Under Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump, the article currently says:
Under Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump, the article currently says:
"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found guilty by ananonymous jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation."
"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found guilty by a yet-to-be-named jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation."
This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Therefore the proper term is "found liable" not "found guilty." None of the sources cited say that Trump was found guilty (because that isn't the term that is used in civil cases), and the Washington Post and Huffpost sources cited say "liable."
This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Therefore the proper term is "found liable" not "found guilty." None of the sources cited say that Trump was found guilty (because that isn't the term that is used in civil cases), and the Washington Post and Huffpost sources cited say "liable."
Line 315:
Line 315:
I propose it be changed to:
I propose it be changed to:
"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found liable by ananonymous jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation." [[User:JMM12345|JMM12345]] ([[User talk:JMM12345|talk]]) 04:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found liable by a yet-to-be-named jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation." [[User:JMM12345|JMM12345]] ([[User talk:JMM12345|talk]]) 04:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
2024 United States presidential election is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Prcc27 (talk·contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Member-Elect for local Democratic Party leadership.)
Trump image RfC
Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - A seems to be sufficient enough, I don't see why we need to change it, it looks recent enough. I would note though that none of these pictures seem inaccurate enough to not serve the general purpose.
While the 2017 photo is a bit dated, the 2019 photo offers a more recent and positive representation (it was taken just one year ago). Compared to the frowning 2023 option, the smiling 2019 image feels more fitting for an official photo.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually several sections open, and it is becoming very difficult to try to discuss and form a consensus. Better to centralize the discussion into an RfC. We typically decide photos via RfC anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree. Multiple discussions (mostly among the same handful of people) about what amounts to the same thing but not producing a clear and actionable consensus, isn't helpful. RfCs are useful for several things, and agreeing on the best option among a choice of available photos is often one of them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B as first choice, A as second. C looks ridiculous. A is arguably a better picture from a portrait perspective, but has distracting background elements. B doesn't have those, and is a reasonably good as a portrait, and is not a silly, hammy thing like C, so let's use that. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The later-added F and H also look fine (though the images need cropping, especially H). PPS: The even more newly added option I would also work, but should be cropped; it's very smiley, but looks much less fake or leering than several of the others. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B or C are equally fine for me. "A' looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy, but we're supposed to be neutral here, for almost anyone that means using a positive-looking picture when one is available. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: It is somewhat recent with it being 9 months old and, in my opinion, looks visually pretty good with him not having a awkward smile and is well lighted. B is not a bad pick but it is soon to be 1 year and 9 months old, so this is an important reason why I am holding this option back Punker85 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) ; Modified by Punker85 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it has to be that recent, after all, Biden’s presidential portrait is older (2021). I think the main argument with regards to recent photos was that Trump’s 2017 portrait was way too old for an infobox in 2024. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L: One of the most recent pictures of him here by a good amount, he doesn't look weird, in my opinion, he have a relatively neutral face and have correct lighting for me Punker85 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose a photo of Donald Trump, I would still choose his main presidential portrait, but if one of the three above is complete, B would be better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. Most representative of how he currently looks, especially in regard to his weight loss, and the best match with Biden's picture out of the three. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - used in our article for the Republican primaries. In B he's blending into the background chameleon-style and C and D are fairly poor. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B — neutral, non-distracting. A would be my second choice (per Herostratus: "[A] looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy"...) and C is my last choice, as it looks entirely ridiculous. What's a picture from, the dentist's office? Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume That is going to be the deciding factor, because it seems more than a majority have reached a consensus on using B, though the RFC is still ongoing. InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is my only choice. B is too shadowy, C is too smiley, D has a mic in the way and his head is slanted head, so those are out of the question IMHO.Which is not to say there can't be some other picture E which is better than any of these, but that's a bit besides the point.Subjectively, A also seems more representative of his personality—which precise adjectives it conveys is left as an exercise to the reader, as different people may assign positive or negative ones, but in any event it is very, very much a quote-unquote "Trump" look167.88.84.136 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is the best option here. C and D have downsides, A does not; it's neutral. I was going to add that the lighting on B is a tad dramatic, but seems like we don't need to worry about that anymore. TheSavageNorwegian15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
K, now that it's been introduced, is a very good option, probably my favorite. L works great too, and the lighting is more normal. I'm still happy with A otherwise. (Wow, this rfc has been going on a while!) TheSavageNorwegian22:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should assume Option B is an option if/until it is actually deleted, but of course users that prefer option B should have a backup option just in case. Prcc27 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it's a fairly open and shut case. The user uploaded a number of Getty images because he did not misunderstand the license, and they are subsequently getting pulled. There is zero reason to think we would retain it. GreatCaesarsGhost20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - For the high visibility contrast. B looks likely to be deleted, but is also low contrast and fades into the background. C is ridiculous and objectively doesn't even look like the subject. D would be my second choice. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated opinion with new options added: Expressly unchanged, adding that for all options added (E-I) are not as good as option A or D, primarily because the lighting is really bad. E also has another ridiculous facial expression which makes it inappropriate. The contrast for F, G, and H is so bad that he basically whites-out into the background. I is slightly better in this regard, but only slightly... it's also too small, and the straight face-on angle does not accurately reflect his appearance. And because it's come up a few times, I agree that his official portrait should not be used. Fieari (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C “a photo of Donald Trump with a warm smile instills hope. I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024. However, if Photo C is not chosen, could someone locate an alternative picture of Donald Trump wearing a cheerful smile? For instance, could anyone locate a copyright-free photograph of a smiling face, (in other word: A winning smile), akin to the "4 big smile" featured in The Guardian News below? Additionally, may anyone peruse the collection of photos taken at the White House or any potential copyright-free locations. thus far? If we cannot find an appropriate photo now, I hope we can replace it when a suitable one becomes available. News link: [1]Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the heck should "I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024." factor at all into our analysis LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the person who took 3 of these photos being considered, why isn't his official portrait just being used? He doesn't look that different. Calibrador (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point !
Since the official photo clearly identifies Tump, and serves its purpose well, would it be acceptable to use it again instead of replacing it? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t necessarily disagree with that consensus, but I really do not like photos A, C, and D. If we are not going to use the presidential portrait, I feel like we should still use a photo that’s presidential. And these photos fall short of that IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. Not going to repeat the same arguments made above, but B has the large shadow, C is alright but is not the best photo, D has a strange facial expression, and I am against using the official portrait. Yeoutie (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What brought about the need to change the image? He doesn't look that much different in each of the options so what caused the start of this RfC? Tepkunset (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Biden photo is from 2021, while the current Trump photo is from last year. The whole impetus for changing Trump's photo was that it was out of date compared to Biden's.
Thanks for the ping. I still think A is the best out of those options. Regarding the new additions: E has a noisy background; F is blurry; G is not bad, but the text in the background is distracting; H has his hair blended in with the background; I is blurry. Some1 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know there's a consensus not to use Trump's portrait, but some of these pics are during his presidency. Can't see why the logic behind not using Trump's official portrait doesn't pertain to some pics taken 2-3 years after the official portrait was taken. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close and try again Given that B has been deleted, there is no consensus for a change and it is unlikely one will develop this long after the thread opened. That said, I think J is probably the best, and K & L are an improvement over the early suggestions, including A. However, they are likely not being given full consideration by editors that checked out of the conversation. We should probably close this now, and pick up the topic again later. GreatCaesarsGhost14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something that could make Options A - J Ineligible is that A Prescent in All or Most U.S Presidential Article's is that the Pictures for the nominee's for the infobox has to be from that year the election took place, with the exception of the Incumbent or Elected, in which their Presidential Portrait is used, Option A - J were posted/Taken before 2024, with Option E - I being posted/Taken in 2019, And Option A, C, D, & J Being Taken in 2023. InterDoesWiki (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible is too strong a word. The preference is to use a high quality photograph contemporaneous to the election. But where it is not possible to achieve both, quality is paramount. See 1968, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 for examples of very aged photos being used. GreatCaesarsGhost14:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking, I can see your point. And I can using the word "Ineligible" as opposed to "should have less consideration" was a mistake on my part. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for closing this conversation and making a new one. A lot of options were added after the start of the discussion and option B, which was a strong contender, as been deleted. So, not all options received the same amount of consideration by all editors which is not very fair Punker85 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Close And Try again: Orginally, this looked to be a contest between Option A & B, With Option B taking A Massive Lead But Option A slowly equalized.. Then Option B got deleted which disrupted the RFC, which resulted in scattered voting. At this point, there will never be a winner. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comments: Should a sentence mentioning Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack be included in the lead?
Should the following sentence be added to the lead:
^Balz, Dan (January 6, 2024). "Three years after Jan. 6 attack, the political divide is even wider". The Washington Post. ISSN0190-8286. Retrieved April 14, 2024. Three years on, there is no escaping the impact on American politics of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Other issues will significantly influence the 2024 presidential election, but few define more clearly the contrasts, stakes and choice that will face voters in November than Jan. 6.
Support Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history, and the January 6 attack was the first attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power in recent memory and is an event of historical significance, as the provided sources state. The fact that a former American president is now running for reelection directly after these attempts is noteworthy, and deserving a mention in the lead of the article. These events are also mentioned multiple times within the body of the article itself. BootsED (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without "notably", per MOS:INSTRUCT and MOS:EDITORIAL. The facts (which are supportable with bulk of the RS material, even if there is a strong current of denialism in far-right echochamber media) are highly pertinent to the subject, and arguably among the most important aspects of it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support January 6th will still undoubtedly be a huge topic in debates, voter's mindsets and even reasons to vote against Trump/actively discussed (in terms of pardons) among GOP supporters. Also per BootsEd. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the lead of this article should focus on the 2024 presidential election, and given the lead currently mentions Trump's conviction for 34 felonies this seems a bit like overkill. There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. AdamBlacktalk • contribs02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if I'm weighing in on the overall RFC question, but NPOV does not mean we need to include criticisms against all candidates. It just merely means we should not be giving undue weightage to one over the other. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. If one candidate has much more serious and widely covered criticisms levelled against them, that's reason enough to include just that. Whether that applies here... That's for the RFC to decide. Soni (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have worded it poorly, but my point was that piling on criticism after criticism of Trump in the lead with no mention of criticisms against the other candidates would be undue and not representative of a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting we should mention criticism against Biden and Kennedy, but think that adds to the argument that it would be undue to add everything against Trump in the lead. AdamBlacktalk • contribs08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) Oppose as proposed - the sentence should certainly not include the word 'notably', which is improper editorialising. As for whether it's due in the lead at all, I'm not sure that it is. It's a kind of 'sky is blue' assertion - this thing that happened in 2024 happened after something that happened in 2020 - well, yes, obvs. For it to be worth mentioning it would need to go on to explain how the former event influenced the latter one. So yeah, the sentence as proposed isn't worth adding. GirthSummit (blether)09:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the word "notably" was removed, would you support the proposal? I agree that the word "notably" should not be there. BootsED (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be undue given the length of the lead. The most important thing about Trump in 2024 is probably his convictions. CurryCity (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that at this time it is undue unless we vastly expand the lead. We could easily include a passing reference to it after the election though when Trump calls the results into question again. Yeoutie (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have said, Trump's 2024 convictions are notable, but the 2020 and 2021 events have long since passed and their only notability to this election is if those actions were among his 34 felonies, or if after the election there are interviews stating that these events are why people didn't vote for Trump. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as undue weight. Other issues have been shown to be more important to voters. The current arrangement elegantly addresses weight vs. thoroughness. GreatCaesarsGhost13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
For those who are curious as to where the sentence in the lead would go, it was previously located after the sentence, "His predecessor Donald Trump, a member of the Republican Party, is running for re-election for a second, non-consecutive term, after losing to him in 2020." BootsED (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His attempts to overturn the last election are more deserving of the lead than his conviction in the New York case imo.
That case concerns his attempt to illegally influence the 2016 election by preventing the MacDougall and Daniels affairs becoming public. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I mean is: why should January 6 be singled out among the other attempts to overturn 2020 in the lead, and not the fake electors plot? GhulamIslam (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forecasts
Coolxsearcher1414, you added Illinois and Mississippi to the table in the Forecasts section, based on 538's forecasts. However, a note was added yesterday describing how 538 (and Economist) are not used to determine which states are included in the table. By my estimation, if IL and MS are added, then no less than ten other states are in similar situations and should also be added to the table (CT, DE, IN, KS, LA, MO, MT, NY(!), SC, and WA). I think it is preferable to leave IL and MS out at this time, based on the solid/safe categorization of nearly all other forecasters. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how Trump's running mate will either be Burgum, Vance or Rubio (Source), how would these images look like for the GOP box? Especially given how there's a likely chance we'll know by the June 27th debate (Source) I figured candid pics would be best to match Trump's candid pic. These pics are not too cropped in to their faces as is the Trump photo used in the GOP section (with Burgum's being different from the one used in the candidate's section for the sake of variety/to be the same ratio as Trump's pic).
I figured it'd be good to have a good idea which image to use when the running mate is announced prior to them being announced so as to avoid an edit war/dispute. Having a consensus is always good too. Feel free to add some other alternatives! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources don't really support either of your conclusions regarding timing or confidence-level. It's a waste of editors' time to debate the best photo for (at least) two guys that won't be in the article. GreatCaesarsGhost18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And... what happened? There was no VP Pick. Debate happened last night and there wasn't even an announcement from him or anything. If anything, next month will be when he most likely announces his VP (or the convention chooses one for him). Qutlooker (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy + West candidate boxes
Just want to preface this that yes, I do agree with them being on there: but I think they look a bit... hollow without the images. The odd spacing is an eyesore. Should we include simple images for the two candidates there (e.g. a "KS" edited from the Kennedy-Shanahan logo, or something similar to their website favicons)? This is more a visual complaint than anything... SphealKent (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to the absence of a party icon? I would say no; don't fake something. You can just reformat the table if you don't like the gap (see Perot in 92). GreatCaesarsGhost19:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have "presumptive" nominees in the infobox at all. Particularly considering that various betting markets have Biden at 65-35% for the nomination right now.
In this case they have already been popularly voted by their parties, and Trump has a 75% majority. Biden also has a large majority. Why do we need presumptives? Also going off topic what's your chess ELO I play too 59.102.22.11 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Age of the candidates included as a campaign issue?
I think this should be included as a campaign issue, as both major presumptive nominees would be the oldest ever nominated by the their parties, with Biden’s age in particular generating significant discourse. 97.92.69.25 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't necessarily need to be in the issues section. We do talk about Biden's age being a concern. We probably should at least mention Trump's age and mental deterioration, though we should be careful about armchair diagnosis. GreatCaesarsGhost23:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Debates in the lead?
Why are we going into so much detail about the debates in the lead? If you look back to the 2020 election, not one word was even said about the debates in the lead; it definitely seems WP:UNDUE. Per WP:NOTNEWS, “Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.” Yes, the recent debate currently has a very significant impact on the state of the race. But it is doubtful that the debate will be as impactful in November. I also feel like some Democratic leaders panicking about finding an alternative candidate is a little bit WP:CRYSTAL for the lead. If this was the 1970’s, maybe the sentence would be warranted in the lead since political parties used to have more power, and voters had less power. But from my understanding, in modern politics, Biden is the presumptive nominee and will remain the nominee as long as he doesn’t step down, which he already declined to do so. Any mention of the debate(s) should be brief, but I honestly think it might actually not belong in the lead at all. Prcc27 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been very extensive discussions that have established consensus on this subject is what the hell he is talking about. RFK will need to secure "ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes" while maintaining his polling numbers. He currently has 70. You can track here:[4]GreatCaesarsGhost12:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can afford more than a single sentence regarding the debate
Hey Muboshgu and David O. Johnson: Do you really think that nothing more than a single sentence is warranted regarding the debate? The most significant aspect of all this -- the panic in the party, with some Dems and e.g. the NYT editorial board calling for him to step aside and have a brokered convention -- is now missing entirely. Compare this to, for example, the 2020 election page, which has like ~10x the amount information about the debates, despite them being less significant. A single sentence in this page is not appropriate IMO.
It definitely deserves to be reinstated, @Endwise:. Look at the leading article of the NYTimes today. Multiple reliable sources say it's the most influential debate of all-time. There's widespread calls for Biden to drop out.
A sentence or two is fine, but this still reads like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. The political press is making a lot of hay about this because making hay is their job. Many have noted that the press is not similarly attacking Trump's egregious lies in the debate because that is baked in and doesn't generate clicks (your proposal makes the same omissions, mentioning calls for Biden to drop but not similar calls to Trump). Polls have shown Biden steady or improving in polls since the debate, so we should not be reinforcing what is literally tabloid coverage. GreatCaesarsGhost12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A sentence or two is fine, but this still reads like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia." Sadly I don't believe with modern politics that we'll be able to make it look like an encyclopedia then a newspaper article. Media is too divided to even keep a center stance and "center" political sources are often paid by many think-tanks to persuade people to a certain ideology. Qutlooker (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alright with shortening. But I can't see what we can cut out here without losing critical information, @GreatCaesarsGhost:.
CNN hosted the first major debate of the election on June 27, with 51 million viewers watching. Biden's debate performance was widely described as the worst since the beginning of televised debates in 1960, with multiple domestic and international media outlets characterizing it as a "disaster" for the incumbent president and his party. Commentators noted that Biden frequently lost his train of thought and gave meandering, confused answers. Responding to a question on health-care policy, Biden stated: "Making sure that we continue to strengthen our health-care system, making sure that we’re able to make every single, solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the … uh, COVID … excuse me, dealing with everyone we had to do with … look, if we finally beat Medicare..." before the moderator stepped in. G. Elliott Morris and Kaleigh Rogers of ABC News' 538 argued that Biden had failed to reassure voters that he was capable as serving as president for another four years, given his age.
Biden's debate performance led to widespread concern about his age, cognitive ability, and continued viability as a candidate. CNN's chief national correspondent John King reported that "a deep, a wide, and a very aggressive panic" began in the Democratic Party minutes into the debate. Elected officials, party strategists, and fundraisers conversed about replacing Biden as the party's candidate, including whether prominent Democrats should make a public statement asking him to step aside. Some called for a brokered convention to replace Biden. News outlets—including Politico, NBC News, The Guardian, Vox, The Independent, Slate, and the Associated Press—ran articles on possible scenarios for how the Democratic Party could run an alternative candidate. The editorial board of the New York Times stated that "Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago" and urged him to step aside as a candidate, saying "the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election." A Biden campaign spokesperson stated that Biden would not be dropping out. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both reiterated their support for Biden following the debate. A "counter-debate" featuring Kennedy Jr., who argued that the CNN debate criteria were biased to keep him and other third-party challengers off the stage, was hosted by reporter John Stossel in Los Angeles. It achieved 5.8 million concurrent viewers on X and 9 million total by the end of the night. Kennedy Jr. argued that the debate between Biden and Trump highlighted the "vitriol, the division, the polarization that makes [Americans] disgusted with politics". Time argued that interest in third-party candidates would rise in the aftermath of the debate.
According to The New York Times, the debate led to a "crisis" within the Democratic Party, with many fearing "he will lose to former President Donald J. Trump and drag Democrats to devastating defeats in congressional and state elections."
This seems very concise if anything. Newspapers may make hay as their job. But to say that this doesn't merit 2/3 paragraph or so is pretty questionable. This whole situation is unprecedented in modern political history. His odds on betting sites to be the nominee have dropped to 50-70%. (From 90% or more) To say it didn't have an impact is ludicrous. As for who wins a debate: it's who people thought won the debate. Not whether their policies are best for the country.
The only things that I can see an argument for cutting out for here is:
G. Elliott Morris and Kaleigh Rogers of ABC News' 538 argued that Biden had failed to reassure voters that he was capable as serving as president for another four years, given his age.
—including Politico, NBC News, The Guardian, Vox, The Independent, Slate, and the Associated Press—
A "counter-debate" featuring Kennedy Jr., who argued that the CNN debate criteria were biased to keep him and other third-party challengers off the stage, was hosted by reporter John Stossel in Los Angeles. It achieved 5.8 million concurrent viewers on X and 9 million total by the end of the night. Kennedy Jr. argued that the debate between Biden and Trump highlighted the "vitriol, the division, the polarization that makes [Americans] disgusted with politics". Time argued that interest in third-party candidates would rise in the aftermath of the debate.
Responding to a question on health-care policy, Biden stated: "Making sure that we continue to strengthen our health-care system, making sure that we’re able to make every single, solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the … uh, COVID … excuse me, dealing with everyone we had to do with … look, if we finally beat Medicare..." before the moderator stepped in.
You have essentially three full paragraphs saying "Some pundits thought Biden looked old and performed poorly, with some even calling for him drop out" This is absurdly WP:UNDUE; it could be said in one or at most two sentences. You also completely omit criticism of Trump for lying through his teeth, including calls for him to drop out. But most importantly, if Biden stays in (which is still substantially more likely) this section looks absolutely absurd. That "no high-quality polling exists post-debate so far" reinforces that you are trying to act too fast. Again, we are not a newspaper; people wanting this content can find it elsewhere. GreatCaesarsGhost12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The four paragraphs for the June debate (linked here: [5]) seems excessive. I do agree that one sentence is too minimalist. Let's try to strike a balance. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"CNN hosted the first major debate of the election on June 27, with 51 million viewers watching. Biden fumbled through many of responses and struggled with a hoarse voice throughout. His performance revived concerns about his advanced age and sparked calls from some commentators for him to end his campaign. Trump was meanwhile criticized for making many false statements, while moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bush were called out for not correcting Trumps claims or asking follow-up questions. " GreatCaesarsGhost12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Liable" not "Guilty" for the E. Jean Carroll matter
Under Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump, the article currently says:
"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found guilty by a yet-to-be-named jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation."
This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Therefore the proper term is "found liable" not "found guilty." None of the sources cited say that Trump was found guilty (because that isn't the term that is used in civil cases), and the Washington Post and Huffpost sources cited say "liable."
I propose it be changed to:
"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found liable by a yet-to-be-named jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation." JMM12345 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Option A (15 July 2023)
Option B (deleted)
Option C (28 October 2023)
Option D (28 October 2023)
Option E (29 June 2019)
Option F (29 June 2019)
Option G (29 June 2019)
Option H (29 June 2019)
Option I (29 June 2019)
Option J (15 July 2023)
Option K (6 June 2024)
Option L (6 June 2024).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
3.jpg)
.jpg)
2.jpg)
5.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Comment: My concern with the new photos is that though they're not as old as the presidential portrait, they're still not new; correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all from 2019, right? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Not done: Consensus is against that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}