Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign/Archive 2

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):
 * 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)
 * , 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 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. . 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 Verifiability, not truth and 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.&#32;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 - 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 &#124; 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)
 * 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
, 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)

Closure
I've requested closure for this RFC. In future, I'd recommend a shorter & more precise title for such discussions :) GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should information regarding the Colorado ruling be added to the lead ?
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. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  08:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the page before commenting. The section above this is literally an Edit Request on this very matter asking information on the eligibility dispute be added to the lead, to which an administrator suggested opening an RfC instead of an edit request. I notice this is a persistent issue with you, where you weigh in despite not understanding the issues or knowing what is going on, and make blatantly incorrect statements (i.e. claiming "no prior edit request" when the section IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THIS ONE IS AN EDIT REQUEST ON THIS TOPIC.) Please try to work on that and be more informed before opining without information or making false statements that you would have known were incorrect had you read prior to posting. Cheers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the previous section do you ever mention adding the content to the lead, you just mentioned adding it to the body of the article. That is a significant difference. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please. I literally requested it be added as the second sentence of the article. The lead. Again, I would highly counsel you conduct yourself with more honesty and make more of an effort to get things right before making false claims. You participated in the discussion and very well knew there had been a prior discussion on whether that material should be added to the lead, the outcome of which was administrative closure with the administrator suggestion to open a discussion/request for comment/dispute resolution as the content was disputed and not appropriate for an edit request. I do not appreciate the repeated disinformation you are adding to this thread. 19:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)67.82.74.5 (talk)
 * That is my mistake then, I apologize. The entirety of the discussion was based on content in the body, so I didn't realize your original request was to add it to the second sentence of the article. It is disappointing that you chose to assume bad faith and contend that I was lying when all I did was make an error that anyone else could've made, and that frankly has little impact on whether this RfC should be closed, as it is still a hasty and poorly formatted RfC (especially given what it has devolved into since your undoing of its closure, which is another reason why undoing the closure of your own RfC is a bad idea). We can still have a discussion about whether the Colorado ruling should be mentioned in the lead, but I think it's too soon for an official RfC. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't plan on mining salt so early, but yes its happening again 2603:8080:C40:B0:A405:6E3F:B18F:BE63 (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Patience, per WP:NOTNEWS, “Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events”. If this is quickly overturned by SCOTUS, then it would likely no longer be notable enough for the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This simply isn't true. It is still a notable aspect of the campaign (indeed, it will likely be one of the things about the campaign that is written about decades from now) that his eligibility to be president is disputed under the 14th amendment. Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, the dispute over Trump's eligibility will remain one of the notable aspects of the campaign for decades, perhaps even centuries. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So put it in the article body, not the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * When u watch too much Royalty Hulu 2603:8080:C40:B0:A405:6E3F:B18F:BE63 (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Premature - In agreement with others. Colorado Supreme Court's ruling will become moot, should the US Supreme Court over-turn it. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Include, even if the US SC overturns this ruling, how and why and who takes part are bound to remain controversial. I'm UK, but I believe this is the first time a state has (effectively) ruled that a presidential candidate/former president is an insurrectionist and therefore unfit to go on its ballot. Some of that same SC were appointed by, or are in other ways close to DT, so this isn't just going to quietly go away. Coverage of this in the UK has been extensive and overshadowed other coverage, it is a significant controversy and deserves the brief mention described above IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (II)
I thought had this RFC closed as being pre-mature? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That was based on the false pretence that discussion was premature as there had been "no prior edit request." The section above this was plainly a prior edit request, the result of which was that an RfC should be created to discuss the proposal. You can't simply lie and then take action based on your lies. I've explained that to you before. You really should have learned this by now. Do better. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I am seeing a few people opine that, in their view, the dispute over Trump's eligibility will no longer be notable if the Supreme Court rules that he is indeed eligible under the 14th amendment, or perhaps finds that he did not engage in insurrection. This view is incredibly short-sighted, and gets things quite backwards. Indeed, this is likely to be one of the most enduringly noteworthy aspects of Trump's 2024 campaign-- that is, the dispute over his presidential eligibility due to allegations of insurrection-- and will likely be discussed and remain notable for decades to come regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. The very fact that a presidential candidate (who was formerly president)'s eligibility is under dispute for allegations of insurrection against the United States is of course notable, and a notable aspect of the campaign, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the litigation. The people suggesting that it will completely fade from notability if the Supreme Court decides that Trump did not commit insurrection, or that insurrectionists are eligible under the 14th, are taking a frankly preposterous position. The dispute over eligibility is already a large portion of the current article, and anything that comprises a large portion of the article reasonably ought to be discussed in the lead so readers have an idea of article content. We have an entire article on this topic, it is a prominent controversy related to the current topic, and the outcome of the case will not render it non-notable as it is of obvious historical interest regardless of outcome. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea to characterize any editors' position on this RFC's topic, as being "preposterous". GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * as you are the most recent active admin here, can you please weigh in on the reversal of this RfC closure by its creator? I tried politely informing them of the problem with undoing the closure of an RfC that they created, but they just called me a liar and moved on. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am already sort of involved in the discussion, but I frankly think it's harmless to let the RfC proceed. The outcome is rather obvious. BD2412  T 21:51, 23 December 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)
 * ah yes, let's use the media as a source because they have never been bias against Trump. Seriously these sources are a joke. Trump can make a sarcastic joke and the media will take it out of context to make look like he was serious. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

When reporting Trump's own words (a separate issue from interpretations), I think we should change the current wording that says the man has been "saying he would be a "dictator" for at least part of his second term in office.[15]"  As far as I know, he has only claimed that he would be a dictator for one day. Unless we have a case where he said otherwise, we should change the wording. My reasoning is that it would be more exact and that the current wording gives the impression that the dictatorship would last longer (Who would think that "a least part" of four years would actually be one day? - We're talking about what he said, not what he may plan or may do.). We need justification to give the impression as it currently reads, or we need to change it. Kdammers (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe add an opposing viewpoint so Wikipedia can be taken seriously
Maybe add Trump's team's explanation for several actions and comments mentioned here, and add their side of the story. 181.194.228.243 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See No attacks on Wikipedia. BD2412  T 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He wasn't attacking Wikipedia, he was pointing out it a fault that the site has of being very bias towards different side in some discussions. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * example? soibangla (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias language
This article is a complete joke. I felt like I was reading a reddit post instead of a Wiki article. The fact that the article implies Trump is running a authoritarian,white supremacist, and nativist campaign is very untrue, at no point has Trump and anyone in his campaign team said anything that would suggest that. This is an attempt to distort the truth by a group of editors who have a political bias. The sources use aren't even acceptable as they don't even have factual proof of Trump running the type of campaign as suggested. I'm hereby going to request that the article become semi-protected while neutral editors re-edit the whole article that isn't politically bias. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea, no, that is not how the Wikipedia works. We do not take a vague "I don't like it!" hand-wave form a random user and lock articles upon demand. Find a specific passage and citation that rubs you the wrong way, and present it here for discussion. Zaathras (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's likely, you'll find it quite difficult to make the changes you 'may be' proposing for this page. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When trump wins in November. Will you edit this ridiculousness then? I doubt it. But figured i would ask. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

US Supreme Court ruling
US Supreme Court has over-ruled Colorado's attempt to bar Trump from their Republican primary & November ballot. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The SCOTUS ruling has been added to the 14th Amendment sub-section. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024
Change "prior to prior to" in the infobox beside the 14th amendment subsection under the eligibility section to just "prior to" Zacbea01013 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Primaries
Results of primaries should be added. Jack Upland (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024
In the section about violent rhetoric, the word "officer's" is not preceded by an article. It reads something like "for officer's safety" rather than "for *the* officer's safety" Korb111 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done:

Since the sentence (awkward though it is) is talking about law enforcement generally, not a specific officer (even though it does MENTION specific officers), I think the lack of an article is correct. I did move the apostrophe over after the "s", however. PianoDan (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump threatens violence, bedlam if he loses election. Please add
The apocalypse is truly upon us: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/09/trump-comments-violence-bedlam/

Would someone be so good as to add this highly important information about Trump threatening violence and bedlam if he loses the election to the article, preferably to the lead? Many thanks, comrades. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Trump is an adult bully, threats are to be expected. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a non-opinion source for that? Wikipedia is not a forum. We don't want a descent to the bottom. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lol have you not read the page? The entire page reads like DNC funded propaganda than an unbiased account of history/facts. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the popular phrase for the problem with this page is "bad optics." Whether it's fair or not, it "sounds" hyperpartisan. I'm a strong Democrat, and it threw me for a loop.
 * One problem I found is that some of the footnotes are to opinion pieces and some of the remarks, like the reference the Jacksonian Spoils System, are value judgments. I do not see how this ever got past BLP. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be careful with the word "threatened." Do good secondary sources interpret his words as threats or predictions? Kdammers (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post isn't reliable as they know for openly being Anti-Trump and exaggerating any he says to demonize him. Also this isn't a political fourm so let's keep it that way, don't like it? Go to reddit or X. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post is highly reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not if it has an agenda which it does and they take everything out of context so that easily makes them unreliable. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good thing it doesn't. Reliable sources/Perennial sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's take a break on these 'dramatic' proposals. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fascist demagogue"
Source for “fascist demagogue”? 2600:1017:A410:E45F:6CC4:2F25:9F57:752C (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's been removed; clearly a POV edit. — Czello (music) 11:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

First sentence
I fully understand wanting to provide context to whom Donald Trump is, but the first opening sentence "Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021," sounds slightly weird to say out loud and could be ambiguous to anyone completely unfamiliar with American politics, such as readers from other continents. Makes it sound like there's potential for other 45th presidents that served different time periods, or that others in different governmental positions have also been in charge in the same time frame. It's solved very easily by either removing "45th", removing "from 2017 to 2021", or changing it to read "Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, who served from 2017 to 2021". Thank you for your time. 2001:2042:6A0F:100:3D93:C75B:5089:5AE7 (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have added "who served from..." per your suggestion, and I agree the previous wording was a bit too ambiguous. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)