Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Ludicruous bias

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.

---

Everything about this page is ludicrously biased, and far from encyclopedic. Many of the sources are pure opinion pieces, and shouldn't be included in the first place. I can understand that Trump isn't popular with the Wikipedia community, but this doesn't read like a non-partisan account of his actions. Ravenofpoe1 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"doesn't read like a non-partisan account" Who said anything about non-partisan? Per Wikipedia's policy, we summarise what we find in reliable sources. The sources are not required to be neutral or non-partisan. See the policy on Bias in sources:

• • "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Any "pure opinion pieces" should be attributed to their authors. Note, though, that articles that sound like opinion because you don't like them are not the same as actual opinion pieces. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is tweeibly written. It comes off like a clear political agenda. Any consideration I ever had of giving another dime to wikipedia os gone. An encyclopedia should be non partican and non biased and this is full of highly skewed opinion and worded deliberatly to influence readers to the author's views. This should never be posted in any encyclopedia of any form. 195.252.213.236 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

100% agree. I’m in the UK and have no dog in this fight, but when every single source is from a selection of politically slanted sources, it’s disgustingly obvious. It strikes me that the people who do this don’t care about truth or balance and rely on the people reading it to have low attention or low intelligence. It’s as condescending as it is shameless. 217.33.222.26 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

every single source is from a selection of politically slanted sources You'll have trouble with that argument considering the following are used as sources: Hindustan News, Fox, Forbes, Deseret News, Associated Press, Haaretz, BBC, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Staten Island Advance, USA Today, C-SPAN, Tampa Bay Times, and the National Review. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

to nitpick: you can't really claim Fox isn't a slanted source.

On topic: I think what the UK guy meant to say is that blatant hit pieces might be getting used as credible sources, even though they may be mere speculation... such as using the Post when saying "directing the Department of Justice to go after domestic political enemies"... when it's clear as day just paragraphs later that the Post is aggressive towards Trump. I can't confirm or deny the authenticity of the claim because the article is behind a paywall. Drumpfshot (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable bias. And they call themselves "...pedia," as if they bear some resemblance. I will NEVER come here again for information. That implies they're is some, and it's just propaganda. Sickening lies about Trump's platform. Please read the platform for yourself. 2600:8805:3E1D:C00:1337:DD05:DB1C:43BD (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2024 (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.

NPOV dispute

This entire page is horrifyingly biased and locked so other Wikipedia users cannot revert or edit. Everything in the heading is either a propagated lie or a completely libelous character assassination. WP:NPOV 174.61.219.3 (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but since they get to express their opinions in the article, we can express ours here. It’s only not even fair 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

It should be obvious to anyone (I came to the conclusion after just a quick perusal as an slight right independent voter) This article seems outright biased towards the viewpoint of the Democratic Party and heavily uses sources that have long been known for outright media bias, with hardly any counter viewpoint and the few that do appear seem to indicate ignorance on their part.

The article clearly does not meet the neutrality standard and needs to be labeled as such, or preferably cleaned up to provide a more balanced viewpoint. Rhatsa26X (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

How so? Be specific please. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You really don't need to look further than the references. I am seeing a huge amount, probably better than 50% coming from the Washington Post or New York Times. Let's start with the former, the Washington Post. This newspaper did not get it's repute as the Pravda on the Patomic for no reason at all. It has had a very far left viewpoint for much longer than I've been alive (almost 42 years) and is often openly hostile even to the Blue Dog Coalition (Conservative Democrats).

As for the other primary source, the New York Times, while they aren't as hostile towards Republicans they are still quite biased towards them.

What needs to happen here is to have content from at least some reputable sources that at least have an occasional good thing or two to say about Trump, like say Fox News, or other right leaning sources as a honest comparison, instead of a seems to be a constant war drum beat comparing Trump to Hitler or any other despot, and outright calling him an authoritarian when the same can apply to Biden and Obama as well.

Articles like this make Wikipedia look like a propganda tool and that was precisely what the neutrality policy was meant to prevent.

Rhatsa26X (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post and the New York Times are reliable sources. See WP:RSP. Fox News is unreliable for use in US politics: see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. There's nothing further to discuss about the use of those sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither is more reliable than the other. Washington Post is as reliable as the New York Post tabloid. If you don't accept Fox News, you should not accept the Post as a reliable source. Period. I want to see more objective viewpoints, not far left propganda, and until I do, this tag will stay. This site is supposed to be neutral, and I am an independent voter, and this article makes me seriously question the neutrality of Wikipedia, and I have been a Wikipedian for over 15 years and in that time, I've seen everything from GW Bush to Biden.Rhatsa26X (talk) Rhatsa26X (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What you want is irrelevant. The Post and the Times are deemed reliable sources by the consensus of editors in the Wikipedia, and Fox News is not. If that is not you your liking, feel free to "vote with your feet," as they say. Zaathras (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"vote with your feet" aka "i have the authority and power here, so shove it and shove off". Cute and mature.

On topic: how are we going to pretend The Post is neutral when in the same page there's this clear indication of bias and borderline censorship? If nothing else, it's blatant animosity against Trump.

"The New York Post mocked Trump's announcement by relegating it to page 26 and noting it on the cover with a banner reading "Florida Man Makes Announcement". The article referred to Mar-a-Lago as "Trump's classified-documents library" in reference to the ongoing investigation regarding Trump's alleged improper handling of classified materials which he had brought to Mar-a-Lago following his presidency for as yet unclear reasons."

I've also looked through all the comments in this whole Talk page and it's clear gaslighting is going on. Drumpfshot (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The second and third paragraphs at the top of the page need to be rewritten. Cbls1911 (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What? 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In This article is so biased and wrong on so many levels I am specific as to what’s false about this article. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, the far-left Wikipedia editors deleted it again. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Numerology

I don't have the authority to edit the article. I'm curious, does anyone else think the Numerology section is a little bizarre? Puffin123 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Incredibly bizarre. It was added earlier today and I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

July 13th event

Per WP:Not news, wait https://www.local10.com/news/politics/2024/07/13/developing-trump-rushes-off-stage-during-rally-after-noise/ Cwater1 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

Just to add in his "Notable events" category that during a rally in Pennsylvania, it seems he has been shot after popping noises rang out about 5 minutes into his speech. It's a developing story Sendbobspicspls (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: There is no evidence he was shot. Patience. This is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  it's confirmed now https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5 Drumpfshot (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes there is. Any person could tell right away he was shot. I know that CNN and Washington Post tried to make it sound like he wasn’t and tried to make him look bad at first, stating “trump falls after loud noises heard at rally”, and “loud noises heard at trump rally” but he was. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Not news Cwater1 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Malinterpretation of the UET

The article says: "unitary executive theory. The theory rejects the notion of the separation of powers and that the government is composed of three separate branches but that Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the President absolute authority." This is a malinterpretation. The UET talks only about the executive power (one power), not the entire federal government (3 powers). Therefore, it can't deny the separation of powers. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed contradiction in the text. --SFandLogicReader (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Campaign logo change?

His new campaign logo features vice presidential candidate JD Vance heres the logo Meetballz (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep primary logo and add new logo

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

The same should be done this time

Include Grover Cleveland Non-Consecutive Terms in Background

I notice that in the current version of the background mentions in various locations several firsts in regards to the criminal proceedings brought against him. The historical fact that he is seeking to be the first president to serve non-consecutive terms since Grover Cleveland maybe worth adding in a sentence on this section. 2600:1700:4620:2C80:342A:1344:540A:E0F0 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

Please change the file of Trump-Vence campaign logo from: File:TrumpVance2024.png to File:TrumpVance2024.svg.

The reason is because the SVG version of the logo has been uploaded, and the PNG version needs to be deprecated in favor of SVG equivalent. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Please change

"Trump, the incumbent president" to "Trump, the then incumbent president". 86.31.178.164 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I second. --SFandLogicReader (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable Information

A lot of the information here is false as for example, this article states trump has close ties to Project 2025 when in reality, he doesn’t even know who’s behind it and disagrees with much of it due to the project severely damaging the constitution. 67.0.230.118 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What you've repeated is his own statements on the matter. Obviously, Trump's own words aren't a reliable source per WP:PRIMARY. Instead we have independent reliable sources that discuss the campaign's close ties to Project 2025. — Czello ^(music) 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What???? Trump would be the most reliable source of information on this because no one else knows what’s inside his head. I am concerned that MSNBC has gotten you to think this. 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, he'd be the least reliable because of WP:PRIMARY. After all, he is capable of lying (and has done it a lot). We need independent sources instead. — Czello ^(music) 13:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump would say that, wouldn't he? The evidence suggests otherwise.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What about this?: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5124900/donald-trump-disavows-project-2025 67.0.224.219 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Meaningless for the reason Muboshgu said. — Czello ^(music) 13:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Bias and anti-Republican sentiments expressed by editors

As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should be there to provide information whenever it is available and it should be neutral in its content. But this page is particularly concerning due to the fact that this page is entirely written with prejudice against former President Donald Trump, who survived an assassination attempt on him about a week or two. This is alarming not because of the blatant disregard for neutral information about a presidential candidate but writing this completely in the viewpoint of someone who might be sympathetic towards the Democratic Party. The use of “dehumanising” and “demeaning” language appear to be used by Wikipedia editors rather than Trump himself in this occasion. Polarisation and capitalisation of an already controversial election amidst political violence towards political figures is the least thing we should be promoting right now. Many people have pointed out this visible bias earlier like @Rhatsa26X. This is wrong and it must be changed. Although I live in the UK, I am worried by the level of tension that have been occurring throughout the US election and worry that it might escalate. Editors have a responsibility to call this sort of obvious nonsense and should have the guts to seek the appropriate action. If you don’t write this down in a non-partisan way by mentioning both good and bad, then this might well be considered plain propaganda. This propaganda in a nutshell. Altonydean (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We document based on reliable sources. You have provided none. So, there is nothing actionable in your post. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's criticisms of Israel in Gaza

This article appears to be missing critical statements by Trump against Israel's actions in Gaza. For example, Vox reports that Trump has said that Israel should "get it over with … get back to peace and stop killing people", and Politico reports that Trump has criticized Israel for "releasing tapes of a building falling down"; "that's why they're losing the PR war. They, Israel, is absolutely losing the PR war". According to Politico, "Trump’s remarks reflect the solidifying of a more critical posture he is taking toward Israel". This should be more thoroughly reflected in the section. BD2412 T 21:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Convicted felon in the first sentence

This was already discussed on Trump's article. As per the FAQ on the talk page there, consensus agreed that it was undue to refer to him as such in the first sentence.

So why are we doing it on this article? It makes even less sense to do so as the first sentence is specifically referring to his reelection campaign. 148.252.145.45 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It was just added in a bit of POV editing. I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)