Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Inordinate focus on subjects and content not directly related to 2024 Campaign

This article seems unduly focused on controversies and events occurring before the formation of the 2024 campaign and while much of the content itself has its place in the article, I think it's quite clear the bulk of the article is not reflective of the title.

I propose aggressive edits to be more compendious, giving due credit to concerns of eligibility and controversy/concerns, shortening lede, and most importantly including what one seeing the title would expect; namely a section on Agenda 47 (Trump's 2024 platform), information about rallies, fundraising, and other actions of the Trump campaign and Trump himself but related to his running. 2601:648:8800:3B70:BD21:614A:BA2E:E407 (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

“The campaign is unfolding”

I know he’s in court right now and is indicted but at the moment most states still allow him on the ballot and his polling is still above other Republican candidates so I think it’s misleading to say that 2600:8801:1187:7F00:5CD0:E923:55D2:9681 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

American Academy

When I included the following on the talk page of the Wik page about the man himself, it was deemed not sufficiently central and that it would/might go on this page.

Trump has proposed a tuition-free online "American Academy" to be funded by taxing university endowments (apparently to be started if he gets elected president). I think this should be briefly mentioned. See https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/donald-trump-wants-government-fund-another-trump-university, https://www.newsweek.com/heres-what-donald-trump-plans-teach-his-new-free-university-1840446, https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-donald-trumps-american-academy-plan-rcna123332 It is getting responses among academics: "A Free, Online National University Is Trump’s Latest Higher-Ed Idea. Here’s What Experts Think"= https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-free-online-national-university-is-trumps-latest-higher-ed-idea-heres-what-experts-think?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_8193728_nl_Academe-Today_date_20231103&cid=at (chronicle.com) Kdammers (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment/ Edit Request: This page fails to state, as do the reliable sources, that Trump's claims of a stolen election are a false, disproven, lie

This page used to speak the truth, as stated in its sources. It used to say "Trump FALSELY claimed the election had been stolen." That the election was not stolen is a proven fact, indisputable by either God or Man. Indeed, the only one who attempted (and failed) to steal it is Trump, a treasonous crime for which he now stands trial, before God and all Americans. Restore the plain truth to this article.

I humbly request that this article no longer traffic in lies, propaganda, and deceit and speak the plain unvarnished Truth: "Trump falsely claimed the election was stolen."

Every reliable source on Earth, including those cited here, states that Trump's claims that the election was stolen were a brazen lie, without even a shred of truth to them: pure and utter fabrication. And yet the cowardly, weak-willed editors of this project refuse to allow an encylopedia to speak the well-documented, all-too-well-known truth. Grow a spine, you cowardly jellyfish. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

From the "Background" section: (bolding mine)

"After his loss in the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump and his allies in seven key states allegedly devised a plot to create and submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment that falsely asserted Trump had won the electoral college vote in those states."

From the "Campaign events" section: (bolding mine)

"...Trump took credit for the overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973), supported defaulting on the national debt in the debt ceiling showdown, and again falsely claimed that the 2020 election was stolen."

The above text was there before this rfc/edit request was posted. So is the OP contending that "falsely" is not stated often enough in the article, or did they fail to see this text before mistakenly claiming that the "page fails to state...that Trump's claims of a stolen election are a false, disproven, lie". Some clarity on this would be helpful. If it's the former, there may be some further discussion to be had. If it's the latter, I believe we're done here, and can close out this thread. Whatever the case, the OP would be well advised to observe WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF by striking the uncivil last two sentences from their opening comments. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It's shocking how badly someone could miss the point. The passage in question is the lead, which merely states without comment, "Trump claimed that the election was stolen" in opposition to all reliable sources on the topic. Every single reliable source, including those cited in the article, bracket Trump's claims by pointing out that they are lies. It is disgraceful that the lead of this article fails to do so, or to excuse it because other portions of the article actually adhere to reliable sources and wikipedia's own standards. That other portions of the article were not vandalized is not an excuse to leave vandalism in the lead. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've pulled the {{rfc}} tag, see WP:RFCNEUTRAL - whatever you may think of Trump, hostility directed towards Wikipedians is no basis for a reasoned WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll repost since you insist on focusing on irrelevant matters rather than the content which is in gross violation of Wikipedia policy. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC/Edit Request: Should the lead fail mention that Trump's claims of a stolen election are false, contradicting all reliable sources on this topic cited in the article?

Every reliable source cited in the article states that Trump's claims of a stolen election are not merely false but an utter, total fabrication without basis in reality. This descriptor false has nevertheless been purged from the lead of the article which states merely, in contradiction of all reliable sources, that "Trump claimed the 2020 election was stolen." No reliable source cited in the article allows Trump to make this claim without immediately pointing out its craven falsity. Yet Wikipedia, for some reason, now does. This is an outrage, and in total violation of every policy of this encylopedia; indeed, of any Encylopedia or any other publication that purports to be true. Hence, I humbly beseech you that the original, clean version of the article be restored and the descriptor "false" be appended to Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen in the lead (and anywhere else it may appear in the article.)

Question: Should the lead be allowed to omit mention that Trump's claims of a stolen election are false, merely reporting proven and known falsehoods without comment, in contradiction to all reliable sources, or should the previous version of the article rightly pointing out that Trump's claims are false be restored? 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)