Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign (76 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	32,230	32,230
Background	22,324	28,367
Attempts to disrupt the 2024 presidential election	6,043	6,043
Announcement	4,402	8,189
Attendees	3,787	3,787
Convention	1,006	1,006
Platform	3,663	16,146
Expansion of executive and presidential power	10,757	10,757
Use of the Insurrection Act	1,726	1,726
Political positions	27	109,615
Abortion and contraception	15,494	15,494
Economy and trade	12,566	22,718
Inflation	10,152	10,152
Education	5,010	5,010
Energy, environment, and climate change	13,433	13,433
Foreign policy	17,591	17,591
Healthcare and social services	5,743	5,743
Immigration	17,445	17,445
Law enforcement	5,857	6,999
Policing political speech	1,142	1,142
LGBTQ rights and civil rights	5,155	5,155
Rhetoric	14,662	144,092
Authoritarian and antidemocratic statements	26,210	48,134
Trump's call for investigation and arrest of political rivals	3,880	3,880
Trump's dictator comment	8,959	8,959
Future elections	5,087	5,087
Trump v. United States	3,998	3,998
False and misleading statements	10,279	10,279
January 6th United States Capitol attack	7,158	7,158
Personal attacks against Kamala Harris	7,327	7,327
Personal attacks against Tim Walz	1,631	1,631
Statements against the media	3,645	3,645
Violent and dehumanizing statements	1,123	31,642
Violent statements against political opponents and elected officials	6,980	6,980
Violent statements against individuals within the legal system	8,741	8,741
Violent and dehumanizing statements against undocumented immigrants	10,337	10,337
Trump's "blood bath" comment	4,461	4,461
White supremacist, Nazi, far right, and antisemitic statement allegations	14,950	19,614
"Unified Reich" social media video post	4,664	4,664
Personnel	3,009	3,009
Campaign finances	11,143	14,875
Major donors	3,732	3,732
Campaign events	1,953	43,922
Rallies and speeches	16,876	19,911
Federal Efficiency Commission	3,035	3,035
Interview at National Association of Black Journalists convention	2,996	2,996
Attempted assassinations	33	5,263
July 13	3,529	3,529
September 15	1,701	1,701
Arlington National Cemetery visit	2,331	2,331
Team Trump Agenda 47 Policy Tour	1,662	1,662
Madison Square Garden event	5,444	5,444
Use of artificial intelligence	4,362	4,362
Eligibility	4,461	15,041
14th Amendment	6,451	6,451
22nd Amendment	4,129	4,129
Post-announcement developments	20,221	20,221
Presumptive nominee	972	972
Vice-presidential choice	14,353	14,353
Post Biden's withdrawal developments	7,973	31,923
Iranian interference	3,040	3,040
Arlington National Cemetery incident	17,505	17,505
Outsourced ground game	438	438
Request for increased security	702	702
Jeffrey Epstein's audio interview	2,265	2,265
Support	6,930	6,930
Opposition	18	18,214
General election	6,920	6,920
Primaries	11,276	11,276
Polling	15	739
General election	403	403
Primaries	321	321
See also	496	496
Notes	54	54
References	28	28
External links	1,045	1,045
Total	511,467	511,467

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

It's evident what's going on here (Vandalism)

The edits aren't made in a natural point of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). The previous talk page bringing this topic up was filled with disconstuctive comments (the OP's arguments frequently being shut down with insults such as 'your just moaning', 'cope", and signed off with "lmao/haha"). It's quite evident at this point this page has been vandalized. Otterstone (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment makes little to no sense. In any case, if you don't agree that parts of the article are written from a neutral point of view, why don't you just suggest specific changes instead of making comments that do not suggest any course of action? Chillaxer45 (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my comment doesn't make sense to you? I'm arguing that this page has been vandalized. Vandalized pages on Wikipedia have process of courses of action Otterstone (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't think you understand what "vandalism" is. Second, your comment has so many English/grammatical errors, that I don't think you really know what you are saying. For example, what is "natural" point of view? Would you rather it be a "synthetic" point of view? And what is "disconstructive?" Do you actually believe that "disconstructive" is a word in the English language? As a starting point to making any progress here, please refer to an English dictionary. After that, please rewrite your comment so that it makes sense in the English language. Chillaxer45 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My struggle with communicating in English isn't the subject of my post. These snarky remarks aren't constructive and arguably quite childish. Let's focus on the subject of the post. If you can't do that, don't reply ✨ Otterstone (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't focus on the subject of the post because you're not explaining it well enough. If I don't reply any further, it is for that reason. Chillaxer45 (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt a typo of one of the words is seriously preventing you from understanding the conversation. You're smarter than that. If you somehow aren't, then don't join conversations you don't understand Otterstone (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about typos. Go read what "vandalism" means. Chillaxer45 (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s okay, you just need to be, unburdened by what has been. Realize the significance of the passage of time 67.0.219.251 (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Chillaxer's comments about your language are not valid (and shouldn't really be brought up), they're right in saying that it's not accurate to say this page has been vandalised – that typically is malicious and destructive in nature, rather than a NPOV issue.

That said, if you feel there are NPOV issues with this article you need to be specific on what/where they are and why you believe they aren't neutral. — Czello ^(music) 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to re-examine the objectivity of both parties. Using one-sided political views will not help the construction of WIKI. —— Cbls1911 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this more biased than HuffPost?

We won't be clicking on your random YouTube links, we'll stick with the WP:RS that document the connection between Trump and Project 2025. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to be, unburdened by what has been. Go get drunk at a bar with Gretchen Whitmer while the president calls 1/2 the nation garbage 67.0.220.30 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? what does that even mean? Gaismagorm (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove all info about Vance having facial hair

I'm making this a Talk page suggestion rather than straight up edit it out to save on anyone complaining. I want to propose removal of the info under "Vice-presidential choice" talking about Vance being the first in nearly 100 years or whatever to have facial hair. While it's perhaps interesting trivia, I feel it's not encyclopedic. Overall let alone the fact there's 2 whole conflicting statements about the 3 bits of circumstantial trivia. -- Tytrox (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully in support of this. I believe there is a page on vice presidential firsts, and if this is a first then I suppose it could go there (but if it's just the first in 100 years then it wouldn't even belong there) Gaismagorm (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is as trivial as all that. It was reported on in sources, and is a reflection of changing trends. It's not as though we have dedicated several paragraphs of the article to it. BD2412 T 16:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree, but this isn't a case of a change in political trends, rather it is just facial hair trends which is in most cases trivial. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this 100%, I don't think this should be controversial. That's the least I could say about the article as a whole, it still shocks me how partisan WP articles about him are. This article even cites "anonymous sources" from The Bulwark. Vyvagaba (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at start of page

There is text at the start of the page that says "some are good and some are bad, but they both suck" Earthquakesurprise (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if I make any mistakes, I am new to Wikipedia Earthquakesurprise (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with tense since the election

Hi, I can't edit this because my account is not confirmed yet and the page is semi-locked. Noticed in the first paragraph: "He was elected into office, Trump should be the oldest president in American history by the end of his term, and the second to serve a non-consecutive term after Grover Cleveland.[18]" Grammatically this sentence is a mess, and it seems like the mess is due to it likely being edited into the present tense when the race was called. Would like this issue fixed quickly by someone who had edit permissions, and also would suggest several of us take the time to comb the article thoroughly for similar issues.K31r2 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Witchcraft' is being casted to Trump - add or no?

Trying to understand if consensus should N or Y this small, yet somehow significant coverage. Several news sources talk about it, I do not know about in-depth coverage. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Talk further if needed in the reference desk. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 03:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I personally would call that churnalism. Witchcraft is a niche interest that (as far as we know I guess) doesn't actually have any real effect beyond the occasional placebo effect. Sure, it may have been mentioned in multiple news sources, but the questions I would ask myself are these:

Has the witchcraft had any significant impact on Trump's campaign?
Is the subject of the coverage of any significance?
Is the value of a single article's contents equal to the value of all the articles? As in, are they just repeating themselves?

I don't believe that this merits mention in the article, but this is still a good exercise in determining the worth of coverage vs content. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which outlets covered it? Do you have links? -- Tytrox (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is, is this a real question? Are we actually considering whether witchcraft was casted or not? Gaismagorm (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was made, so the question needs to be asked to challenge it, ie. identifying sources. -- Tytrox (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit, the fact that we need to discuss adding witchcraft to an article about politics caused me to take 1d4 psychic damage the first time I saw this discussion section. But if the claim verifiably exists and is of note, then it should be discussed, I guess? Sirocco745 (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/these-witches-are-trying-to-use-their-power-to-defeat-donald-trump/article_aabeec6a-8b27-11ef-a73c-831e92a6fb58.html

https://cbn.com/news/us/witches-report-their-spells-against-trump-arent-working-he-has-shield

https://www.wjla.com/news/offbeat/self-proclaimed-witches-say-spells-wont-work-on-trump-2024-presidential-election-politics-kamala-harris-tim-walz-jd-vance-magic-witchcraft-salem-halloween

well, this is certainly something. Not sure how to feel about the fact that three news sites felt the need to report on this. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing

There is a block on editing this page, but perhaps something should be added about the joy and happiness of the dancing during the campaign and how that added to Trump's winning appeal? There are reliable sources for this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/15/trump-dancing-pennsylvania-rally https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/donald-trump-dance-finally-free.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.167.213.208 (talk • contribs)

Unless it turns into a wide spread reported meme or something, not everything needs to be documented. -- Tytrox (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a wide spread reported meme.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/raiders-end-brock-bowers-media-availability-after-question-about-trump-celebration-dance

https://www.tmz.com/2024/11/17/jon-jones-does-doanld-trump-dance-ufc-309/

https://www.voanews.com/a/a-dancing-trump-finds-internet-fame-in-china/7866062.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/argentinas-javier-milei-hits-trumps-signature-ymca-jig-at-mar-a-lago/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.167.213.208 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Contemporary Rhetorical Criticism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 18 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Breanna Petersen (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cstoneburner.

— Assignment last updated by Rorithomas (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is way too long

This page documents a number of incidents in exhaustive detail that could be summed up in 1-2 sentences or excised completely. Because of the 24-hour news cycle, hundreds of RS articles may be written about something that may turn out to be largely irrelevant to the general topic of the campaign. In retrospect, people can figure out what was actually important and what was just noise. Now that the postmortems are coming out, it seems like a good time to follow their lead in making those judgments and paring things down.

If someone were writing this article from scratch, I can't imagine them spending two paragraphs on the "Unified Reich" video, or even mentioning it at all. I also can't imagine them spending ten paragraphs on the "Arlington Cemetery Incident," although it deserves a mention. Sections that have their own articles (such as "Rhetoric of Donald Trump") could also be pared significantly. 2601:244:200:2660:2CAA:D649:1A4E:D402 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]