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)

They're not irrelevant as we are obliged to assume good faith. Additionally the current wording does not violate any policy. — Czello ^(music) 12:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you do not understand Wikipedia policies or are ignorant of the sources on this matter. Every reliable source cited in the article states that Trump's claims of a stolen election are false. If no reliable source in the article allows Trump to make disproven claims without stating that they are lies, then it violates Wikipedia policy to do so. Please better familiarize with Wikipedia's policies before you discuss something you don't understand. There is not a single source in the article that supports that wording or that endorses Trump's claims of a stolen election by failing to state they are false; wording matters in violation of reliable sources most certainly violates Wikipedia in the most egregious way policy. You are literally allowing propaganda to be posted in your article by drawing claims from Trump himself rather than using the treatment given in reliable sources, which is as anti-encylopedic an action as any editor could possibly ever take. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This hostility will get you nowhere.

Saying "Trump claimed the election was stolen" is, in fact, correct. He did claim that. That isn’t propaganda, it is a factual statement, and not an endorsement of his narrative as you say. Additionally the article does say it's false in other instances. This seems to be a total mountain out of a molehill. — Czello ^(music) 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't correct because this is an encyclopedia and, as you should know, at an encyclopedia we adhere to the wording and consensus of reliable sources, not our personal political opinions. There are 0, none, nada, zilch reliable sources in the article that allow Trump to state that the election was stolen without immediately stating that these claims are falsehoods and total lies. It is the policy of every reliable source in the country to bracket these statements by pointing out that they are false, rather than endorse them by proxy. You are wrong and gravely misinformed on this topic. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Should the article be allowed to state Trump's claims of a stolen election without immediately stating that they are false, contradicting all reliable sources on this topic cited in the article?

It is a proven, well-known, reliably sourced, and documented fact that Trump's claims of a "stolen election" are false. Indeed, 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 any basis in reality. The descriptor "false" has nevertheless been purged from the point of the article where these claims are introduced, which merely states, in contradiction to 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 total falsity. Yet Wikipedia, for some reason, now does-- in effect, endorsing Trump's claims by failing to point out that they are a proven falsehood in their initial mention in the article, at its most prominent point. Hence, I humbly ask you whether the prior 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 article be allowed to introduce Trump's claims of a stolen election without stating that they are false, circulating and reporting proven and known falsehoods without comment, in contradiction to all reliable sources cited in the article, 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)

(Summoned by bot) Procedural close - Please read WP:RFCBEFORE and about neutral starting statements. No comments on merit, I am not sufficiently informed on the matter and the RFC carries no links. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an extremely poor decision and an egregious editing mistake on your part to disallow me to request comment from the community on a situation that no one on this page has commented on. This talk page is rarely used for months at a time and no one responds to my request that a flagrant, obvious violation of Wikipedia policy be corrected. You want to talk about rules "wikipedia procedure" but you apparently don't care that Wikipedia policy is being flaunted to promote known lies and misinformation in direct contradiction of the sources in the article. Truly shameful. If people on this talk page, which no one reads actually would respond to this urgent request, I wouldn't have to post to request community attention to flagrant violatioin of Wikipedia's most important policies. You don't hide violations of policy by not allowing the community to comment on them; you fix the misinformation and remove lies from an encylopedia when they are graciously brought to your attention. Rather than droning on about procedure, you could have fixed a piece of clear misinformation in violation of sources when it would simply require you re-adding the word "falsely" to the sentence "Trump claimed the 2020 election was stolen." Misinformation that flaunts our sources is a grave matter that needs immediate community attention and this dispute needs to be escalated, not buried. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Few users will bother to read all of your rant. I removed the RfC tag as the RfC was malformed. Read WP:RFCBEFORE as requested. There are 71 page watchers who can discuss if you make a request in a civil manner. An RfC can be created after discussion if it is formed in a neutral manner. As for my comment on the request, I think the article makes it clear the claims are false now. However I would not mind adding the word falsely in the lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've read the page you sent to me. Have you read the content in question? Why don't you fix the article instead of allowing your encyclopedia to be used as a vector of misinformation? The article should clearly not be allowed to endorse Trump's disproven claims by repeating them without stating that they are false in the relevant passage, when every reliable source cited in the article has a strict and firm policy of not introducing these "claims of a stolen election" without stating that they are false. Look at the history of this talk page and you will see that it receives very few comments. Hence an egregious, flagrant violation of Wikipedia's most important, core policies such as not promoting disinformation and adhering to the consensus of reliable sources needs more attention than that of the 1-2 editors who post here yearly. I should note the sentence has actually been moved from the lead; the claims of stolen election are introduced in "background" and at the first mention the descriptor "falsely" has been removed. All I've asked is that we restore "falsely." 67.82.74.5 (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Emergency Edit Request: Please do not mention Trump's claims of a "stolen election" without stating that they are false and disproven

Please restore the word "falsely" to the statement "He refused to concede the loss and claimed the election was stolen." 67.82.74.5 (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 14:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No one uses the talk page and you refuse to allow me to request comment from the community. You are grossly violating Wikipedia policy. I have attempted to form consensus. No one participates in discussion here. This is a dead talk page. Look at the history. And I am merely requesting an older version of the article be restored which used to state that the claims were false. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No one's stopping you - it's been explained you're not handling RFCs correctly or writing them in a neutral manner. Please follow the advice other editors gave you above — Czello ^(music) 14:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Everything I've written is completely neutral. It is a fact (one which you choose to ignore) that every reliable source cited in the article does not introduce the false claims in question without stating that they are false. That the claims are false is a neutral, reliably sourced descriptor that adheres to the reliable sources. The omission is not neutral, not drawn from reliable sources, and is unjustiable. You are simply wrong here. You either misunderstand the issue or have willfully chosen to misunderstand it. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So put forth your case without streams of personal attacks. No one is going to pay attention to rants and attacks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)