Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments moved to talk

• Comment: See WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.... Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, ... are inappropriate." I don't think this is appropriate for Wikipedia unless and until there is a formal announcement of a campaign. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: The next line of WP:CRYSTAL states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced". In this case, numerous reliable sources report Trump's expressed desire to run again, and steps he is taking towards such an outcome. To a great degree these reports exist because Trump is fueling them, consistently making statements intended to create this impression. This activity has real-world consequences of shaping political debate on the question, and will affect the 2024 election whether Trump ultimately runs or not. At this point, I think the campaign to act as if there will be a declared campaign may itself be notable enough to support an article. BD2412 T 15:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This article talks about politicians' statements in December 2020 about possible endorsement in 2024. Some of those statements might be inoperative following the January 6, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that he held Trump responsible for inciting the mob that stormed the Capitol. This might affect McConnell's willingness to endorse Trump in 2024, and his willingness to say in 2021 that he would endorse Trump in 2024. I guess I won't mention the crystal ball again. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: McConnell's statement that he would support Trump as the nominee in 2024 was made in February 2021, a month and change after the storming of the Capitol. BD2412 T 14:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Main space?

Resolved

Thoughts on moving this draft into main space over the redirect? Seems appropriate given news coverage of upcoming announcement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we are at a point where even if Trump were to announce a decision not to run, coverage of his potential candidacy has been so extensive that it would be worth having an article. BD2412 T 14:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This may appear to be a radical idea; but perhaps an encyclopedia should wait for a campaign to exist before documenting it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll consider this resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The campaign now "exists". BD2412 T 02:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Addition needed (Edit Request)

Something like “Democrats celebrated the announcement that Trump, who had received 10 million fewer votes in total in the last two elections than Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton (and, what is more, had attempted a coup in the interim) would be running for president for the fourth time.” 2600:4040:90c5:8000:f974:6d4f:b572:5016 (talk) 03:36, November 18, 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources would you use for this proposed content? We can't just add opinions without sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

14th Amendment

The article currently says "However, disqualification under Section 3 only requires a simple majority of each house of Congress, which was achieved." However, what the Washington Post article dated 12 January 2021 actually says is "Gerard N. Magliocca, an Indiana University law school professor who has studied Section 3, said a majority vote in Congress would express lawmakers’ opinion that Section 3 applies. The courts would then have to make that legal declaration. “It’s not just something that Congress can do,” he said in an interview."" This appears to contradict what is in the article. I propose to delete the sentence quoted above. Alekksandr (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Recent additions to lede

The recent additions to the lede by an IP are clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. They also violate MOS:LEAD as the material added to the lede isn't even in the body. It should be removed and some of can be kept and added to the Background. 92.22.180.128 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is disproportionate to the lede, and if anything should be included in the background section of the body. However, much of this is not relevant to the campaign either. Perhaps the historian evaluations. BD2412 T 17:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A brief mention of Trump being elected in 2016, losing in 2020 and trying to overturn the results in a single paragraph in the Background section is probably all that's needed. 92.22.180.128 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It's an improvement now that it's in the Background but some of what's been moved is still probably undue for this section, such as historian evaluations for example. I don't think all the convictions of his associates is relevant enough to be mentioned. The wording is also misleading. Bannon's conviction is only indirectly related to Trump's presidency or campaign. There's also NPOV issues. It's clearly undue and odd to say that Trump won "despite losing the popular vote to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by 2.8 million votes, the greatest losing margin in the popular vote of any U.S. president". 92.22.180.128 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

How is this material undue or irrelevant to his campaign? It states 1) Trump's electoral history 2) the evaluation of his presidency by relevant experts, 3) his evaluation by the public according to Gallup polls, 4) the four major current criminal investigations he is under, 5) Trump's attempted coup after losing the previous election and his subsequent impeachment. Now, these matters are transparently relevant to the article. Should you wish to make the preposterous claim that ANY of those 5 matters lack import for this article, the burden of proof for making that argument is upon you, friend. Merely citing a policy such as WP:UNDUE , without more, does nothing to make your case. Please do be so good as to explain in detail how any of those matters lack relevance or importance for the article topic.

Indeed, all 5 of these matters- the current investigations into Trump's (accused) crimes, his two impeachments, his electoral history, his presidential approval polls, and the evaluation of his presidency by experts- are so manifestly relevant to the topic at hand that I cannot bring myself to believe that someone who states otherwise is arguing in good faith. Could this be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It would appear to be thus.

I think the bigger question is whether all of this background belongs in the lede. There are numerous articles entirely on these topics, whereas this is an article on the presidential campaign declared by the subject. BD2412 T 19:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with the compromise that appears to have been arrived at of moving it to a background section. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:ADA6:14A6:C1C3:96D (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Election with residents of same state

The article says "As Trump and DeSantis are both Florida residents, one of them would have to change their home state residency, as Electors are constitutionally prohibited from voting for a presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate who reside in the same state."

This is slightly incorrect. Electors from any state must vote for two people. One for President, and one for Vice President. At least one of the people they vote for must be a resident of a state different from that of the elector. This means that, if Trump and DeSantis both ran, both being Florida residents, Florida electors would not be allowed to vote for both Trump and DeSantis. Electors from every other state would be able to vote for Trump and DeSantis (a Georgia elector would be voting for two people not residing in their same state), but Florida electors would have to vote some other way. Trump and DeSantis are not prohibited from sharing residency. Yes, it would be a poor strategic plan to make yourselves ineligible from the Florida votes, but they would not "have to change their home state residency". Openatheclose (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I have adjusted this with clearer language on the limitation. BD2412 T 16:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this even important? I don't understand why this bit of legal trivia is in the article. There is , first of all, no real indication that DeSantis and Trump intend to run together, and while it is fine to list him as a potential candidate, devoting 2 sentences to the legal trivia that one of them would have to change their address seems pointless. Who cares? Nor does this seem to be drawn from any source indicating that this topic is notable - the "reference" is to the example of when Cheney did the same thing , not a source that indicates the notability of this musing about Trump needing to change his address. If there are no objections, I plan to remove these 2 sentences. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Florida Man Makes Announcement"

Maybe someone could use this in an announcement & reactions section

https://twitter.com/ChristineRomans/status/1592865158359289857

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/florida-man-makes-announcement-ny-post-relegates-trumps-2024-declaration-to-page-26/

soibangla (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This has now been done, though it is possible more contextual detail could be added here regarding Murdoch's ownership of the Post and the Trump-Murdoch relationship, so that readers might understand why this is significant without reading our article sources. Anyway, thanks. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Additions by IP

2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A keeps adding WP:UNDUE information to the article in a WP:POV manner. Some of what they added is of little relevance to the article and also multiple of their edits have misrepresented the sources which I have had to correct. It's getting out of hand. In this recent edit, they added information about the recent sedition convictions regarding the January 6 attack without adequate context, and added it right below the paragraph about members of Trump’s campaign being charged, essentially implying that those convicted of sedition were related to the campaign. 92.22.180.128 (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I added a source regarding yesterday’s convictions of 2 individuals for seditious conspiracy to keep Trump in office on January 6. you removed the material, citing a problem that it may have implied a connection given its placement in the article. I didn’t challenge your removal. What is the problem here? This thread is rather unnecessary when I’ve respected your grounds for removing that material, friend. I appreciate your collaboration on the article and edits to material and references I’ve added. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:7D1B:9D36:87F0:213F (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"Developments" section: WP:NOTNEWS and lacking WP:RELEVANCE to topic

The section in question was temporarily renamed "Responses to Trump's announcement"

I, as original poster, withdraw my request to remove the section, as it has been amended adequately in the week after my 30 Nov post. If someone wants to "close" this section (colored box), feel free. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Reading WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RELEVANCE, the entire "Developments" section should be removed. User:BD2412 reinstated such content with the edit comment "extended multi-day widespread media coverage received by the event, and that it has been commented on by political rivals for the 2024 nomination".

However, it's not enough that something get "widespread coverage" as news or is "commented on" by rivals: and it must have specific relevance to the article topic (Trump's presidential campaign). Including news and rivals' commentary, without the sources saying how it affects his presidential campaign which is the topic of this article, will explode the article in size (already over 100KB less than a month after announcing!).

Please reply with "Delete" or "Retain" below. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning above. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per the fact that those commenting on it specifically include potential 2024 nomination rivals (and are described as such by the media), and per the fact that Trump specifically advised declared 2024 opponent to drop out of the race and endorse Trump instead, both of which make this squarely relevant to the campaign. It was in effect a campaign meeting, and one which rivals are trying to use to shape the campaign itself. BD2412 T 22:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I can see how some content related to (Kan)Ye's meeting might be includable (the part about T's response to K's asking T to make him his VP). However, the section presently doesn't have any content directly relevant to T's campaign. "Commentary" from what the media "describes" as "rivals" is not a part of T's campaign (and, P.S., the rivals themselves aren't reliable sources in this context). What's in the section now is short-term news trivia. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Keep The relevance and notability of this section are plain, and the thread-starter's bare citation to NOTNEWS and RELEVANCE, without a plausible explanation of how they somehow apply here, is deeply spurious. These are notable events that have received coverage from reliable sources in the context of his campaign, with accompanying analysis regarding their effect on that campaign. The author's concern of the "explosion in size" of this stub-like article is farcical. This article is starving for content, and the creator of this thread would appear to want to delete material on the sole grounds that it makes Trump look bad. So what? Trump makes himself look bad repeatedly; any Trump supporter should be used to this by now. It is no reason to excise such material from an encyclopedia. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:ADA6:14A6:C1C3:96D (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm no defender of Trump. The media's "analysis regarding their effect on that campaign" may be somewhere in the references, but it isn't currently recited in the section's content. See my 23:54 reply. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a relevant source, in which McConell is reported to claim that Trump is unlikely to win the election due to the Ye/Fuentes dinner: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/29/mcconnell-criticizes-trump-meeting-with-kanye-west-nick-fuentes.html?recirc=taboolainternal. Maybe this will allay some of the concerns you raise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, though "outsider" comments about T's campaign are not as WP:RELEVANT as what T himself does in his campaign. The long paragraph with (Kan)Ye trivia is the main problem, with the shorter Garland/Smith paragraph also not expressing anything directly relevant (maybe sources say something relevant to the campaign but the paragraph here doesn't reflect it). —RCraig09 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S. The fact that the section is vaguely called "Developments" shows how off-centered the section's content originally was. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the poor section title. It would be good if someone could propose something better, though nothing springs to mind. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've renamed the section "Responses to Trump's announcement". The (Kan)Ye paragraph is still hugely problematic in its triviality, and needs to be pruned and redirected to what's specifically relevant to T's campaign (who asked who to be Vice President, if anything). —RCraig09 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Then why don't we have an RfC, since clearly you lack a consensus supporting your view? Specifically, I note that User:Muboshgu and User:Valjean have added to or edited that section without commenting on either the section header or the coverage. BD2412 T 22:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I had forgotten to watchlist this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW I just found what seems to me a nice source on this topic (57 republican lawmakers are interviewed regarding whether they condemn Trump for hosting a neo-nazi dinner party: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/we-asked-57-republican-lawmakers-if-they-condemn-trumps-dinner-with-fuentes-and-ye-heres-what-they-said.

PS: Here is another source, with Trump declining to comment on his dinner guest's remarks on Hitler today: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-kanye-west-hitler-alex-jones-b2237295.html2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep special counsel I added a sentence on Garland appointing a special counsel to this article. I don't know how it can be considered to not be relevant to this article given that, in his announcement, Garland said, "It is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well." The Kanye/Fuentes meeting I'm unsure about. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Update I've also added content re Garland, making the content relevant. The final paragraph of what is now three, is relevant. It's only the trivial detail re (Kan)Ye that's problematic. There's probably something in the sources that can be concisely summarized in our article here. I'm no longer arguing for deletion of the entire newsy-like "Developments" section. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I cut out a bunch of the details to make it more of a summary. BD2412 T 23:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, User talk:BD2412. I think prominent individuals' response to the (Kan)Ye meeting (the last part of the paragraph) are relevant, but that the petty details of the meeting itself (the first part of the paragraph) are definitely not relevant to the campaign. Suggestion: Can you summarize in 40 words or less, how the (Kan)Ye meeting itself is directly relevant to T's campaign? If you can, then that (if closely sourced) is what should be recited in the first part of that paragraph—not the petty drama. Articles have much more credibility if they don't read like hit pieces. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

the fact that PBS interviewed 59 Republican lawmakers and asked them to respond to Trump’s meeting ought to be enough to establish the relevance of this topic to the campaign and its notability. It’s a major political scandal. While we know that Trump has the ability to deflect scandals because his base doesn’t give a shit what he does, I think political scandals in a presidential campaign that receive such widespread coverage and notability (as evidenced here by the entire Republican leadership of congress being asked to comment upon it) are AlWAYS reported on in the relevant campaign article. The reporting also states that Yiannopolos engineered the meeting specifically to send a message to the Trump campaign about his true base, though I've not added any of this material to the article yet. But perhaps adding some of these quotations would make the campaign connection a bit clearer, as it is in the source articles. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:6842:B9A0:F162:B4A3 (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References

I'm not arguing notability. I'm observing that the current article content doesn't express the WP:relevance to the campaign. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If we remove the description of the meeting, and just say that two 2024 nomination competitors condemned the meeting, that leaves the reader asking, "what meeting"? There are two separate aspects of the meeting that are relevant to the campaign: first, that Trump met with West and Fuentes at all, which drew the response from opponents, and second that Trump advised a competitor to drop out. Consider, if Trump had met with Fuentes alone, without West even being there, and opponents had condemned the meeting, both the meeting and the response would be relevant to the campaign, and we would report this. Conversely, if Trump had met with a comparatively noncontroversial opponent like Ron DeSantis (in a scenario where DeSantis was a declared candidate), and advised him to drop out of the race, that would be separately relevant to the campaign, and we would separately report this. Here, both events happened at the same time, so it requires a bit more context to explain both aspects. BD2412 T 16:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your most recent edit relates the meeting to K's campaign, but not to how it affected T's campaign which is the subject of this article. Timing alone (to T's announcement) is not enough to tie an event to T's campaign. Again: it's about radically toning down the description in the first half of the paragraph to something that's boringly encyclopedic. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, again, it would be difficult for the reader to understand the significance of West meeting with Trump and Trump advising West to drop out without noting that West had declared a candidacy. I think this is about as stripped down as it can get without sacrificing context that the reader needs to understand why Trump (a candidate) is advising West (a competing candidate) to drop out, and why other competitors are condemning the meeting happening it all. BD2412 T 16:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, User:BD2412, I wasn't implying your posting of K's campaign timing was a bad thing; it's not a bad thing. Separately, as a parallel example to what we're discussing, note how this edit explicitly expresses the relevance of T's candidacy announcement to Garland's appointment of special counsel. I'll take a look at the (Kan)Ye-related refs for explicit expressions of relevance that might improve this section. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposition is not that Kanye announced his candidacy in response to Trump announcing, but that Kanye asking to meet with Trump (both as announced candidates) was a development; however, in order to provide the context for why it was a development, it is necessary to point out that Kanye had announced his candidacy, for which we happen to have an article to link. BD2412 T 13:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added some material on Trump's new calls to "terminate" the constitution. I believe this material should be greatly expanded, considering its obvious importance. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Content should be limited to what is directly WP:RELEVANT to Trump's campaign. I agree that that Constitution-kicking is relevant (could be considered part of a "campaign"), but I'm worried about how "expanding" on it will turn an encyclopedia article into a diatribe. Separately, the return of the section title to be "Developments..." makes the section look like a series of WP:NOTNEWS flashes, rather than substantive "Responses" that are encyclopedic.

I can't find the provision right now, but I think there is a Wikipedia guideline stating that we should include only content that will be of encyclopedic interest ten or more years in the future. I've made a two changes: Trump's calling McConnell a loser isn't relevant or encyclopedic, for example. Also, giving one meeting a separate sub-section gives that meeting more prominence than will be of interest ten years from now (I'm not arguing that the meeting doesn't meet notability standards, just that it's given undue prominence based on what's now known--it's just one more Trump bombshell-of-the-week). —RCraig09 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you're thinking of the ten-year test, a part of an explanatory essay on recentism. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Yes, thank you. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Insulting McConnell is pretty standard, and may not need to be given much if any prominence. The dinner with Fuentes and Kanye, its lasting notability is unclear and debatable at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep (commenting on this revision) Jack Smith, the Kanye-Fuentes dinner, and the call to suspend the constitution, are indeed directly relevant to his campaign, the same way Access Hollywood was relevant to his 2016 campaign; if any book is somehow written about Trump's 2024 campaign, it'll inevitably cover those three things. Of the Kanye paragraph, only the first sentence isn't directly related to Trump's campaign (but it's necessary, since we need to introduce the context that Kanye is running against Trump); everything else is directly relevant. If Trump's campaign lasts until Election Day, it's possible we'll have to prune the reactions to the Fuentes meeting to a single sentence, like This meeting, and Trump's lack of disavowal of Fuentes, received bipartisan condemnation. But that'll only be relevant once this article reaches 100kB prose size (not 100kB wikitext size!), and the meeting itself will still be noteworthy, so there's currently no reason to shorten anything. DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I, as original poster, withdraw my request to remove the section, as it has been amended adequately in the week after my 30 Nov post. If someone wants to "close" this section (colored box), feel free. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Presenting Trump's quote re "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution"

The phrase "Trump called for the "termination" of the US constitution"--presently in the article based on hyperbolic descriptions in secondary references--does not accurately present Trump's actual post: "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. My suggested text, reverted by User:There-being, reads "Trump wrote that the "massive fraud" of the 2020 presidential election "allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". Mine is a concise and accurate summary, not "interjecting based on (my) reading of the primary sources"; pertinently, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

An encyclopedia will be more credible if it does not incorporate hyperbole. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Your suggested text is, quite frankly, bad and you've already edit warred to restore it. As the sources all indicate, the noteworthy aspect of the event is that Trump called for the termination of the constitution and return to power. The fact that Trump again repeated his discredited claim of massive fraud isn't notable, yet you inexplicably decide to amplify that without even mentioning it is false. Please, draw from the reliable sources that describe the event, not your political opinions. There-being (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If we excluded Trump claims that were discredited, the article would be small indeed! We're quoting, not presenting the claim as fact. You're not dealing with what I wrote; instead you're repeating hyperbole from secondary sources. P.S. My change to the initial sentence should have been "revert" of WP:BRD; your change to my post was technically the beginning of an edit war.

Experienced editors, please respond. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jesus christ. I didn't say "exclude claims that Trump said that were discredited" I said describe the statement as it is described in RELIABLE sources. The reliable sources govern here, not your intrepretation of the primary source. There are 3 different ones there that all refer to noteworthy aspect of the event in this way. Yet you multiple times edit war to add in your personal interpretation, placing it above that of the BBC, Washington Post, etc. What is difficult to understand here about why your edit was so bad? There-being (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not Jesus christ. I agree, Trump's post is notable (not "noteworthy"; I see you are new). My post presents the Trump quote, not my "personal interpretation" of the Trump quote or hyperbole re the Trump quote. You are not dealing with what I have said.

Experienced editors, please respond. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I've dealt with what you said multiple times. Your edit was bad because it replaced well-sourced text from reliable sources like the BBC with your own interpretation of the events. I don't care how old you are, you're mistaken if you think that is appropriate. Your edit with your misplaced emphases based on your primary source reading was non-encylopedic; edits that draw from reliable source readings of the primary material are. What's so difficult for you to understand here? There-being (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Cite a specific sentence or passage in any of the three references that specifically supports the claim that Trump called for the "termination of the US constitution" (Constitution as a whole—not "rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" as I've directly quoted Trump). In other words, is there any basis in the references for the references' description of what Trump said, or is it merely hyperbole? Be specific. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You haven't dealt with the WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD quote, above. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sentence one of the BBC article states: "The White House has condemned former President Donald Trump after he called for the "termination" of the US constitution." Sentence of the CNN article states : "Former President Donald Trump called for the termination of the Constitution to overturn the 2020 election and reinstate him to power Saturday..." Need I continue? So there, we have multiple specific passages that directly supports the claim that Trump called for the termination of the US constitution. When every reliable source converges on a single description of what occurs, Wikipedia abides by the consensus of reliable sources. You keep boasting of your experience here, yet you seem unfamiliar with even basic ideas like abiding by the consensus of reliable sources over your personal views. There-being (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeat: what, in the references, specifically supports the SOURCES' claim that Trump called for the "termination of the US constitution": I'm not asking you what the references say. I'm asking you (a) how the references support what they say, given the fact that the literal Trump quote says something qualitatively different. (b) Secondly: what's wrong with my literal quote of Trump? Deal with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to engage further with someone who doesn't think Wikipedia should be drawn from the consensus of reliable sources. Reliable sources have converged in describing it this way, as I showed you. Don't like it? Go take it up with the BBC, the Washington Post, and CNN and bemoan the terribly unfair treatment Trump is getting there. This is not the place to fight that battle. Here, we abide by what the reliable sources say. There-being (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, we do not automatically adopt the characterizations from usually-reliable sources when they conflict with the plain language of direct quotes within those very sources! Your posts and edit comments have the crude-understanding righteousness that only a newbie incubates (examples: "WP:Consensus..." relates to editorial agreement, not to references' adoption hyperbolic characterizations; in "... of reliable sources", reliability differs based on subject matter and on context (and here, on basic reading of the English language); and heaping on more references that adopt the same hyperbole do not bolster credibility of the hyperbole, especially in an encyclopedia).

Unless you thoroughly understand what I have just written, and have explicitly and specifically answered both my questions from 00:12, 7 Dec, you haven't dealt with the issues here. P.S., It has nothing to do with Trump—that is your Wikipedia:ADHOMINEM argument. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Come now, friend, there is no need to resort to name-calling merely because you have been bested in argument. ("crude, newbie, etc.") You can bark out orders as to how you would like me to respond, but I'm under no obligation to respond in the fashion you demand. Allow me to repeat myself. Your framing of the quotation places improper emphasis (an emphasis not drawn from reliable sources) on the notability of the event involving Trump's claims of massive fraud. You even improperly tried to insert this claim into the article without contradicting it. I've now introduced 5 reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that Trump's statement about "massive fraud" is not what is notable about the quotation. What is notable about the quotation is Trump's call for "termination" of the constitution. Hence, according to the 5 reliable sources, what goes in the encyclopedia is the notable bit about Trump calling for the termination of the constitution. (Note that there is no meaningful distinction between calling for termination of the constitution and termination of the rules and regulations of the constitution. Why you keep harping on something so meaningless is beyond me.) Do you understand your mistake yet? Again, if you find the coverage by reliable sources to be "hyperbolic" and "unfair" go take it up with them. This is not the place where you should fight that battle. There-being (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You. have. not. dealt. with. what. I. wrote. It. is. not. "nonsense". —RCraig09 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As User:There-being has been blocked, this conversion is continued in "Termination", Part II section, for experienced editors to weigh in.

"Termination", Part II

Background:
1. Trump's actual quote: "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!" (emphasis added)
2. Phrases from some media implying Trump was referring to the entire Constitution:
          2a. "Trump's call for 'termination' of constitution condemned" (BBC)
          2b. "White House rebukes Trump’s suggestion to suspend Constitution..." (Washington Post)
3. Phrases found in other media showing he was referring to parts of the Constitution:
          3a. "Donald Trump has sparked a furious backlash after he called for the "termination" of parts of the Constitution" (Newsweek)
          3b. "Donald Trump fueled controversy over the weekend by suggesting that parts of the U.S. Constitution should face "termination."" (CBS)
4. Issue: this Wikipedia article's stating that Trump said "the Constitution" as a whole should be terminated, is incorrect, based on the language of what might be called a primary source (Trump's post itself).
5. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states that "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."
6. This issue is non-trivial. I proposed describing Trump's post: On December 3, 2022, Trump wrote that the "massive fraud" of the 2020 presidential election "allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". However, it was opposed by User:There-being who relied on some secondary-source phrasing like Part "2." above.

To avoid edit warring: experienced editors, please say if you agree with my proposed change (or similar change) to focus on the actual language, avoiding the hyperbole of some sources. I understand the impulse to out Trump, but I think Wikipedia's credibility is preserved if we're careful how we present occurrences in the political area. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This 27 Jan edit copied content from the article body to achieve a balanced description in the lead. I think the issue is resolved. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Historians and scholars

As I expected, a drive-by IP added content about how historians and scholars view Trump's presidency among the worst in US history to the lead of this article. That is content that I consider fine for the article about the presidency or even the background section of this article, but it should be obvious why it's not appropriate for that spot in the lead. Another IP removed this material, correctly (at least to me) citing WP:NPOV. @Muboshgu: Am I missing something? You reverted to keep it in, and for the life of me I can't see why. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It is well in line with and certainly as important as the rest of the paragraph in which it appears “if Trump wins he will be the oldest president… first president since Grover Cleveland to win no consecutive terms” blah blah blah. Reporting the scholar survey fits in with the rest of this material and is more relevant than the rest of the paragraph. 67.85.103.120 (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't include this kind of information in the article for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign or Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. That's just not the standard like you make it out to be. I'm re-reverting until you can demonstrate consensus for this content in the lead. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

We absolutely could and should reference how Obama's or Bush's first term went when discussing it in the context of their reelection campaigns. An assessment of Trump's first term seems highly relevant to discussion of his election campaign for a second term, as long as sources are putting it into that context. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is relevant, IF sources are putting it into that context as Muboshgu described. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with MJL that this is not lede material for an article on the campaign itself. BD2412 T 18:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ah, ok. I get it now. Keep garbage like trivia, remove scholarly surveys. How encyclopedic! I still fail to see how a mention of Trump’s historical reputation is less important or out of line in a paragraph that is literally trivia . It is certainly as notable and relevant to his campaign that Trump is regarded by expert opinion as one of the worst presidents in US history then that he would be one of the oldest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.103.120 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

oRaNgE mAn rAcIsT

Orange Man is racist Alexysun (talk) 03:15, 16 December 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

WP:NOTFORUM violations and personal attacks by an IP now p-blocked from this page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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?

Same as above; also a non-neutral, out of process RfC. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Procedural close. WP:RFCBEFORE doesn't look like it's been read, and neutrality in the opening statement is harder to find than a protestor in North Korea. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) No, you don't understand what neutrality means (despite your shitty little joke.) There is no dispute over whether Trump's claims are false. Every source cited in the article states that they are false. The only question here is whether our article should reflect its sources or not. That's the neutrally phrased issue here. You choose to be on the side that the article should not reflect its sources, which never mention Trump's claims without stating that they are disproven. I choose that an encyclopedia should reflect reliable sources and what is known, documented, and proven to be true about the world. Pretty sad that you don't. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) I've removed the RfC tag again, for the same reasons as last time. The IP would be well-advised to familiarize themselves with our policies, guidelines, and behavioral norms before continuing to edit. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC) You would be well-advised to the do same, as you seem to be unaware of the policy that an encyclopedia should reflect its sources. Thanks to your work here today, this article no longer does. Trump's claims that the "election was stolen", as stated in the reliable sources cited in the article are false, and are always described as such by reliable sources. Thanks to you, this article fails to state that Trump's claims that the election was "stolen" are false when introducing these claims, in contradiction to the sources used in the article. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:08, 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

Same as previous section. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) How many times do I need to make a completely obvious case? Case: every source we cite in the article introduces Trump's claims of a "stolen election" by stating that these claims are false. Our article, in contradiction to our reliable sources and known fact, fails to introduce Trump's claims by stating that they are false. The article should NEVER mention Trump's "claims of a stolen election" without stating that they are disproven falsehoods, especially in the sentence where we introduce them to the reader. Please fix the article. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Falsely?

Now that the page has calmed, should the word "falsely" be added to the sentence "Trump claimed the election had been stolen"? Obviously the claim is false. I'm ambivalent about the need for the word. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's superfluous given that we link to the big lie article in that sentence, and then the very next sentence calls it false. We also call it false several other times in the article. We don't need to bludgeon the reader over the head with it -- we make it clear enough snd we don't need to shoehorn it into every instance. — Czello ^(music) 14:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

While having no strong objection to "falsely" being added to the sentence, I agree with the rationale of Czello and think it's unnecessary and perhaps redundant to do so. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

All right, I'll drop this issue, as it appears there's a consensus that 'falsely' is redundant given the description of the subsequent sentence. Thanks for considering. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, I appreciate your willingness to step back and take feedback on board. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Article: "Donald Trump’s 2024 Campaign, in His Own Menacing Words"

A quote-filled article:

• Philbrick, Ian Prasad; Bentahar, Lyna (December 5, 2023). "Donald Trump's 2024 Campaign, in His Own Menacing Words". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 5, 2023.
• Wikicode for source: {{cite news |last1=Philbrick |first1=Ian Prasad |last2=Bentahar |first2=Lyna |title=Donald Trump’s 2024 Campaign, in His Own Menacing Words |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/us/politics/trump-2024-president-campaign.html |work=The New York Times |date=December 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231205101119/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/us/politics/trump-2024-president-campaign.html |archive-date=December 5, 2023 |url-status=live }}

—RCraig09 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of edit by Soibangla

A recent revert of my additions to the page was undertaken by Soibangla with the comment "he did not explicitly state this, please rephrase." The comment in question is in relation to the recent news stories of Donald Trump stating that he would be a dictator on Day One of his presidency. This statement is objectively true and verifiable. Owing to the extreme amount of controversy this statement will generate, I ensured to include an extreme amount of reputable sources in backing this up.

I transcribed the dialogue from the exchange below, so there can be no confusion on the words stated. Here is a link to the video I am transcribing (please start at 15 seconds for the comments)

Sean Hannity: "I wanna go back to this one issue though, the media has been focused on this attacking you, under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody."

Trump: "Except for Day 1."

Sean Hannity: "Except fo-"

Trump: "Look, he's going crazy. Except for Day 1."

Sean Hannity: "Meaning?"

Trump: "I wanna close the border, and I wanna drill, drill, drill."

Sean Hannity: "That's not a - that's -"

Trump: "No, no"

Sean Hannity: "That's not retribution."

Trump: "I'm gonna be - I'm gonna be - You know, he keeps - I love this guy, he said, 'you're not gonna be a dictator, are ya?' I said no, no, no, other than day 1. We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator."

I think it is clear that Donald Trump did in fact say he would be a dictator on "day one," of his presidency. If we want to get into semantics, note the past tense, "after that, I'm not a dictator." So Trump is a dictator "for Day 1," and "after that, I'm not a dictator." Therefore, Trump is explicity stating he would be a dictator, even if he claims it would only 'be for one day.'

This is verifiable.

Soibangla also removed the sentence stating Trump "refused to answer Hannity's question that he would not "abuse power, to break the law, to use the government to go after people." If you will look at the numerous news articles I linked to this reference (and read the transcript above), you will see that several articles say that Trump sidestepped the question and avoided answering it. I do believe that potentially using the word "avoided" rather than "refused" would be an acceptable edit, as refused could give the impression Trump said something along the lines of "I refuse to answer that question."

Let's also keep in mind, that no president in modern American history has ever said they would be a dictator, even if only for "one day." I can only assume that Soibangla reverted this edit owing to their belief that Trump did not say, "I will be a dictator on day one." Trump instead said (paraphrasing here) 'I will not be a dictator except for day one.' These two sentences are both saying the same thing. That you will be a dictator on day one. Thus, the revert of this edit should be undone. BootsED (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump explicitly stated he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency is incorrect.

previously on Wikipedia ...

During a December 2023 televised town hall in Davenport, Iowa, Fox News host Sean Hannity twice asked Trump if he could assure he would not abuse presidential power to seek retribution against others; Trump replied "except for Day One" before pivoting to other subjects.

[1] soibangla (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi soibangla,

I do not believe you constructively responded to my statement above. You simply stated that I am "incorrect," and then quoted an edit you made on another page to somehow prove that I am wrong. You also included the phrase "previously on Wikipedia" above a quotation of your edit to, in my opinion, create a bandwagon effect by implying that your edit is a consensus opinion "previously on Wikipedia" and thus my edit was incorrect.

If you would like to constructively respond to my statement above, please do so, otherwise I will attempt to have an administrator arbitrate this dispute. Thank you. BootsED (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump explicitly stated he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency is incorrect.

that's all I got here soibangla (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Soiblanga,

Thank you for your clarification on Muboshgu's talk page. Let's keep the conversation here though so we don't fill up the person's inbox. With that said, I would be interested to hear what word you would use rather than "stated." I agree that we can remove the word explicity and changed refused to avoided as I stated in my initial comment. However, the fact still stands that Trump did state he would be a dictator on day one.

I will repeat what I said here:

"Trump did not say, "I will be a dictator on day one." Trump instead said (paraphrasing here) 'I will not be a dictator except for day one.' These two sentences are both saying the same thing. That you will be a dictator on day one."

Again, I agree that removing the word explicity is more concise. BootsED (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

the fact still stands that Trump did state he would be a dictator on day one

no, he did not state that. he simply did not. you said he explicitly stated that but your (paraphrasing here) doesn't change what he actually said soibangla (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry soibangla but he did state that. Maybe this article can help clear this up. Trump stated he will be a dictator on day one. That's a fact. I removed explicity because I agree, he did not explicity say "I will be a dictator on day one." Here's another repeat of what I said above:

"I think it is clear that Donald Trump did in fact say he would be a dictator on "day one," of his presidency. If we want to get into semantics, note the past tense, "after that, I'm not a dictator." So Trump is a dictator "for Day 1," and "after that, I'm not a dictator." Therefore, Trump is stating he would be a dictator, even if he claims it would only 'be for one day.'" BootsED (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

you didn't notice the sleight of word:

He [Hannity] says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘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.

And Hannity responds: "That's not retribution," which was the context of the question soibangla (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Hannity saying "that's not retribution" is in response to his previous question on whether or not Trump would seek retribution and "under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody." Trump then says "Except for day one," which Hannity responds by saying "Meaning?" And then Trump says "I wanna close the border, and I wanna drill, drill, drill." To which Hannity responds "That's not retribution." Meaning, talking about closing the border and drilling for oil doesn't answer my question about retribution.

Even if your interpretation is correct, it doesn't change the fact that Trump still said he would be a dictator on day one. Please see the numerous articles that I have linked that state this fact. One, Two, Three. Three articles talking about Trump's statement that he will be a dictator on day one. There are many more. Trump did state that he will be a dictator on day one. BootsED (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to appeal my revert by whatever means you deem necessary, as you and I are evidently at an impasse. soibangla (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Soibanga, I don't know what else I'm supposed to say here. I have shown you multiple articles that state Donald Trump said he would be a dictator on day one. Yet you continually state that this is incorrect and that he did not state that. I have given you multiple articles that state otherwise. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. I have given you multiple articles that go directly against what you are saying. I do not like to assume ill intent, but I can only assume that you are deliberately attempting to be disruptive. BootsED (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I can only assume that you are deliberately attempting to be disruptive

I discourage you from going that way. Seek consensus. soibangla (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I must say I completely support the restoration of this content and agree with Boots here, who has clearly shown the verifiability and notability and pertinence of this information. Trump has made it plain that he plans to rule as a dictator; this fact is no longer controversial and has generated extensive media coverage. Indeed, I posted here just a few days ago a list of no less than 75 sources on Trump's well-known plans for a dictatorship, thus establishing the notability of this aspect of the topic. Would any of you please be so good as to add this rich bounty of sources to the article? Many thanks. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

there is no question there has been extensive coverage of Trump's fascist rhetoric, which I have argued for inclusion in Donald Trump. I have also contributed much to Project 2025. I understand all this, I get it. But the statement that he explicitly stated he would be a dictator is incorrect, and as an encyclopedia we must be very careful in how we present this stuff. This is not Facebook. soibangla (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok what if we compromise and write that many analysts have said that Trump plans to rule as a dictator. That is extensively sourced. The compilation of sources I listed used "dictator" explicitly. Plans for a dictatorship seem notable. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla,

I have stated numerous times that I am removing the word explicitly.

Your comment:

"he did not state that. he simply did not. you said he explicitly stated that but your (paraphrasing here) doesn't change what he actually said"

So your issue is not that he explicity stated that (which I agree he did not explicitly state, btw), but that he stated that at all. It is this second point that I find your comments to be patently incorrect. If you really want, we can change the word "state" to "said," but either way, he did state/say that in his comments. BootsED (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

please try to persuade others soibangla (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I, for one, am persuaded. I've also added a brief list of some sources on this topic in the discussion below this one, since Boot's original sourcing including apparently transcribing the interview themselves, was not appropriate. So we now have appropriate sourcing for this material, if your initial objection was based upon that. I can't quite understand what the nature of Soibanga's objection is, to be honest. This is pretty obviously a notable event related to the article topic. I've suggested that the topic of dictatorship deserves its own section, but simply including the topic in the article given the extensive coverage it has received should be uncontroversial. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi 67, in the post on the article page itself that was reverted by soibangla I included several high-quality sources stating the fact that Trump made the comments he did from the The New York Times, The Atlantic, CBS News, Politico, USA Today, Washington Post, CNN and ecetera. I transcribed the interview itself in the talk page above to clarify to soibangla that Trump did in fact state that he would be dictator on day one. This was probably unnecessary in the first place and resulted in a lot of writing on my part. All the articles I used in the initial post that was reverted state this fact. I also provided additional articles to soibangla that show Trump did make these comments, which soibangla, I believe, still refuses. I also removed the word "explicitly" as I agree that Trump did not explicitly state he will be a dictator, but he did state he would be a dictator. All the sources I provided are in agreement with this. BootsED (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

please stop referring to me soibangla (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? You were the one who reverted my edit and demanded I change it. You're the only person right now who is saying that my edit was wrong. You're the reason we're having this discussion on a talk page right now. Why can't I refer to you? BootsED (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

my point is we don't need to transcribe primary sources and analyze like talmudic scholars whether or not he said "I'd be a dictator on day one." it should be uncontroversial that the sources all describe him as saying it, which is enough. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• We can't add every stupid thing Trump says to the article. Yeah, he wants to be a dictator. But this off-the-cuff answer his little meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I really dislike this old "We can't add every stupid thing Trump says" chestnut. If something gets significant notable coverage, it should be added. It doesn't matter if you have fatigue from him saying too many stupid things. What matters is whether it meets notability criteria and is pertinent to the topic. Also, it's not like it was just asked or said randomly. It's the topic itself that needs coverage, not merely this particular quotation about it. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it time to create a section about Trump's plans for dictatorship?

Recently, I wrote here about the highly notable coverage of Trump's well-known plans for a second-term "dictatorship" (this is the term our sources use, so it is the term we should use.) Indeed, I added a rich bounty of 75 sources on this precise topic, so that this section will be extensively referenced. The Trump campaign has now openly acknowledged what was already publicly known, freely admitting to Trump's plans for a dictatorship in public interviews. Given the inherent notability of the United States of America turning into a dictatorship, the extensive media coverage in reliable sources, and the admission of the candidate himself, it is time to add a section to our article on this subtopic. Even if you somehow disagree with the idea that Trump plans to rule as a dictator despite the candidate's own words, Wikipedia requires not only that that all major controversies regarding a topic must be covered, but also that major controversies must be covered in the article lead. (See WP: LEAD) Please leave your comments, proposed text for this required article section as well as the necessary introductory coverage to be included in the lead, and your "Yes" votes below. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any RFC tag. Anyways, the US Constitution 'limits' presidential powers. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If it were tagged with {{RfC}} I'd have removed the tag per WP:RFCBEFORE and especially WP:RFCNEUTRAL. — SamX [talk · contribs] 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I meant it informally, I'm requesting feedback on proposed changes to the article. I've compiled many sources on allegations that Trump plans to become a dictator, and other editors have added information on Trump's own admissions to the same. See the section above where Boots seeks to add Trump's undisputed statement "I would be a dictator on day one" to the article. I think this statement in particular and this subtopic in general is notable enough to warrant a section in the article. See the many scholarly and political analyses posted above arguing that Trump is intending to form a dictatorship, such as Robert Kagan's article last week in Washington Post. Thoughts?67.82.74.5 (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, you do realize he doesn't respect the Constitution and will undermine and circumvent it with the help of GOP allies in Congress, right? That means your mention of the Constitution is irrelevant and disconnected from the realities of a second Trump presidency. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you be clearer which sources above show that Trump or his team have freely admitted to planning a dictatorship? — Czello ^(music) 21:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The interview cited by BootsED above where Trump says "I'd be a dictator on day one". Here are some more sources: Let me also just say that EVEN if you don't think Trump intends a dictatorship, the topic has received enough coverage especially since Trump has stated it himself as to warrant being treated as a major controversy, which thus must be covered in the article. Major controversies involving the article topic are required to be covered. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I watched the video & didn't see where he said "I'd be a dictator on day one", fwiw. What I did see, was commentators giving their interpretations. Forgive me, but MSNBC news isn't Trump friendly, just like Fox news isn't Biden friendly. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay,

Here are six news articles talking about how Trump said he would be a dictator on day one. I agree, we shouldn't use MSNBC and Fox News. BootsED (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC) BootsED (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Does he directly say "I will be a dictator..."? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes.

Exact quote:

""I'm gonna be - I'm gonna be - You know, he keeps - I love this guy, he said, 'you're not gonna be a dictator, are ya?' I said no, no, no, other than day 1. We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator." Trump said he would be a dictator on day 1. BootsED (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not the exact quote I'm looking for, though. An example - I'm looking for "I will tear the barn down". Not - "I didn't say I wouldn't tear the barn down". GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's like, just your opinion though. The reliable sources we use cite Trump as having said he'd be a dictator on day one and even quote him as saying "I'd be a dictator on day one" in quotation marks. Several of them (indeed, most) use some sort of variation on the headline of "Trump: 'I'd be a dictator on day one'." So your interpretation that he didn't precisely say exactly is not really to the point, when all of the reliable sources report that he said he would be a dictator on day one. And the common sense reading of what he says also agrees that what he said is that he would be a dictator on day one. Come on. Be reasonable here. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I went through the video. He doesn't say "I'd be a dictator on day one". GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I went through the sources. All of them say that he did say he'd be a dictator on day one. You should read the sources instead of merely espousing your own personal analysis and original research which are irrelevant. Your idiosyncratic view of what he said is not reflected in the treatment by reliable sources. As cited below, The New York Times, Washington Post, the Atlantic, CBS News, and USA today all state that Trump said he'd be dictator on day one. (the Atlantic "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," etc) There is universal consensus that Trump's remarks meant he said would be a dictator on "day one." I guess I will have to create that RfC after all. Because every single source quotes him as saying something but it apparently cannot be added to the article because one editor thinks he didn't actually precisely say exactly what every primary reliable source agrees that he said.67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source soibangla (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws. You know very well that those articles also attribute him as saying that he would be a dictator on day one. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

don't start with the "you" stuff soibangla (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Article text: "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." Now, will you drop your baseless claim that "it's only the headlines that say he said that?" Every article states that he said that too. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"He [Hannity] says, 'You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?'" Trump riffed.

But that's not what Hannity said. He said:

"Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?"

Nixon abused power to seek retribution against his adversaries, but few call him a dictator. soibangla (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Soibanga, no offense but I don't care about your original research either. Our reliable sources say that he said he would be a dictator on day one. I don't need to analyze the niceties of what we call Nixon or the exact words Trump said because I carefully read all the reliable sources that we are going to cite on this topic, and I learned by reading them that all of them agree that Trump said and meant that he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency. So that's what goes in the article because that's the consensus of reliable sources on this matter. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

well ok then! soibangla (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This request looks remarkably prescient in the wake of Trump now openly avowing his plans for dictatorship. We must add a section on the plans for the coming Trump dictatorship with haste. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"We must add a section on the plans for the coming Trump dictatorship with haste"? Aren't you overreacting a tad bit? GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Should this page add a full section on the plans for a Trump dictatorship?

I should note here that, unsurprisingly, there are new developments, namely, Trump repeating and doubling down on his original statements: "You know why I wanted to be dictator? Because I want a wall and drill, drill, drill...I want to be dictator (for one day)" At this point, it should go without saying that we need a section solely devoted to the plans for a Trump dictatorship in this article. I hate to say I told you so, but I did. See here: I must say, I feel a bit like Cassandra here. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We should be careful, not to turn Trump's 2024 campaign page, into an 'attacking Trump' page. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP67, I think there was talk about potentially making a separate page on the wiki for Trumps authoritarian statements and media criticism that he is authoritarian. If I'm not mistaken it was brought up in the rfc on the main Donald Trump page. You might want to look there and see about potentially drafting a version of the page as I can tell you feel very strongly about this issue. I think the consensus was that it might be the time to create an article along those lines. BootsED (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that there is a discussion on this point means by definition that it is not "beyond all possible dispute". BD2412 T 03:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, creating a 'page' concerning Trump's rhetoric & media coverage of it, would be an option & likely increasingly so, as the 2024 US prez election gets closer. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

if there is adequate reason to create a whole new article about his authoritarian rhetoric, why is there not adequate reason for a mere mention of it in his BLP? soibangla (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Should such a page be created? I wouldn't object to it being mentioned/linked to Trump's bio page. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have never objected to the creation of such an article, but it should not be a condition to including something, anything, about his rhetoric in the BLP. The continuing resistance to inclusion flies in the face of what many reliable sources have reported for years and would not be tolerated in the case of any other BLP in this encyclopedia. soibangla (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm but one 'individual' in a crowd. How the RFC 'here' & the related RFC 'there' turn out? will be a collective result. GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW a new page, Donald Trump's rhetoric has been created. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That page has been redirected. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that was precipitous SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, now the page has been restored. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Trump plagiarizes Hitler, praises dictators, embraces facsism

New speech from Trump; please add.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna130251 https://newrepublic.com/post/177626/donald-trumps-rhetoric-immigrants-somehow-gotten-even-fascistic 67.82.74.5 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

What do others think? Should it be added? GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like we already cover much of this in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign § Violent and dehumanizing rhetoric. If there's something we're missing, I'd be open to a proposal. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s notable enough to include, but sources do not say he “plagiarized” Hitler. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

We also got enough sources. We don't want to overcite. It best to not use more sources than needed for a statement on tbe article. Cwater1 (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

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.

---

Please add, following sentence 1 of article: "The courts have ruled that Trump is ineligible to hold or run for office because he engaged in an insurrection against the United States, holding that he is barred by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution's insurrection clause. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment.html </ref> 67.82.74.5 (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"The courts"? All of them? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, unless the ruling is later overturned by a higher court, he has been ruled to have engaged in an act of insurrection, and it has been ruled that the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment bars persons who engaged in insurrection against the United States from holding office, and hence that Trump is ineligible to serve as or run for president. So, absent a higher court's ruling overturning said ruling, that's what has been ruled. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Only the Colorado State Supreme Court has ruled this, not all of "the courts". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok but you don't want to misleadingly imply that this only has to do with Colorado. He was ruled ineligible to serve, not merely ineligible to be on the Colorado ballot. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It is precisely only on the Colorado ballot. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they ruled he is disqualified from the presidency, which entails he is disqualified from being on the Colorado ballot. They didn't hold that he is eligible to president, but ineligible to be on the Colorado ballot. Now you can see why I suggested the wording I did, when even our own editors are confused. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As it only impacts the Colorado ballot, that needs to mentioned in any text we add to the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't only impact the Colorado ballot. He's been ruled ineligible to be President under the US Constitution unless the Supreme Court overturns the decision. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the ruling effects only Colorado. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Only in the state of Colorado. Cwater1 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Le sigh. I wish our editors would read the decision, or at least our own encyclopedia articles on the topic, prior to chiming in. Trump was ordered to be removed from the ballot in Colorado as a result of the Court's ruling that he is ineligible to be president of the entire United States. The court didn't rule that he was only ineligible to be president in Colorado; the Court ruled that he is constitutionally barred from holding the office of President of the United States by section 3 of the 14th amendment, and as a result, ordered him to be removed from the CO ballot. Anyone who has read even the Court's introductory summary of the ruling would understand that it ruled that he is ineligible to president, not merely that he is ineligible to be on the CO ballot. The latter is simply a result of the former ruling. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

All of the WP:RS I've read note that this applies only to Colorado, but says SCOTUS could take this in many directions, including disqualifying Trump nationally. And SCOTUS watchers don't expect that. I wish you were a bit more WP:CIVIL and willing to WP:AGF about our reading comprehension. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You're equivocating with the phrase "this applies." Trump was only ordered to be removed from the ballot in Colorado. However, the Court held that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President, not merely that he is disqualified from the Colorado ballot. It concludes that he must be removed from the Colorado ballot as a result of the first ruling. Here is the court's own summary of its holding: ""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." The ruling was immediately stayed within the decision pending appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision in full, then it upholds the lower Court's ruling that section 3 of the 14th amendment bars Trump from office, and hence, since he is ineligible to serve, he is ineligible to be on the ballot anywhere. So we want to be careful to not present the ruling too narrowly as merely being about his Colorado ballot eligibility when the appeal to the U.S. supreme will settle the question of whether he is barred by the 14th from being president and hence his ballot eligibility nationwide. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, I assume Trump won't be able to get Colorado's 10 electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand entirely. Simply stating your position isn't an argument for that position. Colorado did not merely rule that Trump was not eligible to be on the Colorado ballot. They ruled he is ineligible to be president under the US constitution. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. When the Court decides this case, it will settle the matter of whether Trump is eligible to be president at all, not merely whether he is eligible to be on the ballot in Colorado. If he loses the appeal and the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado ruling that he 1) committed insurrection , and that 2) the 14th amendent bars persons who have engaged in insurrection from holding office, then he cannot be president; the decision being upheld on appeal won't merely mean that if he loses the appeal he cannot be on the Colorado ballot. Do you understand now? 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The Colorado Supreme Court has jurisdiction over only Colorado. The decision is based on "states rights", and each of the other 49 states will rule on their own about whether or not to allow Trump on the ballot, if a suit is brought there. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what Muboshgu said. If the appeal to the US Supreme Court is upheld, it would only affirm state's rights to bar presidential candidates from the ballots based on their state courts rulings – it would not disqualify Trump from being on the ballot across the U.S. Each state would have to have a lawsuit that found him ineligible for the Presidency. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. When the Supreme Court decides THIS case on appeal, it will settle the issue of whether Trump is eligible to be president (i.e whether the insurrection clause of the 14th bars insurrectionists from office and whether Trump engaged in insurrection.) If they uphold the ruling, then it will affirm that Trump is ineligible to be President and settle this matter. A Supreme Court ruling upholding the decision that Trump is ineligible to be president under the constitution would not merely result in his being removed from one ballot. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You are clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Please take some time to read our comments, and the news, and understand the issue. Continuing to advance your incorrect argument here is disruptive. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I've read the decision and you are mistaken. I've merely helpfully tried to help prevent you from misunderstanding the issue. For the last time, the ruling holds that "President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President". If that finding is upheld on appeal by the US Supreme Court, it settles the question of Trump's eligibility nationwide. Cheers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: What about Colorado’s delegates (we are technically in primary mode)? Prcc27 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, is he also currently barred from the state's Republican primary. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The article already says "On December 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump ineligible to run for president in the state.". That seems fine for now. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Needs clarification: At the moment he's barred from the Colorado Republican primary. Does that stop him from running in Colorado as an independent? I presume the Trump campaign will be appealing the ruling. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any sources mentioning that Trump could run as an independent, and I see several sources that say Colorado cannot count write-in votes cast for Trump. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, at the moment he's barred from appearing on the ballot in Colorado, even if he wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. BTW - the current sentence in the article, suffices. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I am posting the ruling to help others understand what was held by the Court and what will be decided on appeal : "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." https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

He's currently barred from the Colorado Republican primary & the state's November ballot. Not the entire country. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I posted the Court's summary of its own decision. The Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that he is ineligible to be President under the US Constitution. As they said, it's because he is disqualified from being president that he is disqualified from being on the ballot. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds that ruling (the decision was stayed pending appeal) that settles the question of whether he is eligible to be President (for "the entire country", as one cannot be President for only some of the country.) Cheers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with IP to an extent. If Trump is indeed precluded from being President due to section 3 of the 14th Amendment, then that means he is ineligible to become the President of the United States. However, since the Supreme Court of Colorado only has jurisdiction over Colorado, the only power they can do is not let him be on the ballot. Now if it was a federal District Court that made the ruling, then that could arguably apply nationwide. But I’m not a lawyer. Prcc27 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Basically I just think we should say something like "The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is ineligible to be president under section three of the 14th amendment of the US constitution, and as a result ordered that he be removed from the Colorado ballot, pending appeal." That's basically how the Court describes its own decision. What we shouldn't do is say "Colorado ruled that Trump is ineligible to be on the Colorado ballot" because that misdescribes the ruling, which has nothing to do with Colorado law specifically but rather Trump's eligibility to serve under the US Constitution. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I can support that wording. Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me actually tweak that proposal slightly, as I think we should clarify what that means for readers who arent familiar with the 14th amendment or the insurrection clause: "The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is ineligible to be president under section three of the 14th amendment of the US constitution, for engaging in an act of insurrection, and as a result ordered that he be removed from the Colorado ballot, pending appeal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the wording to match the case opinion stated at Anderson v. Griswold. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's still not what the Court ruled or what the decision says though. The Court ruled that he was ineligible to be president, and ordered him removed from the ballot as a result. They didn't simply rule he was ineligible to be on the ballot, they ruled he was ineligible to be president under the US constitution. I repeat: "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." The current wording distorts the ruling. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

yes, the court addressed both the Election Code and the 14th, the former a consequence of the latter soibangla (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

To make this clearer: Instead of the sentence you added, which misrepresents the ruling as being simply a ruling that he is ineligible to be on the Colorado ballot contra the court's own words, the sentence as written should say: "On December 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v. Griswold that Donald Trump is ineligible to serve as president under section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for engaging in an act of insurrection against the United States, and ordered that he be removed from the Colorado ballot." The current version misrepresents the ruling, which the Court clearly states was a holding that Trump is ineligible to be president under the 14th amendment, not that he is merely ineligible to be on the Colorado ballot. (It is simply a result of being ineligible to be president that the court ordered he be removed from the Colorado ballot.) We should also add a summary sentence to the lead like the one I previously proposed.67.82.74.5 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Please fix the incorrect sentence. Thanks. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sentence is alright. Court ruling effects only Colorado. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is false and you appear to have neither read nor understood the ruling. As the court states, "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." The court ruled that Trump is ineligible to be president, and as a result, ordered him removed from the ballot in Colorado. The sentence should be corrected to reflect that, as it was properly written elsewhere in the article by people who understood the ruling and the topic. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Other editors have pointed out to you that the Colorado Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over the entire country. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain this very slowly to you. The following sentence from the article is correct: "On December 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office and that his name must be removed from the Colorado Republican primary ballot." The one added above by FormalDude is incorrect. A court in interpreting constitutional law that applies to the entire country can't rule that the Constitution only shows that he is ineligible to be president in Colorado. They ruled that 1) he engaged in insurrection and hence that section 3 of the 14th amendment means that he is ineligble to be president. Because they only have jurisdiction over Colorado, they only were able to order him removed from Colorado, but they ruled he was ineligible to be president of the country full stop, not that he was somehow only ineligible to be president of Colorado. When the Supreme Court settles this matter on appeal, it will settle the matter of whether he is ineligible for the entire country, not merely whether he can be on the Colorado ballot. And don't "several editors" me when there are also several editors who have written here and told you that you are wrong. Interestingly, those editors displayed knowledge indicating they had read and understood the ruling, which you have not. Your comments reflect the surface-level understanding of someone who has only read a TV news chyron on the issue. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

We already say “the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office”. Prcc27 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good. As I said, I agree with the formulation I quoted from the article above. Although I think it's written differently elsewhere in the article if the sentence added by FormalDude has not been replaced. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well then, begin an RFC if you're still not content about the write up. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 20 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.

Colorado, Maine, etc

Let's be certain to clarify that disqualifications from both the Colorado & Main Republican primaries of Trump, are put on hold. Pending the US Supreme Court's ruling. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Blanket claims of white supremacist-leaning rhetoric et al.

Regardless of how true it may be or not, is it not a violation of WP:NPOV to make such a direct assertion on a very controversial topic? Trump's rhetoric has always been controversial, but the very word "controversial" implies that there's many different points of view as to their characterization, that is, no widespread consensus. Obviously, a very important part of the population feels like there's nothing wrong with his rhetoric.

That's why I propose that such loaded claims be preceded with terms like "accused of" or "alleged." Just like no one would propose referring to Trump as a criminal while his trials are ongoing—because that'd be a clear violation of neutrality—so should blanket claims that his rhetoric is dehumanizing/white supremacist/etc. be preceded by terms that wouldn't imply that it's objectively and undisputably true. Would people opposing this be OK with noting that Trump is a racist or an insurrectionist on his article? TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No objections to making this page adhere to NPoV, so by all means make the additions or deletions required. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

oppose changes, the article is NPOV already, these are facts, and not in dispute. MOS:CLAIM violating to use "accused" or "alleged" and a WP:YESPOV violation. Andre🚐 05:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Let them do this page the way they were going to. Please understand 2603:8080:C40:B0:A405:6E3F:B18F:BE63 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if the person/group targeted by these claims is contesting the validity of those claims, that makes it by definition disputed. And even moreso when you've got a major-party candidate that roughly half the country supports. It's thus very much seriously in dispute. WP:YESPOV actually states to "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." So actually, the current wording is violating WP:YESPOV. If it's a material fact that Trump is using white supremacist rhetoric, would you be OK with calling Trump a white supremacist or a racist in his article? Is that a fact? TheCelebrinator (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) No, you have it backwards. Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. WP:BESTSOURCES. Trump's denial is WP:MANDY, and him saying something is more evidence for the opposite being true given his record and rhetoric. Andre🚐 05:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Let's use your own words. "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue." The above mentioned claims are very much contested and especially controversial. It's not Mr. Trump's denial that makes it so, it's the political climate in the U.S. that makes it so. When half of Americans—or any other significant number—votes for such a candidate, it's because they agree with his views. They surely wouldn't agree with his campaign being characterized as racist or white supremacist. I ask again: would you be OK with calling Trump a white supremacist or a racist in his article? Is that a fact? TheCelebrinator (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Yup, it's a fact. When we're talking about controversy we're talking about within reliable sources. No WP:RS that I know of will defend Trump. Just fringe publications like Breitbart or the Daily Caller. He's a racist and his rhetoric is racist. Andre🚐 05:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Alright, let's add that to his article. We'll see how it goes. You know, it's not that I disagree with you on there, it's that it's very decidedly not a neutral thing to say. TheCelebrinator (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Well, you should probably add a source. You're also in violation of WP:POINT. Andre🚐 05:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Well, if it's a material fact as you say, then I'm not disrupting anything, I'm only correcting the record. TheCelebrinator (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC) OK, go ahead, but someone's probably going to not like it and revert it or report you to the admin noticeboard. I warned you that it was pointy and you didn't provide a source, but I'm certainly not going to revert that edit. Andre🚐 05:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Well, you don't have to because somebody already did revert it with the rationale that "it's a statement that certainly need consensus for addition." I'm not adding it back, obviously. I will create a discussion about reinserting it. You can join if you'd like. TheCelebrinator (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Sure. It was @GoodDay, FWIW. I believe the two of you know each other? And are Canadian compatriots? GoodDay, would you care to explain to our friend here why his edit violated POINT? Andre🚐 06:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Well, "do not actually agree with." Do I think Trump is a racist? Yeah, I do. He's done a lot of things over the years that proves it. Is that a biased statement? Yeah, but if it's actually a material fact, well, why not mention it? TheCelebrinator (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC) When you add stuff you need a reliable source. When a reliable source says something, we do as well. If all sources say the same thing and nobody disagrees, that's a fact. Andre🚐 06:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction: Trump has never received half of the vote. He got 3 million fewer votes than Clinton, and 7 million fewer votes than Biden. He will likely be even further behind the third time. And the characterization of his rhetoric in this article is "authoritarian" not "white supremacist." And no, this isn't especially controversial. Even Trump agrees- openly boasting that he would rule as a dictator in his second term. There are no serious publications that deny that Trump has employed authoritarian rhetoric in the 2024 campaign. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I meant roughly half, obviously. 46%, 50%, it's relatively speaking the same amount—half the country. The polls currently project a Trump win, by the by. And the last sentence in the paragraph explicitly mentions "white supremacist" rhetoric.

But I don't want to rehash a debate with only two people or so participating in it. Let's put this discussion on hold until the rhetoric RFC has concluded. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes 46 is less than half. Agreed. Polls are just Polls. Particularly, hypothetical polls on a general election matchup prior to the general election campaign are not particularly useful or predictive. Much less so are they a basis for an encyclopedia article, so why are we even discussing them? If your point is that we should describe Trump's campaign rhetoric as Authoritarian, rather than White Supremacist, I can get behind that. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's not let a discussion 'here', decide content on Trump's BLP. Adding "racists" to any BLP is tricky & shouldn't be done without a consensus. As for this page, I suspect it will (like the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign page) get increasing attention, as the election comes closer. So... it would be best to gain a consensus 'here' for 'any' additions or deletions to this page. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay, but that didn't really address the POINT violation. Oh well, the point of POINT, TheCelebrinator, is don't do something you think is wrong just to show how wrong it is. Andre🚐 06:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Noted. But I think it's a moot point now (pun intended) seeing I don't plan on adding it back while there's a discussion underway about it. TheCelebrinator (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Returning to the point. Noted expert social scientists analyzed Trump's rhetoric, currently a historical president and a current presidential candidate. They found out some stuff about it. We take that as gospel and distill it down into edible chunks. Andre🚐 06:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best, to put this 'discussion' on hold, until the Rhetoric RFC has concluded. Barring the totally unexpected, it's likely that Trump will be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee & Biden will be the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. Thus many changes will be requested for this 2024 campaign page & Biden's 2024 campaign page, in the coming weeks/months. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, don't you know? DeSantis is surging in the Iowa polls and I heard that Kennedy might reseek the Democratic nomination and thus doom Biden's electoral prospects.

In all seriousness, I agree. Let's agree to disagree. TheCelebrinator (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)