Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 16, 2022Proposed deletionKept

Trump threatens violence, bedlam if he loses election. Please add[edit]

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)[reply]

Trump is an adult bully, threats are to be expected. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Washington Post is highly reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good thing it doesn't. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Washington Post. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a break on these 'dramatic' proposals. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primaries[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]