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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

— Assignment last updated by Nadin-WSU (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)