Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

“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)

A compilation of sources on alleged plans for Trump dictatorship in 2025

There has recently been a great deal of highly notable media coverage and analysis regarding Trump’s plans for a dictatorship, should he retake the presidency. I have compiled some of these sources, if anyone would like to add any of these to the article.

Proposed Text: "Some political analysts, including many prominent conservatives and republicans such as Robert Kagan and Liz Cheney, have argued that a 2nd Trump presidency would mean the end of American democracy, transforming the federal government into an autocratic Trump dictatorship. The plans for this alleged dictatorship have been laid out in Project 2025 and Trump's campaign speeches, according to analysts."

Thoughts?

67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump's been known to utter nonsense before. The US Constitution provides the means to prevent any US president from becoming a dictator. I'll leave it to others to decide, whether such additions are warranted or not. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My two cents: I don't think this should be dismissed as mere rhetoric, nor should we have the false sense of security because of the US constitution. Trump and his allies have drawn up a series of plans that these writers say is authoritarian/autocratic. While ~half of the ones linked above are opinion pieces (and I wouldn't want them in), I'm noticing a consensus that this is believed to be what Trump will do. I think what a lot of these news writers are saying should have more prominence in the article. SWinxy (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

References

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

Request for Comment: Should the article state that Trump said he would be a dictator on "day one", as cited in reliable sources/discuss the topic of Trump and dictatorship?

Reliable sources agree that Trump said that he'd be a dictator on "day one," and use this exact phraseology: the Atlantic "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." "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." Some editors believe Trump didn't say exactly that and this statement shouldn't be included and/or the article should ignore this topic entirely. QUESTION: Should the article state, as claimed by reliable sources, that Trump said he'd be a dictator on day one of his presidency, and discuss the wider topic of Trump and dictatorship, which has been extensively covered in reliable sources? 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I just want to clarify a bit. There was recently an edit to the page that said Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator on day 1. Here are the six sources that were used in the edit to back up this claim.

The edit in question is the following (the six sources were included in an efn template to reduce their visual impact on the body of the article which was removed for the purposes of this talk page owing to the efn template not working the same on talk pages):

On December 5, 2023 in a recorded television interview with Sean Hannity, Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency,

and avoided Hannity's question that he would not "abuse power, to break the law, to use the government to go after people."

BootsED (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Further information: the former edit previously used the word explicity and refused, in which I agreed to remove explicitly and changed refused to avoided to use more concise language and be more accurate with what the sources said. The issue is, that some members refused to admit that Trump even said he would be a dictator on day 1, which goes directly against what the provided sources state. BootsED (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Support Yes, this was an "off-the-cuff remark" but the reason he was asked to address this topic is because it was already highly notable and generating widespread coverage (see the bibliography of 75 recent sources from prior to the current incident.) The notability and wider relevance of this subtopic long preceded the interview; indeed, the inherent notability of the topic is why Trump was asked to address it even by a cheerleader like Hannity in the first place. It is an unavoidable topic in discussing the Trump campaign: even Republicans like Kagan and Cheney each published on this topic in the previous week. I thus strongly favor expanding the article to include full discussion of Trump's plans for dictatorship, which, I submit, is likely the most notable aspect of this article topic. I believe there is an overwhelming consensus in reliable sources to atrribute Trump as having said that he said he'd be a dictator on "day one" and that his remarks meant precisely this. That's more than enough. We don't need every editor to personally agree that he precisely said that. All we need is a consensus of reliable sources on what was said. Remember: if Trump wins the 2024 election, there will be no 2028 election. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Malformed RFC - There's no question being asked, or options being presented. Again, Trump didn't say he'd be a dictator. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "Should the article state, as claimed by reliable sources, that Trump said he'd be a dictator on 'day one' of his presidency and discuss the topic of Trump and dictatorship, which has been extensively covered in reliable sources? I truly am at a loss as to how to assume good faith here. Either you clearly knew a question was asked and decided to write "No question is asked" anyway or you didn't read the RfC before responding and making a spurious objection to it. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You've yet to show me a video, where Trump says he'll be a dictator. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a case of WP: I don't like it or WP: Competence is required? I don't need to show videos to put something in an encyclopedia. We don't put things in based on what an editor thinks is said after watching a video themselves directly. We operate off of what reliable sources agree was said. I've already showed you countless times that every source attributes him saying that he would be a dictator on day one, and yet you shockingly think your own personal views on what was said are a better basis for writing an encyclopedia. I'm truly aghast at this incredible disregard for sources and apparent belief that we should put our personal views above the consensus of reliable sources on the matter. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Best to let others chime in. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Best to reflect on the very serious problems with your editing I've called to your attention here, instead of ignoring them. It is absolutely inappropriate to substitute your own opinion for that of reliable sources. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: If this content is to be included in Wikipedia, it should be in the BLP as part of a broader discussion of the evolution of his rhetoric from authoritarian (for years) to fascistic (in recent weeks) to dictatorial (now). As it stands now, none of this is mentioned in the BLP. I have not tracked the BLP persistently over the years, but I cannot fathom that the omission of this elephant in the room is a mere oversight, but rather might have been a deliberate effort to exclude it. soibangla (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is not a legitimate policy reason to oppose discussing the notable topic of Trump and dictatorship or Trump's authoritarian tendencies in his campaign article in general, or the particular comments in the interview in particular. I agree the omission of such material from the main Donald Trump article is a monstrous omission. That does not mean or imply that it should not also be included here, where it is of course quite pertinent. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  The evolution of his rhetoric pertains to the man, not his campaign, so the primary focus should be on the BLP. Of course that does not preclude a mention in this article. soibangla (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  soibangla, can you explain how Trump-the-man is neatly separated from Trump-the-candidate, please? Why in the world would the encyclopaedia not mention this incredible notable facet of the current

  campaign here, and the evolution of his authoritarian rhetoric on his BLP? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support: The sentence in question is clearly backed up by reliable sources. Reliable sources clearly agree this comment was said by Trump. Opposition to this edit largely falls along the lines of "I disagree with the sources." This edit should be put back in the body of the article. BootsED (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - It was a stupid off-the-cuff remark, of which he has made thousands. And what does dictator for a day mean? If the point is to document his well known respect for absolute power, this would be a distraction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support because it seems that WP:RS disagree with my initial reasoning that it's a self-serving distraction (this piece convincingly debunks that premise), and that they prefer to take him at his word when he makes overt threats. The statement has been not just covered, but analysed in practically all US news outlets, is relevant to his 2024 campaign (it's in-scope), and complements existing content about his authoritarian rhetoric, so it is due. And I disagree with soibangla: the main article is hard to change, so the only option is to start in subarticles to "demonstrate" the strength of the sourcing. DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Who actually said, if Trump won the 2024 election, there'd be no 2028 election? Such a change, would require an amendment to the US Constitution, approved by 38 of the 50 states. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not attributing that statement to anyone nor did I suggest the statement be added to the article. Certainly, that is the implication of the idea that Trump will rule as a dictator though. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  So... you were giving a personal opinion. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi GoodDay,

  There actually was a comment made by Trump about “terminating” the Constitution in order to reverse his election loss. However, 67, we shouldn’t make the claim that there won’t be an election in 2028 if Trump wins in 2024. I noticed you added that to a previous comment of yours. I would recommend removing it to avoid over complicating this rfc. The main goal here is to simply reach a consensus, ideally that Trump did in fact say he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency, and that the provided sources agree with that statement, and that it deserves to be mentioned in this article; not going ahead and saying that this means there won’t be an election in 2028. BootsED (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at the source-in-question. It appears to be Christie's claiming Trump said it. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi GoodDay. Please read the whole article, they rate it as “true” and describe the comment Trump made. Here’s a Snopes Fact Check on the claim. BootsED (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm looking for a video of him directly saying these things. Instead of interpretations by others, of what he may have meant. Anyways, I'll leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  GoodDay, you appear to be unaware of a vast body of RS reporting on what Trump and his coterie have said and done, and you appear also not to know how elected heads of state have historically transitioned to install themselves as autocrats, even with periodic mock elections after their initial ascents. The US came close to that kind of transition in 2021. Your comment about a constitutional amendment is nowhere reflected in detailed scholarly discussions of the mechanisms of manipulation that could be used and have been openly discussed by Trump and the Republicans. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Biden becoming US president at Noon EST on January 20, 2021, was hardly in doubt. You're forgetting that the the USA has been through much tougher tests to their Constitution, in its history. The American Civil War, comes to mind. I know we're never going to agree on this general topic, so we'll only be wasting each others time, from here forward. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your personal opinions, yes, are a waste of time. I am referring to published RS, many of which you've seen me cite on this subject on the main Trump page. The point is that one must read RS and discuss applying them to article content. I don't see any comment from you based on that. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Hamilton movement tried to persuade enough Trump electors to go faithless, in order to 'at least' put the 2016 prez election into the hands of the House. But like IP 67 says, we're going off the rails. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  We are getting a bit off the rails here, but the problem with your analysis is that the constitution is not self-enforcing. It cannot rise and enforce itself; it relies on people to carry it out. When Trump asked Pence to ignore the constitution and throw out the votes for Biden, and recruited fraudulent electors to do so (see Trump fake electors plot), the plan only failed because other actors declined to participate in Trump's illegal scheme. No one seriously disputes that this is illegal and unconstitutional. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi GoodDay. I’d like to post the previous comment 67 made to your previous assertion about not seeing a video:

  “Is this a case of WP: I don't like it or WP: Competence is required? I don't need to show videos to put something in an encyclopedia. We don't put things in based on what an editor thinks is said after watching a video themselves directly. We operate off of what reliable sources agree was said. I've already showed you countless times that every source attributes him saying that he would be a dictator on day one, and yet you shockingly think your own personal views on what was said are a better basis for writing an encyclopedia. I'm truly aghast at this incredible disregard for sources and apparent belief that we should put our personal views above the consensus of reliable sources on the matter.” BootsED (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Likely best, we end this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi GoodDay, thanks for the comments on my talk page. Again, apologies I came off too harsh. BootsED (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose It was a joke. Trump decided to own the reputed accusation forwarded by Hannity in that softball interview and make a joke of it. Immediately after the comment, he stated explicitly what he meant by "being a dictator": closing the border and increasing oil drilling. Those are executive orders, which are legal (until/unless Congress votes to override), and thus do not constitute being a dictator in the conventional sense. Having any kind of statement in the article that Trump said he would be a dictator would simply be taking a joke out of context and portraying it as sincere. Michaelmalak (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is your opinion, based on your own reading of the primary source material. Reliable sources don't describe it or treat it as a joke, nor should we. Please correct me if I'm way off base here, but doesn't policy require us to abide by the universal consensus of reliable sources, rather than the original research and personal opinions of our editors? If I got to put my opinions in the article it would say that the 2024 election will be the last American election ever held if Trump wins, but luckily we don't have to put either your opinion or mine in the article, we can just put in what the reliable sources say. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the first reliable source listed above [2] and it largely corroborates what I said: that his self-professed dictatorship would be limited to one day, and to only two actions. "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." Any heading or statement that states an unqualified "Trump intends to be a dictator" would be a lie. Michaelmalak (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michaelmalak,

The original edit in question stated that "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency, (correct)" not that "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator if he won the presidency (which is technically correct)" or "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator for his entire term (not correct)". I want to be specific with my language. You also admit Trump claimed that he would be a dictator for one day, so the statement, "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator on day one of his presidency," is accurate. This is also what the provided sources say. BootsED (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

To be specific, substitute "for" for "on", as in "Donald Trump stated he would be a dictator for the first day of his presidency". But even that would need to be qualified with the two actions he intends. Michaelmalak (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The provided sources don't state that Trump would "only be a dictator for the purposes of closing the border and drilling." I don't really know how that would work anyways. The RS all state that Trump said he would be a dictator "on day one" of his presidency. They don't talk about the oil and drilling comments other than in the transcription of the entire sentence. I believe this would fall under original research as the sources do not "directly support" this conclusion. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Just now took a look at the second reliable source listed above. [3]. It poses as a legitimate question: "A one-day dictator?", stating that they sought clarification from the Trump campaign but did not receive it. So at best, it's inconclusive. It might be best to just present the quote in full and let readers draw their own conclusions. Michaelmalak (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly that may be the best way forwards. BootsED (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:No original research. BootsED (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Just want to throw this out there, here is a recent AP article that specifically states, "Trump himself has been vowing “retribution” against his enemies and ramping up his use of violent and authoritarian rhetoric, including saying he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his second term." Yet another RS that states that Trump did indeed say he would be dictator on day one of his presidency, and has been saying increasingly violent and authoritarian rhetoric. BootsED (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. “Trump says he won't be a dictator if elected, 'except for Day One'”. I’d have no objection if we say what that MSNBC headline said. But because it’s apparently being suggested that we slant that headline by omitting that he promised to not be a dictator after day one, then of course I oppose. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I personally would not object to a compromise in which we describe it in something like this fashion. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I think this simple solution can solve our problem. BootsED (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is an invalid RFC, which is required to have a brief, neutral question. This should be shut down and if somebody wants to actually follow the requirements of WP:RFC rather than try to game the process through an objectively non-neutral and long-winded opening comment they should do that. nableezy - 16:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  In agreement @Nableezy: - This RFC should be shutdown & another opened, with a 'neutral' heading & question. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  COMMENT: Please note that this editor previously tried to "shut down" the RFC by falsely stating that "no question is being asked." Since it is unambiguous that the RFC contained a question, ("Should the article state, as claimed by reliable sources, that Trump said he'd be a dictator on day one of his presidency...?) only two conclusions are possible. 1) This editor attempted to shut down an RfC with which he disagreed without reading it; or 2) This editor deliberately engaged in willful misrepresentation as to the RfC contents in order to shut it down. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which is the case. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless it states what he said, specifically, When asked if he would be a dictator, Trump responded no, "except for day one". - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Recommend the RFC question be shortened & more compact. In its current form, it might be confusing to editors. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay! I was unsure if we were allowed to edit the format of an rfc once it was live but I agree this looks much better. BootsED (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi again everyone, I posted an updated edit on the article page with this rfc in mind that makes it clear that Trump only said he would be a dictator "on day one" of his presidency and not after, and added the Trump campaign's statement explaining his comment afterwards. I also added in the Biden campaign's response to the statement and political analysis stating how they believe it will harden Biden's decision to make democracy a central pillar of the 2024 campaign. I put this under a new sub-sub-subsection entitled "Trump's dictator comment" which is under a new sub-subsection entitled "Authoritarian and antidemocratic statements" which include references to the many magazines, historians, and commentators who allege Trump's authoritarian statements have increased or are "fascistic," some of which were already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I included this sub-subsection under the subsection entitled "Rhetoric" which is itself under the "Platform" section. Please let me know if you think this edit addresses everyone's concerns. BootsED (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see Anythingyouwant removed the political analysis part about how Biden's campaign reacted to the comments. I'm not sure I agree there but fair enough, this probably deserves a mention on Biden's campaign page anyhow. We don't want this one to get too long. BootsED (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@BootsED: Now that you've made updates to the page, since this RFC was opened. Does that change what this RFC's proposing? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Close & re-do

@Redrose64:, I believe the RFC's title & question (if that's what it is), may be reasons for shutting down this RFC & starting another one. This RFC's opening statements/question, doesn't come across as neutral in nature. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe this rfc should be closed not due to neutrality concerns, but simply due to the fact that I believe its main points have been addressed and already added into the article with the addition of a new sub-sub-subsection and new sub-subsection I described in my comment above. BootsED (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

They shouldn't have been added to the page, while the RFC is in progress. A consensus should've been established for such additions. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If BootsED's addition is disputed I would support closing this RfC and reopening it with a proper WP:RFCNEUTRAL/brief question. Pinged for this RfC by FRS WillowCity^(talk) 00:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Look, if I wanted to be non-neutral about this you'd know it. I described the conflict in perfectly neutral terms. Everyone agrees that the sources state that Trump said he'd be a dictator on "day one." Some editors think he didn't actually say just that and we should ignore the sources. The question is simply, should we? Just because the answer is obvious and one side is obviously wrong doesn't mean it's not neutral. We shouldn't have needed an RFC on something that the objecting editors frankly should have known better about, before wasting everyone's time on demanding that we "show them on the video" instead asking we show them in the reliable sources (which we did). Your own opinions on what you think Trump said or meant doesnt displace the consensus of reliable sources. Amazingly, some of you still seem not to get the point. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

In no world is the opening of the RFC described "in perfectly neutral terms". What would be a neutral RFC question is "should the article state that Trump has said he will be a dictator on day one?" the end. Your entire comment is a vote, not an RFC question. nableezy - 16:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. You don't get it, and probably 1) have not read the entire discussion before weighing in, and also 2) have not read the sources. Everyone agrees that the sources quoted Trump as saying he would be a dictator on "day one." This is not a fact in dispute and hence is a neutral description of the facts to which all parties would agree. The dispute is merely between editors who think we should rely on these sources, and the other other editors who dispute the correctness of these sources and say that he didn't say exactly that, and hence that we should not attribute such statements to Trump. There is no dispute between the parties as to whether the sources indeed quote Trump as saying that he would be a dictator on "day one." (Simply read them.) In any case, the entire discussion is effectively mooted because Trump went on television and in front of audiences several more times openly boasting of his previous comments, repeating again that he would be a dictator, wants to be dictator, etc. So whatever leg you thought you were standing on with this comment has been kicked out beneath you by the man himself, who came right out and said "Yes, I said that." 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Im wrong, our policy on RFC questions is wrong, and your opening was perfect. And anybody who disagrees with you, not even on the content but on the validity of the RFC, is obviously ignorant of the discussion and the sources. Makes sense I guess. nableezy - 16:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are not understanding. First of all, the "policy" page you link me to states that it is an essay, not policy, and contains the editor's own opinions: "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." So much for that argument. Second of all, neutral framing requires posing a dispute in terms which the disputants would agree. Any reasonable party to this dispute would agree that the sources state attribute Trump as saying he would be a dictator on "day one". The persons disputing inclusion in the article did not dispute that the sources said this; rather, they disputed whether the sources were correct in attributing this to Trump. This was the dispute. Since you appear to not realize this, I do not think it was unfair of me to conclude that you'd neither read the dispute nor the original sources. Cheers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that is an information page, not an essay. If youre going to say others are not reading you would do well to make sure you are reading yourself. nableezy - 17:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

RfC: Should information regarding the Colorado ruling be added to the lead ?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this RfC as premature. Follow BRD or make an edit request, and then discussion the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Should we state in the lead that the Colorado Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the presidency under the 14th amendment for engaging in insurrection, and ordered that he be removed from the Colorado ballot as a result?

Reliable sources like CBS news describe the Colorado ruling as follows: "In a stunning decision that could have major ramifications for the 2024 presidential election, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office again and ordered the secretary of state to remove his name from the state's primary ballot." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-supreme-court-opinions-decision-trump-primary-ballot/. The Court itself describes its holding in very similar terms: "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." Should we add this material to the lead and adopt similar language, stating something like:

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the Presidency under section three of the 14th amendment for engaging in insurrection against the United States, and ordered that he be removed from the Colorado presidential ballot as a result. The decision is stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Obvious support Wikipedia lead policy requires that all significant controversies related to an article topic be covered in the lead. The dispute over Trump's eligibility to be president certainly qualifies as a significant controversy related to his presidential campaign. As for wording, given the potential for misunderstandings, we should be very careful with being loose with paraphrases, and should hew closely to the wording given in the summary of the opinion, and the most reliable sources on its holding. The CBS news article linked above is especially careful in this regard and I suggest we adopt similar phrasing, delineating separately the Court's ruling that Trump is disqualified from the presidency under the 14th amendment's insurrection clause, and its order, based on that holding, that he must be removed from the Colorado ballot. Some editors have conflated the issues and added inaccurate text that misdescribes the ruling. As long as we clearly state that the Colorado Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from being President by the 14th amendment for acts of insurrection, and ordered he be removed from the ballot as a result, we are golden. But if we leave out the first part and write that the Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the Colorado ballot without mentioning the ruling that is the basis for that order, we misdescribe the situation, fail to adhere to our sources, and mislead our readers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to the policy page that specifies that "all significant controversies related to an article topic be covered in the lead"? BD2412 T 20:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I have in mind " It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" from WP:LEAD. Do you disagree that a lead should discuss the significant controversies related to the article topic? I hadn't expected that point to be in the least controversial. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I would think that the operative word in that instruction is "summarize". BD2412 T 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by what you mean here. I've proposed adding 1 sentence to the lead Isn't that a summary? In any case, the policy does state that all prominent controversies should be summarized in the lead section of the article. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - An RFC's question shouldn't be the length of a paragraph & the RFC title shouldn't be too overly worded. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine. I've condensed it.67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Patience - Let us see how this proceeds. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Premature RfC. This would appear to be the first time anyone has suggested adding content about the Colorado ruling to the lead section. Since it hasn't been disputed or even proposed, this is a failure to follow WP:RFCBEFORE. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:32, 21 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.

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)

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)