Just because the answer is obvious and one side is obviously wrong doesn't mean it's not neutral. We shouldn't have needed an RFC on something that the objecting editors frankly should have known better about, before wasting everyone's time on demanding that we "show them on the video" instead asking we show them in the reliable sources (which we did). Your own opinions on what you think Trump said or meant doesnt displace the consensus of reliable sources. Amazingly, some of you still seem not to get the point. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

In no world is the opening of the RFC described "in perfectly neutral terms". What would be a neutral RFC question is "should the article state that Trump has said he will be a dictator on day one?" the end. Your entire comment is a vote, not an RFC question. nableezy - 16:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. You don't get it, and probably 1) have not read the entire discussion before weighing in, and also 2) have not read the sources. Everyone agrees that the sources quoted Trump as saying he would be a dictator on "day one." This is not a fact in dispute and hence is a neutral description of the facts to which all parties would agree. The dispute is merely between editors who think we should rely on these sources, and the other other editors who dispute the correctness of these sources and say that he didn't say exactly that, and hence that we should not attribute such statements to Trump. There is no dispute between the parties as to whether the sources indeed quote Trump as saying that he would be a dictator on "day one." (Simply read them.) In any case, the entire discussion is effectively mooted because Trump went on television and in front of audiences several more times openly boasting of his previous comments, repeating again that he would be a dictator, wants to be dictator, etc. So whatever leg you thought you were standing on with this comment has been kicked out beneath you by the man himself, who came right out and said "Yes, I said that." 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Im wrong, our policy on RFC questions is wrong, and your opening was perfect. And anybody who disagrees with you, not even on the content but on the validity of the RFC, is obviously ignorant of the discussion and the sources. Makes sense I guess. nableezy - 16:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are not understanding. First of all, the "policy" page you link me to states that it is an essay, not policy, and contains the editor's own opinions: "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." So much for that argument. Second of all, neutral framing requires posing a dispute in terms which the disputants would agree. Any reasonable party to this dispute would agree that the sources state attribute Trump as saying he would be a dictator on "day one". The persons disputing inclusion in the article did not dispute that the sources said this; rather, they disputed whether the sources were correct in attributing this to Trump. This was the dispute. Since you appear to not realize this, I do not think it was unfair of me to conclude that you'd neither read the dispute nor the original sources. Cheers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that is an information page, not an essay. If youre going to say others are not reading you would do well to make sure you are reading yourself. nableezy - 17:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Closure

I've requested closure for this RFC. In future, I'd recommend a shorter & more precise title for such discussions :) GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2024 (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.

References

RfC: Should information regarding the Colorado ruling be added to the lead ?

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.

---

Should we state in the lead that the Colorado Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the presidency under the 14th amendment for engaging in insurrection, and ordered that he be removed from the Colorado ballot as a result?

Reliable sources like CBS news describe the Colorado ruling as follows: "In a stunning decision that could have major ramifications for the 2024 presidential election, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office again and ordered the secretary of state to remove his name from the state's primary ballot." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-supreme-court-opinions-decision-trump-primary-ballot/. The Court itself describes its holding in very similar terms: "A majority of the court holds that President Trump is ineligible from holding the office of President under section three of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution...The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot." Should we add this material to the lead and adopt similar language, stating something like:

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the Presidency under section three of the 14th amendment for engaging in insurrection against the United States, and ordered that he be removed from the Colorado presidential ballot as a result. The decision is stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Obvious support Wikipedia lead policy requires that all significant controversies related to an article topic be covered in the lead. The dispute over Trump's eligibility to be president certainly qualifies as a significant controversy related to his presidential campaign. As for wording, given the potential for misunderstandings, we should be very careful with being loose with paraphrases, and should hew closely to the wording given in the summary of the opinion, and the most reliable sources on its holding. The CBS news article linked above is especially careful in this regard and I suggest we adopt similar phrasing, delineating separately the Court's ruling that Trump is disqualified from the presidency under the 14th amendment's insurrection clause, and its order, based on that holding, that he must be removed from the Colorado ballot. Some editors have conflated the issues and added inaccurate text that misdescribes the ruling. As long as we clearly state that the Colorado Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from being President by the 14th amendment for acts of insurrection, and ordered he be removed from the ballot as a result, we are golden. But if we leave out the first part and write that the Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the Colorado ballot without mentioning the ruling that is the basis for that order, we misdescribe the situation, fail to adhere to our sources, and mislead our readers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to the policy page that specifies that "all significant controversies related to an article topic be covered in the lead"? BD2412 T 20:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I have in mind " It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" from WP:LEAD. Do you disagree that a lead should discuss the significant controversies related to the article topic? I hadn't expected that point to be in the least controversial. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I would think that the operative word in that instruction is "summarize". BD2412 T 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by what you mean here. I've proposed adding 1 sentence to the lead Isn't that a summary? In any case, the policy does state that all prominent controversies should be summarized in the lead section of the article. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - An RFC's question shouldn't be the length of a paragraph & the RFC title shouldn't be too overly worded. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine. I've condensed it.67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Patience - Let us see how this proceeds. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Premature RfC. This would appear to be the first time anyone has suggested adding content about the Colorado ruling to the lead section. Since it hasn't been disputed or even proposed, this is a failure to follow WP:RFCBEFORE. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please read the page before commenting. The section above this is literally an Edit Request on this very matter asking information on the eligibility dispute be added to the lead, to which an administrator suggested opening an RfC instead of an edit request. I notice this is a persistent issue with you, where you weigh in despite not understanding the issues or knowing what is going on, and make blatantly incorrect statements (i.e. claiming "no prior edit request" when the section IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THIS ONE IS AN EDIT REQUEST ON THIS TOPIC.) Please try to work on that and be more informed before opining without information or making false statements that you would have known were incorrect had you read prior to posting. Cheers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nowhere in the previous section do you ever mention adding the content to the lead, you just mentioned adding it to the body of the article. That is a significant difference. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Please. I literally requested it be added as the second sentence of the article. The lead. Again, I would highly counsel you conduct yourself with more honesty and make more of an effort to get things right before making false claims. You participated in the discussion and very well knew there had been a prior discussion on whether that material should be added to the lead, the outcome of which was administrative closure with the administrator suggestion to open a discussion/request for comment/dispute resolution as the content was disputed and not appropriate for an edit request. I do not appreciate the repeated disinformation you are adding to this thread. 19:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)67.82.74.5 (talk)

That is my mistake then, I apologize. The entirety of the discussion was based on content in the body, so I didn't realize your original request was to add it to the second sentence of the article. It is disappointing that you chose to assume bad faith and contend that I was lying when all I did was make an error that anyone else could've made, and that frankly has little impact on whether this RfC should be closed, as it is still a hasty and poorly formatted RfC (especially given what it has devolved into since your undoing of its closure, which is another reason why undoing the closure of your own RfC is a bad idea). We can still have a discussion about whether the Colorado ruling should be mentioned in the lead, but I think it's too soon for an official RfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't plan on mining salt so early, but yes its happening again 2603:8080:C40:B0:A405:6E3F:B18F:BE63 (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Patience, per WP:NOTNEWS, “Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events”. If this is quickly overturned by SCOTUS, then it would likely no longer be notable enough for the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This simply isn't true. It is still a notable aspect of the campaign (indeed, it will likely be one of the things about the campaign that is written about decades from now) that his eligibility to be president is disputed under the 14th amendment. Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, the dispute over Trump's eligibility will remain one of the notable aspects of the campaign for decades, perhaps even centuries. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So put it in the article body, not the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

When u watch too much Royalty Hulu 2603:8080:C40:B0:A405:6E3F:B18F:BE63 (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Premature - In agreement with others. Colorado Supreme Court's ruling will become moot, should the US Supreme Court over-turn it. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Include, even if the US SC overturns this ruling, how and why and who takes part are bound to remain controversial. I'm UK, but I believe this is the first time a state has (effectively) ruled that a presidential candidate/former president is an insurrectionist and therefore unfit to go on its ballot. Some of that same SC were appointed by, or are in other ways close to DT, so this isn't just going to quietly go away. Coverage of this in the UK has been extensive and overshadowed other coverage, it is a significant controversy and deserves the brief mention described above IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (II)

I thought @Voorts: had this RFC closed as being pre-mature? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That was based on the false pretence that discussion was premature as there had been "no prior edit request." The section above this was plainly a prior edit request, the result of which was that an RfC should be created to discuss the proposal. You can't simply lie and then take action based on your lies. I've explained that to you before. You really should have learned this by now. Do better. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I am seeing a few people opine that, in their view, the dispute over Trump's eligibility will no longer be notable if the Supreme Court rules that he is indeed eligible under the 14th amendment, or perhaps finds that he did not engage in insurrection. This view is incredibly short-sighted, and gets things quite backwards. Indeed, this is likely to be one of the most enduringly noteworthy aspects of Trump's 2024 campaign-- that is, the dispute over his presidential eligibility due to allegations of insurrection-- and will likely be discussed and remain notable for decades to come regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. The very fact that a presidential candidate (who was formerly president)'s eligibility is under dispute for allegations of insurrection against the United States is of course notable, and a notable aspect of the campaign, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the litigation. The people suggesting that it will completely fade from notability if the Supreme Court decides that Trump did not commit insurrection, or that insurrectionists are eligible under the 14th, are taking a frankly preposterous position. The dispute over eligibility is already a large portion of the current article, and anything that comprises a large portion of the article reasonably ought to be discussed in the lead so readers have an idea of article content. We have an entire article on this topic, it is a prominent controversy related to the current topic, and the outcome of the case will not render it non-notable as it is of obvious historical interest regardless of outcome. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a good idea to characterize any editors' position on this RFC's topic, as being "preposterous". GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• @BD2412: as you are the most recent active admin here, can you please weigh in on the reversal of this RfC closure by its creator? I tried politely informing them of the problem with undoing the closure of an RfC that they created, but they just called me a liar and moved on. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I am already sort of involved in the discussion, but I frankly think it's harmless to let the RfC proceed. The outcome is rather obvious. BD2412 T 21:51, 23 December 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.

A compilation of sources on alleged plans for Trump dictatorship in 2025

There has recently been a great deal of highly notable media coverage and analysis regarding Trump’s plans for a dictatorship, should he retake the presidency. I have compiled some of these sources, if anyone would like to add any of these to the article.

Proposed Text: "Some political analysts, including many prominent conservatives and republicans such as Robert Kagan and Liz Cheney, have argued that a 2nd Trump presidency would mean the end of American democracy, transforming the federal government into an autocratic Trump dictatorship. The plans for this alleged dictatorship have been laid out in Project 2025 and Trump's campaign speeches, according to analysts."

Thoughts?

67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump's been known to utter nonsense before. The US Constitution provides the means to prevent any US president from becoming a dictator. I'll leave it to others to decide, whether such additions are warranted or not. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My two cents: I don't think this should be dismissed as mere rhetoric, nor should we have the false sense of security because of the US constitution. Trump and his allies have drawn up a series of plans that these writers say is authoritarian/autocratic. While ~half of the ones linked above are opinion pieces (and I wouldn't want them in), I'm noticing a consensus that this is believed to be what Trump will do. I think what a lot of these news writers are saying should have more prominence in the article. SWinxy (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

ah yes, let's use the media as a source because they have never been bias against Trump. Seriously these sources are a joke. Trump can make a sarcastic joke and the media will take it out of context to make look like he was serious. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

References

When reporting Trump's own words (a separate issue from interpretations), I think we should change the current wording that says the man has been "saying he would be a "dictator" for at least part of his second term in office.[15]" As far as I know, he has only claimed that he would be a dictator for one day. Unless we have a case where he said otherwise, we should change the wording. My reasoning is that it would be more exact and that the current wording gives the impression that the dictatorship would last longer (Who would think that "a least part" of four years would actually be one day? - We're talking about what he said, not what he may plan or may do.). We need justification to give the impression as it currently reads, or we need to change it. Kdammers (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe add an opposing viewpoint so Wikipedia can be taken seriously

No sources, no suggested change, POV section title, not useful. Try again. O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe add Trump's team's explanation for several actions and comments mentioned here, and add their side of the story. 181.194.228.243 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC) See Wikipedia:No attacks on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC) He wasn't attacking Wikipedia, he was pointing out it a fault that the site has of being very bias towards different side in some discussions. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC) example? soibangla (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias language

This article is a complete joke. I felt like I was reading a reddit post instead of a Wiki article. The fact that the article implies Trump is running a authoritarian,white supremacist, and nativist campaign is very untrue, at no point has Trump and anyone in his campaign team said anything that would suggest that. This is an attempt to distort the truth by a group of editors who have a political bias. The sources use aren't even acceptable as they don't even have factual proof of Trump running the type of campaign as suggested. I'm hereby going to request that the article become semi-protected while neutral editors re-edit the whole article that isn't politically bias. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yea, no, that is not how the Wikipedia works. We do not take a vague "I don't like it!" hand-wave form a random user and lock articles upon demand. Find a specific passage and citation that rubs you the wrong way, and present it here for discussion. Zaathras (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's likely, you'll find it quite difficult to make the changes you 'may be' proposing for this page. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

When trump wins in November. Will you edit this ridiculousness then? I doubt it. But figured i would ask. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

US Supreme Court ruling

US Supreme Court has over-ruled Colorado's attempt to bar Trump from their Republican primary & November ballot. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The SCOTUS ruling has been added to the 14th Amendment sub-section. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024

Change "prior to prior to" in the infobox beside the 14th amendment subsection under the eligibility section to just "prior to" Zacbea01013 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Primaries

Results of primaries should be added. Jack Upland (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024

In the section about violent rhetoric, the word "officer's" is not preceded by an article. It reads something like "for officer's safety" rather than "for *the* officer's safety" Korb111 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done:

Since the sentence (awkward though it is) is talking about law enforcement generally, not a specific officer (even though it does MENTION specific officers), I think the lack of an article is correct. I did move the apostrophe over after the "s", however. PianoDan (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump threatens violence, bedlam if he loses election. Please add

The apocalypse is truly upon us: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/09/trump-comments-violence-bedlam/

Would someone be so good as to add this highly important information about Trump threatening violence and bedlam if he loses the election to the article, preferably to the lead? Many thanks, comrades. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump is an adult bully, threats are to be expected. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a non-opinion source for that? Wikipedia is not a forum. We don't want a descent to the bottom. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol have you not read the page? The entire page reads like DNC funded propaganda than an unbiased account of history/facts. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the popular phrase for the problem with this page is "bad optics." Whether it's fair or not, it "sounds" hyperpartisan. I'm a strong Democrat, and it threw me for a loop.

One problem I found is that some of the footnotes are to opinion pieces and some of the remarks, like the reference the Jacksonian Spoils System, are value judgments. I do not see how this ever got past BLP. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful with the word "threatened." Do good secondary sources interpret his words as threats or predictions? Kdammers (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post isn't reliable as they know for openly being Anti-Trump and exaggerating any he says to demonize him. Also this isn't a political fourm so let's keep it that way, don't like it? Go to reddit or X. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post is highly reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Not if it has an agenda which it does and they take everything out of context so that easily makes them unreliable. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Good thing it doesn't. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Washington Post. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's take a break on these 'dramatic' proposals. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fascist demagogue"

Source for “fascist demagogue”? 2600:1017:A410:E45F:6CC4:2F25:9F57:752C (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been removed; clearly a POV edit. — Czello ^(music) 11:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

I fully understand wanting to provide context to whom Donald Trump is, but the first opening sentence "Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021," sounds slightly weird to say out loud and could be ambiguous to anyone completely unfamiliar with American politics, such as readers from other continents. Makes it sound like there's potential for other 45th presidents that served different time periods, or that others in different governmental positions have also been in charge in the same time frame. It's solved very easily by either removing "45th", removing "from 2017 to 2021", or changing it to read "Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, who served from 2017 to 2021". Thank you for your time. 2001:2042:6A0F:100:3D93:C75B:5089:5AE7 (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added "who served from..." per your suggestion, and I agree the previous wording was a bit too ambiguous. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is so biased and wrong on so many levels. Please change

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article includes so much bias that I don’t know where to start but I’ll try my best. Donald Trump is not anti-immigration, he’s anti-ILLEGAL Immigration. Second of all, he’s not made authoritarian statements and his opponent is much more authoritarian in fact, due to never being elected by voters democratic in a real primary, instead being chosen through a weird catholic papal conclave-like system where no voters truly have a say. Third of all, he has never stated he wants to change the structure of the federal government and about the constitution, many news outlets stated he wants to terminate it according to his truth social post when in reality, he was referring to how the allegedly stolen 2020 election would enable liberal politicians to, not himself and you can research online to see his post too. 4th of all, his foreign policy would not be isolationist, as that would involve cutting off trade and treaties with foreign countries as well as staying out of any conflict between nations, even allies, which trump has stated he wouldn’t do. He said he would cut off trade only with countries dealing with Iran, and would END wars, not stay out of them. 5th of all, Donald Trump is pro-school choice, advocating the basic right of parents and children to choose a good education and future outside of public schools where bullying, poor funding, and other negative things are rampant. Many democrats oppose this even though school choice benefits minorities, especially impoverished ones by allowing them to choose from a variety of schools that may be more beneficial to them than public schools. In fact, Joe Biden has aggressively targeted private schools, creating essentially a hitlist of private schools to target with the DOE issuing a massive fine against Liberty University, weeks after penalizing Grand Canyon University a record 37.7 million, weeks after a 6 million penalty against Ashland University and with 10 out of 13 colleges targeted by Biden’s Student Financial Aid Office of Enforcement being career colleges, it’s a concerted effort to snuff out educational choice and pigeon-hole students into schools that promulgate the far left’s "woke," anti-conservative, anti-American agenda. This also gets them more money too as in 2020, conventional colleges donated 306 million dollars to democrats compared to only 34 million dollars for republicans. 6th of all, Donald Trump is not hateful towards LGBTQ people, appointing 2 openly gay people to be federal judges, and shown solidarity for the many LGBTQ people persecuted in foreign countries, particularly Muslim countries where gay people are thrown off roofs, stoned, and hung. 7th of all, none of his rhetoric against his opponents are necessarily violent or dehumanizing and I would like to see where you guys got that from…… Oh, New York Times, which is now just a fan site for democrats who hate trump and are obsessed with trump in handcuffs for some reason. 8th of all, trump opposes the 2025 project. Look, trump has done bad things before, everyone has and I’m sure you have done something you are not proud of. But everyone, including trump is a person, a real person who is not perfect. So when people are influenced by stuff like this to hate trump enough to call him hitler (which by the way, nazi stands for national socialist in German, nazis took away guns from private citizens before the holocaust, and hated Jews. Sound familiar!!!????) and try to murder him and instead murder a 50 year old dad as he’s trying to shield his family from gunfire, it’s not just sad, it’s completely evil. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Please stop deleting this. I don’t delete your far-left, the view x MSNBC, article.

July 13th event

Per WP:Not news, wait https://www.local10.com/news/politics/2024/07/13/developing-trump-rushes-off-stage-during-rally-after-noise/ Cwater1 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Numerology

I don't have the authority to edit the article. I'm curious, does anyone else think the Numerology section is a little bizarre? Puffin123 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Incredibly bizarre. It was added earlier today and I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ludicruous bias

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.

---

Everything about this page is ludicrously biased, and far from encyclopedic. Many of the sources are pure opinion pieces, and shouldn't be included in the first place. I can understand that Trump isn't popular with the Wikipedia community, but this doesn't read like a non-partisan account of his actions. Ravenofpoe1 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"doesn't read like a non-partisan account" Who said anything about non-partisan? Per Wikipedia's policy, we summarise what we find in reliable sources. The sources are not required to be neutral or non-partisan. See the policy on Bias in sources:

• • "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Any "pure opinion pieces" should be attributed to their authors. Note, though, that articles that sound like opinion because you don't like them are not the same as actual opinion pieces. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is tweeibly written. It comes off like a clear political agenda. Any consideration I ever had of giving another dime to wikipedia os gone. An encyclopedia should be non partican and non biased and this is full of highly skewed opinion and worded deliberatly to influence readers to the author's views. This should never be posted in any encyclopedia of any form. 195.252.213.236 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

100% agree. I’m in the UK and have no dog in this fight, but when every single source is from a selection of politically slanted sources, it’s disgustingly obvious. It strikes me that the people who do this don’t care about truth or balance and rely on the people reading it to have low attention or low intelligence. It’s as condescending as it is shameless. 217.33.222.26 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

every single source is from a selection of politically slanted sources You'll have trouble with that argument considering the following are used as sources: Hindustan News, Fox, Forbes, Deseret News, Associated Press, Haaretz, BBC, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Staten Island Advance, USA Today, C-SPAN, Tampa Bay Times, and the National Review. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

to nitpick: you can't really claim Fox isn't a slanted source.

On topic: I think what the UK guy meant to say is that blatant hit pieces might be getting used as credible sources, even though they may be mere speculation... such as using the Post when saying "directing the Department of Justice to go after domestic political enemies"... when it's clear as day just paragraphs later that the Post is aggressive towards Trump. I can't confirm or deny the authenticity of the claim because the article is behind a paywall. Drumpfshot (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable bias. And they call themselves "...pedia," as if they bear some resemblance. I will NEVER come here again for information. That implies they're is some, and it's just propaganda. Sickening lies about Trump's platform. Please read the platform for yourself. 2600:8805:3E1D:C00:1337:DD05:DB1C:43BD (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2024 (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.

Campaign logo change?

His new campaign logo features vice presidential candidate JD Vance heres the logo Meetballz (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Include Grover Cleveland Non-Consecutive Terms in Background

I notice that in the current version of the background mentions in various locations several firsts in regards to the criminal proceedings brought against him. The historical fact that he is seeking to be the first president to serve non-consecutive terms since Grover Cleveland maybe worth adding in a sentence on this section. 2600:1700:4620:2C80:342A:1344:540A:E0F0 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

Please change the file of Trump-Vence campaign logo from: File:TrumpVance2024.png to File:TrumpVance2024.svg.

The reason is because the SVG version of the logo has been uploaded, and the PNG version needs to be deprecated in favor of SVG equivalent. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Malinterpretation of the UET

The article says: "unitary executive theory. The theory rejects the notion of the separation of powers and that the government is composed of three separate branches but that Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the President absolute authority." This is a malinterpretation. The UET talks only about the executive power (one power), not the entire federal government (3 powers). Therefore, it can't deny the separation of powers. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed contradiction in the text. --SFandLogicReader (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please change

"Trump, the incumbent president" to "Trump, the then incumbent president". 86.31.178.164 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I second. --SFandLogicReader (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's criticisms of Israel in Gaza

This article appears to be missing critical statements by Trump against Israel's actions in Gaza. For example, Vox reports that Trump has said that Israel should "get it over with … get back to peace and stop killing people", and Politico reports that Trump has criticized Israel for "releasing tapes of a building falling down"; "that's why they're losing the PR war. They, Israel, is absolutely losing the PR war". According to Politico, "Trump’s remarks reflect the solidifying of a more critical posture he is taking toward Israel". This should be more thoroughly reflected in the section. BD2412 T 21:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

Just to add in his "Notable events" category that during a rally in Pennsylvania, it seems he has been shot after popping noises rang out about 5 minutes into his speech. It's a developing story Sendbobspicspls (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: There is no evidence he was shot. Patience. This is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  it's confirmed now https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5 Drumpfshot (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes there is. Any person could tell right away he was shot. I know that CNN and Washington Post tried to make it sound like he wasn’t and tried to make him look bad at first, stating “trump falls after loud noises heard at rally”, and “loud noises heard at trump rally” but he was. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Not news Cwater1 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

It should be obvious to anyone (I came to the conclusion after just a quick perusal as an slight right independent voter) This article seems outright biased towards the viewpoint of the Democratic Party and heavily uses sources that have long been known for outright media bias, with hardly any counter viewpoint and the few that do appear seem to indicate ignorance on their part.

The article clearly does not meet the neutrality standard and needs to be labeled as such, or preferably cleaned up to provide a more balanced viewpoint. Rhatsa26X (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

How so? Be specific please. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You really don't need to look further than the references. I am seeing a huge amount, probably better than 50% coming from the Washington Post or New York Times. Let's start with the former, the Washington Post. This newspaper did not get it's repute as the Pravda on the Patomic for no reason at all. It has had a very far left viewpoint for much longer than I've been alive (almost 42 years) and is often openly hostile even to the Blue Dog Coalition (Conservative Democrats).

As for the other primary source, the New York Times, while they aren't as hostile towards Republicans they are still quite biased towards them.

What needs to happen here is to have content from at least some reputable sources that at least have an occasional good thing or two to say about Trump, like say Fox News, or other right leaning sources as a honest comparison, instead of a seems to be a constant war drum beat comparing Trump to Hitler or any other despot, and outright calling him an authoritarian when the same can apply to Biden and Obama as well.

Articles like this make Wikipedia look like a propganda tool and that was precisely what the neutrality policy was meant to prevent.

Rhatsa26X (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post and the New York Times are reliable sources. See WP:RSP. Fox News is unreliable for use in US politics: see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. There's nothing further to discuss about the use of those sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither is more reliable than the other. Washington Post is as reliable as the New York Post tabloid. If you don't accept Fox News, you should not accept the Post as a reliable source. Period. I want to see more objective viewpoints, not far left propganda, and until I do, this tag will stay. This site is supposed to be neutral, and I am an independent voter, and this article makes me seriously question the neutrality of Wikipedia, and I have been a Wikipedian for over 15 years and in that time, I've seen everything from GW Bush to Biden.Rhatsa26X (talk) Rhatsa26X (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What you want is irrelevant. The Post and the Times are deemed reliable sources by the consensus of editors in the Wikipedia, and Fox News is not. If that is not you your liking, feel free to "vote with your feet," as they say. Zaathras (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"vote with your feet" aka "i have the authority and power here, so shove it and shove off". Cute and mature.

On topic: how are we going to pretend The Post is neutral when in the same page there's this clear indication of bias and borderline censorship? If nothing else, it's blatant animosity against Trump.

"The New York Post mocked Trump's announcement by relegating it to page 26 and noting it on the cover with a banner reading "Florida Man Makes Announcement". The article referred to Mar-a-Lago as "Trump's classified-documents library" in reference to the ongoing investigation regarding Trump's alleged improper handling of classified materials which he had brought to Mar-a-Lago following his presidency for as yet unclear reasons."

I've also looked through all the comments in this whole Talk page and it's clear gaslighting is going on. Drumpfshot (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The second and third paragraphs at the top of the page need to be rewritten. Cbls1911 (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What? 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In This article is so biased and wrong on so many levels I am specific as to what’s false about this article. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, the far-left Wikipedia editors deleted it again. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Convicted felon in the first sentence

This was already discussed on Trump's article. As per the FAQ on the talk page there, consensus agreed that it was undue to refer to him as such in the first sentence.

So why are we doing it on this article? It makes even less sense to do so as the first sentence is specifically referring to his reelection campaign. 148.252.145.45 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It was just added in a bit of POV editing. I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable Information

A lot of the information here is false as for example, this article states trump has close ties to Project 2025 when in reality, he doesn’t even know who’s behind it and disagrees with much of it due to the project severely damaging the constitution. 67.0.230.118 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What you've repeated is his own statements on the matter. Obviously, Trump's own words aren't a reliable source per WP:PRIMARY. Instead we have independent reliable sources that discuss the campaign's close ties to Project 2025. — Czello ^(music) 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What???? Trump would be the most reliable source of information on this because no one else knows what’s inside his head. I am concerned that MSNBC has gotten you to think this. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, he'd be the least reliable because of WP:PRIMARY. After all, he is capable of lying (and has done it a lot). We need independent sources instead. — Czello ^(music) 13:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump would say that, wouldn't he? The evidence suggests otherwise.[3][4] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What about this?: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5124900/donald-trump-disavows-project-2025 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Meaningless for the reason Muboshgu said. — Czello ^(music) 13:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

So we’re making assumptions now and calling them facts? 67.0.229.115 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, both your sources show how trump wants nothing to do with Project 2025. 67.0.229.115 (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They're not assumptions, we're relaying what reliable sources say. Trump's denial of involvement is noted in the article. — Czello ^(music) 07:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

Change the typo "tarriffs" to "tariffs" under "Platform > Economy and trade". DanTheMiner1000 (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hacking incident

The article should have a section about this.2600:1014:B072:2759:4015:ED99:E3D9:FC19 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This entire page is horrifyingly biased and locked so other Wikipedia users cannot revert or edit. Everything in the heading is either a propagated lie or a completely libelous character assassination. WP:NPOV 174.61.219.3 (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but since they get to express their opinions in the article, we can express ours here. It’s only not even fair 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the article you should identify specific things you feel are inaccurate or lacking a proper NPOV and site those specifically. Saying "This article is bad/biased" does not help as it doesn't say what should be changed. We can happily debate specific suggestions, a blanket statement that you don't like an argument is just going to be ignored. 144.51.12.162 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

22nd Amendment

Most of this section is moot (unless he were to win in '24 and somehow try to run again in '28) and kind of silly. Seananony (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There's also a Future Elections subsection with similar info. I suggest consolidating the two under 22nd Amendment. Seananony (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Arlington National Cemetery incident - Army statement

Does anyone have an actual link to the original Army statement about the Trump gang at Arlington National Cemetery? (I've looked at over a dozen news articles quoting from it without giving any link to the original, and spent about half an hour doing web searches, including on .gov and .mil, without luck so far.) Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a copy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a copy on social media by a Washington Post reporter. I was asking about the original source. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article (in the section about the Arlington Cemetery shoving incident): the names of the two Trump aides who had the "physical altercation" with the cemetery staff member. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have that information? Source link? -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Their names are Justin Caporale and Michel Picard. I have added this information to the article. Thanks and happy editing! Chillowack (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Are these edits DUE?

With all due respect, Annihilation00 keeps adding context (1, 2) into the article without an edit summary or discussion on the talk page to gain consensus, despite previous reverts and requests for discussion. This edit also seems somewhat questionable in terms of WP:DUE, as the source does not seem to explain how this prediction pertains to Trump's 2024 campaign, other than saying "Donald Trump has promised his administration would "drill, baby, drill." Trump also reportedly asked oil executives for $1 billion in campaign contributions, offering to reverse dozens of Biden's environmental rules, among other industry-friendly policies that would allow for more drilling". DN (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Better Security Against Vandalism

This article requires higher editing restrictions due to vandals managing to alter the article to their skewed POV in order to ensure neutrality and correct information 67.0.235.51 (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry your comment got deleted by someone. I honestly thought you had a point that we shouldn’t manipulate voters and elections by letting vandals run wild in this article 67.0.235.51 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Convention Section/Picture

Can someone please move the "Donald Trump convention speech" picture to the convention section? I'm having a hard time moving it and it's currently out of place. Breanna Petersen (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Note that due to different screen sizes, the image may "bleed" over into the section below it owing to the relatively short convention section itself. Also, thank you for your work on this page and best of luck with your class! BootsED (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Rhetoric Addition

Hi guys,

I want to utilize a journal article that analyzes Trump's rhetorical strategies that helped him win the first election to see how his strategies have changed/remained consistent throughout this election cycle. The authors note that his "anti-politics" viewpoint, his character as a businessman, and his "reluctant politician" attitude helped him gain favor among the public. I want to (briefly!) showcase how he is still using these strategies, or how he has veered from them. I know this article is meant to be about the 2024 campaign, so I wanted to see if you guys saw value in this proposition.

If not, please feel free to recommend other subsections you think are missing in his rhetorical section. Breanna Petersen (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

no consensus for contemporary Newsweek reliability

Per WP:NEWSWEEK, Newsweek.com couldn't reach consensus as a reliable source after 2013. I've tagged five references here with {{unreliable source inline}} to that end. Most are sourced with others, so maybe they should just be removed -- but a couple aren't. I've already replaced one with a Rolling Stone piece that seemed equivalent. (Uhoh! Look at WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. So I'll replace that one, too.) -- mikeblas (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, both Newsweek and Rolling Stone shouldn't be used for any controversial political stuff by consensus Andre🚐 19:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

After replacing the Rolling Stone source I used, I've tagged the Rolling Stone sources with {{unreliable source inline}}, too. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been sticking with NYT, WaPo, and other sources to avoid Rolling Stone. I'll look at the claims being made and find a more appropriate replacement source unless it's being specifically quoted and identified. BootsED (talk) 17:57, 8 October 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 Cstoneburner (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Move third intro paragraph over second

I think the paragraph that's currently the third one in the introduction should be moved above the second. The third paragraph is about policy, which is more relevant to an article about his campaign than the second paragraph. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 23:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Added tax charts to "Economy and trade" section. Separate page?

Maybe that section can be spun out and expanded to a separate page. Along with the "Inflation" section. Since it is about the economy too.

Trump tax proposals. Average tax changes by income group in 2026.

Trump tax proposals by category. Average tax changes by income group in 2026.

References

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you apply fair criticism to Harris’s economic plan as well such as this:https://www.axios.com/2024/08/19/kamala-harris-inflation-economic-policy-proposals 67.0.219.251 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

From Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy: "ITEP's quantitative analyses are utilized by observers from across the political spectrum and by analysts within government." --Timeshifter (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Bias and anti-Republican sentiments expressed by editors

As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should be there to provide information whenever it is available and it should be neutral in its content. But this page is particularly concerning due to the fact that this page is entirely written with prejudice against former President Donald Trump, who survived an assassination attempt on him about a week or two. This is alarming not because of the blatant disregard for neutral information about a presidential candidate but writing this completely in the viewpoint of someone who might be sympathetic towards the Democratic Party. The use of “dehumanising” and “demeaning” language appear to be used by Wikipedia editors rather than Trump himself in this occasion. Polarisation and capitalisation of an already controversial election amidst political violence towards political figures is the least thing we should be promoting right now. Many people have pointed out this visible bias earlier like @Rhatsa26X. This is wrong and it must be changed. Although I live in the UK, I am worried by the level of tension that have been occurring throughout the US election and worry that it might escalate. Editors have a responsibility to call this sort of obvious nonsense and should have the guts to seek the appropriate action. If you don’t write this down in a non-partisan way by mentioning both good and bad, then this might well be considered plain propaganda. This propaganda in a nutshell. Altonydean (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We document based on reliable sources. You have provided none. So, there is nothing actionable in your post. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

“Reliable sources” are you joking or plain ignorant? All of your “reliable sources” are just opinion pieces or articles from CNN, the Washington Post and the NYT, which are heavily documented to be prejudiced toward Trump. You ignore basic neutrality policy that is promoted to ensure information is not in anyway partisan or edited by a specific group of editors with certain affiliations with the left of the political spectrum. You just can’t accept that fact. If this kind of thing happened to the Joe Biden article there would be immediate repercussions for the editors involved. However, I see this “two-tier editing” as a source of not information but of blatant bias and misinformation. Please understand that. Altonydean (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't just say the media is biased and expect that to work. This is Wikipedia, we go by what the sources say. If you don't think the sources are reliable for reporting facts, go to RSN and start a discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If only I had the time. Your sources are part of the problem. Look at the chart below of some of your most frequent sources. They are biased to the left. You could compute a score for each article on just the bias within your sources by summing the bias index for each reference then divide by the number of references. That would be one way to measure your biases. What you read reflects your bias.

AllSides MidiaBiasFactCheck ad fontes media

Washington Post -2.2 LEFT-CENTER -6.79

Politico -1.2 LEFT-CENTER -5.56

Axios -1.7 LEFT-CENTER -3.28

AP -1.3 LEFT-CENTER -2.23

New York Times News -2.2 LEFT-CENTER -7.95

Then there is the language used. For example, the expression "claimed without evidence" gives evidence to the bias of the writer and the publication. Your sister (and much more reputable) site, Wiktionary, defines "allege" as "(transitive) To make a claim as justification or proof; to make an assertion without proof" and as such, a perfectly useful and less unctuous choice. 61.24.242.85 (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This comment is nonsensical. You're conflating "biased" with "unreliable". Please learn the difference. Chillaxer45 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Here, this should help you: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart 67.0.235.51 (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What exactly about this article is biased? Do you have any specifics? Loytra (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The language in itself is heavily biased I don’t know why you need to wonder so much about “specifics”. The sub headings that begin with “dehumanising language”, the lack of positive and constructive policies and actions of Trump, the failure to mention the assassination attempt on the president with context in a separate section pr sub heading, heavy usage of partisan news and media opinion pieces (particularly NYT and CNN, although not personally aggrieved against both), shutting down repeated calls for realignment of language. So here you go. What more “specific” do you need? Altonydean (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that to some extent the article in its current state is biased. But I think you're missing two points. First, under WP:NPOV a reliable source can be biased. Second, these disputes over NPOV are generally handled through the editing process -- that's a basic principle of how Wikipedia works. Anybody can change any language if they view it as biased. So why aren't you just making those changes? Chillaxer45 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chillaxer45 The reason that I don’t want to edit this page is because I’m not an American citizen (I’m from the UK) and believe it might be problematic if this page is edited from a non-American perspective due to it being completely unrelated to the political affairs of the UK. And also because I neither understand or is properly equipped to edit this page using relevant information that it needs right now. So that’s why I don’t want to edit this. Altonydean (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Altonydean Okay, I suppose that's a fair reason as to why you're reluctant to edit the page. Though being from the UK, maybe you're not appreciating a certain reality. Normally for an article like this, you have so-called biased editors slanting the language both ways, which at least in philosophy would result in a neutral article through the editing process. But take a look at WP:RSPSS. You'll see that because this is a political article, sources like CNN, NYT, ABC, and MSNBC are all okay to cite, but sources like Fox News and OANN are not okay to cite. Millions of Trump supporters believe sources like CNN and NYT are all "fake news". So, effectively the rules of Wikipedia force Trump supporters to use sources that they reject in the first place. In other words, in their view the rules of Wikipedia are already "rigged" against Trump. They just aren't going to bother making edits. So, we have a situation where the article is going to be sort of "de facto" biased simply because there just aren't that many pro-Trump editors around to make it more neutral. Chillaxer45 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Well if that is the reality then why should even try to suggest changes? Although in this would not look good for Wikipedia. Wikipedia, like every other encyclopaedia, have to be neutral and unbiased in their editing and analysis. So this type of content that is highly partisan might reinforce longstanding views of Wikipedia being biased toward certain figures due to the political affiliations of its editors. So I hope there might be some meaningful changes in this article in the future. Altonydean (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I hear you, the answer to your question is because it reaches people like me, who are okay with making this article more neutral. I'm considering everything you're saying. Chillaxer45 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple things:

• Trump uses dehumanising language. That's just a fact. It's covered by numerous reliable sources. It's honestly ridiculous that you immediately accuse a piece of information as being biased just because it's negative.
• This article is about his 2024 campaign, not his 2017–2021 presidency. Not sure why it's so upsetting that it covers his current policy positions rather than his specific achievement as president.
• The assassination attempt has its own section. If you think it's too small then... expand it? Not really sure what else to say.
• CNN and NYT are considered on Wikipedia (see WP:RSPCNN and WP:NYT. In saying that, however, if you really think there are specific sections of this article that unfairly recite the biases of a random opinion piece or whatever, then bring it up on the talk page. You need to include specific examples of exactly what paragraphs you think are biased and why they're biased if you want other editors to see your point of view.

Loytra (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Still trying to defend the indefensible by saying there is no so-called “specific” biases in this article. Again here are my problems with your reply:

• You can call anything “ridiculous” just to make it seem unreasonable like “dehumanising language”. “Dehumanising language” depends on how you perceive something he says in his speeches. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and many Democratic leaders have said similar things against Trump leading up to assassination attempt and you don’t include that in this section. So you should not dedicate several subsections to that particular subject and include it in one single section.
• I get that this article is about his 2024 presidential campaign and I think that out of your own ignorance you misread what I said about his policies. I said that we have to include policies and agendas that are currently being proposed by the Trump campaign not hypothetical and unrealistic policies like in Project 2025 that is not even remotely associated or relevant to Trump’s campaign, despite being pushed like it’s actual policy by Democrats to portray Trump as a dictator. (which clearly shows the partisan editorial bias in this article rather openly).
• Trump’s assassination attempt occurred during this campaign, I honestly don’t know why you are quick to dismiss this as if it’s irrelevant just because it has a “separate section”.
• The fact that you push mainstream media (that are blatantly biased and compromised) opinion pieces and news stories just don’t add up with non-partisan assessments of this article and contribute to partisan discourse on encyclopaedia language and information. I would be similarly concerned if Fox News opinion pieces were added by some editor with clear Republican bias on Joe Biden’s article or Bernie Sander’s. I don’t need to more “specific” about anything else. I have pointed out the obvious and you ask me for “specific” paragraphs or articles. I can give you examples of biased paragraphs if you address the four main issues highlighted above. Thank.

Altonydean (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Still trying to defend the indefensible by saying there is no so-called “specific” biases in this article

Really don't understand this argument. You continue moaning that this article has so many obvious biases but then get on my case for having the gall to ask for examples? If this article is so biased then it should be full of examples! If you can't find many, maybe it means that — shocker — this article isn't as biased as you think

“Dehumanising language” depends on how you perceive something he says in his speeches.

Yeah...? Just because something may be subjective doesn't mean that it's not worth including. There are a wealth citations describing Trump's rhetoric as dehumanising, fascistic, and authoritarian, including articles from Axios, The Atlantic, ABC News, The New Yorker, The Nation, Vox, Associated Press, and PBS. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. These aren't just a few writers from the 'liberal media' exercising their biases against Trump – these are reputable, established journalists documenting what they see as a consistent trend in Trump's rhetoric. You can personally disagree with all of these articles, but you cannot insist this information be removed simply because you don't agree with their assessments. Just because these are judgement calls that reflect negatively on Trump does not mean that reciting what reputable sources say makes this article 'biased'.

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and many Democratic leaders have said similar things against Trump leading up to assassination attempt and you don’t include that in this section.

If you find several reputable articles describing Biden's rhetoric as authoritarian and fascistic, then feel free to include those in this article (and at Biden and Harris' own campaign articles). No one's stopping you.

we have to include policies and agendas that are currently being proposed by the Trump campaign not hypothetical and unrealistic policies like in Project 2025

There are many paragraphs in this article devoted to explaining Trump's stated policies. There are also paragraphs dedicated to what news organisations have gathered that Trump's team is planning, even if these haven't been directly stated by Trump himself. Both are notable and both are thoroughly included. I challenge you to find sections of this article reciting Project 2025 policies as if they're Trump's if they haven't been backed up by news articles reporting that Trump's team is directly planning to implement such policies.

Trump’s assassination attempt occurred during this campaign, I honestly don’t know why you are quick to dismiss this as if it’s irrelevant just because it has a “separate section”.

When have I ever said the assassination attempt is irrelevant? It having it's own, dedicated section shows how notable it is. What more do you want?

The fact that you push mainstream media (that are blatantly biased and compromised) opinion pieces and news stories just don’t add up with non-partisan assessments of this article and contribute to partisan discourse on encyclopaedia language and information.

As I said above, the fact that these reliable sources by reputable journalists include information on Trump's rhetoric that you don't agree with doesn't make the information in them biased or not worth including.

I would be similarly concerned if Fox News opinion pieces were added by some editor with clear Republican bias on Joe Biden’s article or Bernie Sander’s

I would be too! Luckily, that's not what's happening here. All of the citations I listed above are from a wide range of reputable, nonpartisan sources. If you earnestly think that all of those firms have some sort of a strong liberal agenda, then that's something you're gonna have to raise at WP:PRS.

I have pointed out the obvious and you ask me for “specific” paragraphs or articles

Evidently none of this is that "obvious" if you can't even include a few examples haha.

Hope this covers everything. Loytra (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Loytra @Altonydean I think you two are talking past each other on the "dehumanizing" issue. My understanding is that Altonydean has a gripe with the headings, but I can't tell for sure. Altonydean, please clarify what exactly you want changed for this "dehumanizing" issue. Chillaxer45 (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well @Chillaxer45 I think that since we certainly don’t want to prolong this issue for long, I think that we should trim the subheadings in the “Rhetoric” section. There is way too many of them dedicated to include “specific” people and topics and opinion pieces of generally left-wing media outlets. Since Fox News cannot be cited as a source according to Wikipedia standards, why should we cite those same media sources? But that is not my point. We should include Trump’s comments in a separate section that are considered “racist” not write them separately like “white supremacist and antisemitic” “Nazi” comments. Also similarly we should remove the subheadings that is entirely dedicated to “dehumanising language” based on his views toward certain people, immigrants, political and elected officials that is to included in an umbrella section that contain all of the above. The “personal attacks” should also be included in a section like “Views on political figures” and the rest as plain criticisms like for example “Criticism of the media” and should include his “authoritarian” comments under a much more neutral section like titled “Stated views on political issues and institutions” something like that. People do try to take things out of context really quickly and we don’t even know that Trump even meant it the way we want him to do so. So this is the clarification I can give right now. Altonydean (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Loytra provided a point-by-point response to your complaints. You ask that we clean up what Trump has said. We must document what has happened without rose-colored glasses. He is who he is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Altonydean Okay, well I am generally fine with talking about revising headings. The to the extent you want to remove sources because they come from left-wing media outlets, that's not what we're supposed to do. Chillaxer45 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources used here include Hindustan News, Fox News, Forbes, Deseret News, Associated Press, Haaretz, BBC, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Staten Island Advance, USA Today, C-SPAN, Tampa Bay Times, and the National Review. The claim we just use left-wing sources and opinion pieces isn't going to fly. We very rarely use opinion pieces, and only with attribution. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I have no issue with the sources. Chillaxer45 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, if Project 2025 doesn’t have anything to do with trumps policies as you say, why is it in the article? 67.0.235.51 (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

New Yorker is clearly biased while Wikipedia should not use NYT and Washington Post for political articles due to their endorsement of Harris. 67.0.219.251 (talk) 01:10, 11 October 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) 01:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Here again: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart 67.0.235.51 (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I find it interesting how they say deporting immigrants and not illegal/undocumented ones, great point. 108.49.254.211 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The word undocumented is used in this article. The word illegal cannot be used without an adjudication from a judge showing that they do not have a right of asylum or some other valid reason to be in the country. People are still innocent until proven guilty in the US. At least so far. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"and use the military for domestic law enforcement and the deportation of immigrants." I'm 99% sure he won't be deporting legal immigrants. Perhaps it should be changed to undocumented. 96.230.191.98 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure most of this entire discussion has or will violate WP:NOTFORUM. DN (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)