Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Keep primary logo and add new logo

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

The same should be done this time

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rhetoric Section Fails NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The enemy within" rhetoric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki Education assignment: Contemporary Rhetorical Criticism

This article is currently 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)

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)

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)

Why is this more biased than HuffPost?

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

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

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

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

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)

Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to remove all info about Vance having facial hair

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

Proposal to split Arlington National Cemetary incident

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

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

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