Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Democratic Party Section

I suggest we add this in the Democratic Party Section of this article:

On March 6, 2024, Phillips suspended his campaign and endorsed Biden. Phillips received the second-highest number of delegates of any candidate in the Democratic primaries (four delegates gained). We could add these two new sentences to the Democratic Party Section in this article after the sentence that says, "Representative Dean Phillips joined the race on October 26, 2023". Smobes (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries covers it enough for this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

In the Democratic Party Section of this article it is mentioned that "Williamson initially withdrew from the race in February 2024 but later resumed her campaign, only to end it again on June 11, 2024" and that Jason Palmer "suspended his campaign on May 15, 2024."

It would only be fair and consistent to at least add something for a well known candidate such as Phillips withdrawing from the race. We could just add for example, "On March 6, 2024, Phillips suspended his campaign and endorsed Biden." Smobes (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't agree with the well known candidate part, but I guess that is fine to include. You have convinced me that it is odd we mention the others, but not a person who won pledged delegates. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant he's a well-known candidate compared to the other candidates who were included, such as Marianne Williamson and Jason Palmer, because Dean Phillips is a three-term Democratic Congressman, while the others are not even elected officials. The page is edit-locked for me. If someone is able to add the suggested content regarding Phillips that would be great. Smobes (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer we reduce the section rather than expand it. Compare to 2012 which notes accurately "With an incumbent president running for re-election against token opposition, the race for the Democratic nomination was largely uneventful." The same was true this year, but this section makes it appear there was considerable activity when there was not. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The circumstances for an incumbent president running for re-election in the Democratic primary were very different in 2024 from 2012 because, this time, the presumptive nominee withdrew from the race before formally receiving the nomination. Also, when Biden ran for president in 2020, he branded himself as a one-term "transitional candidate." With an unconventional process occurring to choose a new Democratic nominee, more attention is given in retrospect to this section. Some reasons later used by President Biden and his allies to justify the suspension of his campaign, such as the need to "pass the torch to a younger generation," were frequently brought up throughout the primary process by opposition candidates and ignored. Still, the Democratic National Committee paid no attention to these early warnings. There was not more considerable activity in large part in these primaries because the Democratic National Committee did not host debates or forums that could have allowed voters to be more informed of Joe Biden’s age and health concerns long before ever debating Trump. All of the content in this section is definitely part of the story of the 2024 United States Presidential Election, whether unfortunate or not. Smobes (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Take that argument to the primaries page. He faced token candidacies that were unsuccessful. Two of the four token candidates are Republican surrogates, and the other two are no names. Using two sentences on the general election page to note "X joined the race. X left the race" is UNDUE. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is quite a bold claim to declare that in the 2024 Democratic Party Section, "two of the four token candidates are Republican surrogates, and the other two are no names." I have never heard this perspective before about all the Democratic primary candidates mentioned. Do you have evidence of this to be true that you can share, or is it just an opinion? Smobes (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I do, but it is entirely immaterial to the point: the only other candidates had no chance to actually contest, which means the section is excessively detailed. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Some candidates, such as Congressman Phillips and Williamson, technically did have a chance to contest for the nomination during the primary. Since they both had ballot access in enough of the 2024 Democratic presidential nominating contests to exceed over 2,700 total possible delegates, if they performed well enough, they could have received the 1,976 pledged delegates needed for the presidential nomination. Smobes (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Having a Democratic primary to decide the nominee means the outcome will be determined by the election rather than the prognosticators who are making the probabilities for the desired final election outcome. The point of a primary election is not for the prognosticators to make the decision but to test the candidates by the voters and not have it be decided for them. Sometimes, apparently very low-probability things do happen during a game if there is an opportunity for that pathway, such as seen during March Madness.

Additionally, the claim that Congressman Dean Phillips is a "Republican surrogate" needs some sort of substantiation, even for a talk page. This Wikipedia article is about informing the public about the 2024 United States presidential election while being as politically neutral as possible and not advocating an agenda. Smobes (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the actual fact check that two are Republican surrogates and two are unnamed candidates. I agreed that it is WP:UNDUE : the excessively detailed contents Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I also am concerned with the claim that there were two token Republican surrogates running in the Democratic primary. Even if true, I don’t see how that would impact how we edit this article. Prcc27 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for that phrasing sending the conversation on a tangent. The point I was making is that the quality of opponents who present themselves is an indication of the quality of the presumed front-runner. The people who ran against Biden had zero chance of winning, and the results of the race bear that out. I feel it is excessively detailed and undue to mention in this article (as opposed to the primary) when these trivial candidates joined or exited the primary. As for Phillips result, we usually do not mention the second place candidate at all; we shouldn't male an exception when the result is the worst in 28 years. Bernie Sanders got 1117 last time, and he isn't even mentioned in this section. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Neutral point of view

Does this article present a neutral point of view? Medioatarban (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC) — Medioatarban (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes. Prcc27 (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 because? Medioatarban (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you don't think it does? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Several parts of contents of this article has concerns of WP:NPOV Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu idk i feel like someone is kinda getting attacked in this article Medioatarban (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC) — Medioatarban (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Who is getting attacked, and in which section of the article? Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 "Trump's campaign has been criticized by legal experts, historians, and political scientists for invoking violent rhetoric and authoritarian statements. Trump has made many false and misleading statements, promoted conspiracy theories, and has repeated false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, which prompted the January 6 Capitol attack. The Republican Party has made efforts to disrupt the 2024 presidential election as part of a larger election denial movement. In 2023 and 2024, Trump was found liable and guilty in civil and criminal proceedings, respectively, for sexual abuse, defamation, financial fraud, and falsifying business records, becoming the first former president to be convicted of a crime". I mean, all of that may be true and blah, blah, blah, blah but the way it's written and it being at the beggining of the article is kind of... Whoa 😶. Medioatarban (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Under MOS:LEAD, we summarize the article in the first few paragraphs, including any prominent controversies. Donald Trump has been involved in a number of controversies, a number of which are due to his own actions. We cover those controversies as a result in the article and summarize them into a paragraph at the beginning. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V Yes, but if some random guy who doesn't know what a manual of style is reads the beggining of the article it won't look very neutral to him. Medioatarban (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, all of that may be true and blah, blah, blah, blah All of it is true. but the way it's written and it being at the beggining of the article is kind of... Whoa 😶 Super Goku V told you why its there at the opening of the article. But what other way should it be written? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Just ask yourself if someone neutral would've used THAT vocabulary. Medioatarban (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What isn't neutral about it? It seems neutral to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel that way. And you aren't explaining why you do so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep EarthDude (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless Medioatarban has a specific WP:POV concern, I think we should archive this section. Very curious that Medioatarban has only made 2 edits on Wikipedia. Maybe I have PTSD from last month, but I sincerely hope there isn’t any sock puppetry going on again. Prcc27 (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

SPA tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be understood as Assume good faith.

And just as Wikipedia users each edit for the specific topics, it is expected that the user above joined the Wikipedia to contribute to the fair editing of topics in the US presidential election.

Since each user is busy with various given circumstances, they are contributing when time permits, :Please keep this talk page open for at least 7 days to give the user or other users a chance to suggest specific issues that are relevant to the Neutral point of view issue. We do not want to close the talk page prematurely.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871 Thank you very much for your intervention. Medioatarban (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation (yet again)

I created a sockpuppet investigation with regards to my suspicions with Goodtiming8871 & Medioatarban. Please feel free to participate here. If they are exonerated, we can continue to discuss in the section above; if they are found to be sockpuppets, I think we can archive the section. Prcc27 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello The user who raised the issue above is a separate user. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2024

Add a picture of Butch Ware next to Jill Stein to the "Green Party" section of the "Third-party and indepdent candidates" subheading. A picture uploaded to Wikimedia can be found here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_Ware BrodyMK64 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind update about the photo. I will upload this part if other users didn't edit it today.

(Updated) I think the picture of Butch was removed?Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't properly licensed.

See [1] David O. Johnson (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We needed safe and free licenced file. Maybe the user can contact the owner of the file to confirm the license details. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2024 (2)

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.

---

Remove the portion that states the Republican Party is making efforts to disrupt the 2024 presidential election, which is false. Mainemanqwertyuiop9 (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, Can you please provide us with the reference NEWs article? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we remove this? This is clearly a troll. 180.150.39.111 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (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.

When should we declare a winner?

Now that we determined a criteria for declaring a statewide winner per this RfC, I was wondering when should we declare a national winner (i.e. President-Elect)? I am going to break this into two parts: the infobox and the article.

1. For the infobox, we bold a candidate’s name and EV tally, and put their name in the “Elected President” field once they won (see 2020 article for reference). When should we do this though? Should we wait until all major media organizations project a President-Elect (i.e. the same criteria as what we will do for declaring a statewide winner in the infobox)? Or should we be more lenient? While WP:NOTNEWS still applies in this situation, unlike with the statewide criteria, there are no WP:SYNTH concerns with declaring a national winner based on a majority of news sources. Whatever we decide, I propose we use a footnote if all/a majority of major media organizations have a candidate at 270+ EVs, but our infobox tally is still below 270. Here is my proposal for what we should do in that specific case if we choose unanimous projections as the criterion, and this is my proposal if we use a majority of sources as the threshold.
2. For the lead, this is my proposal. We should list which major media sources (i.e. ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC) have and have not projected a winner. “ABC, AP, and CBS have not projected a winner of the election; CNN and NBC have projected that Kamala Harris is President-Elect.” I feel like we should hold off on wikivoice at least until all five of these sources declare a winner. Once that happens, we could say “Kamala Harris is President-Elect” full stop. As for the body of the article, I am in favor of mentioning other reliable sources in the body while keeping them out of the lead when they project a President-Elect. Decision Desk HQ (first outlet to declare a winner in 2020), the New York Times, and Reuters, etc. come to mind. I am undecided on if we should mention Fox News projections in the body. Thoughts?

Prcc27 (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Support At first I thought; What's the hurry? We are over 40 days out from the election and the subsequent declaration of a winner. But with the almost certain disruption to come, we may as well discus it well in advance of Election Day (or Certification Day). Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Buster7: To clarify, do you support waiting for the media to unanimously call the national winner before we declare a President-Elect in the infobox, or do you think the threshold should be lower? Prcc27 (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My support was for the discussion to take place now rather than wait till early November. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Courtesy pings to users involved in the statewide projection RfC: @GreatCaesarsGhost:, @GoodDay:, @Qutlook:, @Lawrencekhoo:, @Unknown-Tree:, @Jfhutson:, @DimensionalFusion:, @Grahaml35:, @Vsst:, @Goodtiming8871:. Please let me know if I missed anyone. Prcc27 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  It may be the best idea to create an RfC for this discussion. Which I believe has been done before except had gone nowhere due to Trump photo RfCs. Qutlooker (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

States should be added to the map once all major media organizations (not sure exactly which ones, but we should pick at least two that have meaningfully different decision desks) call a state. We should likewise list an overall winner once a candidate reaches 270 votes following this method (it is not possible for this to happen and for the media networks to have not called a winner). This is very slightly different from your proposal: let's say Harris is 10 EV away from winning, and the AP calls GA for her but not PA, while NBC calls PA for her but not GA. Both would declare her the winner, but with different electoral maps; we shouldn't jump to calling her the winner in that case to avoid reader confusion (since we would not be able to say that she has won enough states to win the election). Hopefully this doesn't happen, but it is a possibility. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good point. We could just wait for our infobox to read 270+ before we bold a candidate’s name, bold their EV total, and put their name in the “elected president” field of the infobox. However, I still think a footnote will be needed in the event that all sources agree on a President-Elect, but disagree on which state(s) got them there. Our readers will wonder why most/all of the major media outlets have called the race, but we haven’t, if we do not at least explain ourselves. As a matter of fact, I think even some of our editors will also get impatient, if we wait to declare a winner when the media has already done so. This is a tweaked version of my proposal, however I stand by my original proposal for now. Also, there is no downside for us to say “ABC, CBS, and CNN have not declared a winner of the election; NBC and AP project Donald Trump will be re-elected” in the lead, even if the infobox is below 270. P.S. Just to clarify, we already agreed at the RfC that state electoral college votes are not added to the infobox tally until the following news organization project a winner unanimously: ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC. However, there seems to be some support for using light blue/light red shades for states where a majority of these sources have projected a winner, while using the darker shades for unanimous projections. Prcc27 (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I just want to add that it isn’t entirely unprecedented to declare a winner before the “magic number” is hit. In the U.S., some networks project which party will win the House, before a party has had 218 members declared the winner. Prcc27 (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is true, but no media network is going to do that for the presidential race. A footnote would be reasonable if some networks have called it while others haven't, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct, all U.S. media networks wait until the magic number of 270 is hit before declaring a President-Elect. However, IMHO, we at Wikipedia do not have to wait for our infobox to hit that magic number, especially since our encyclopedia is supposed to be a reflection of the reliable sources. “A footnote would be reasonable if some networks have called it while others haven't, though.” Actually, it is quite possible that all major media networks call the race, but our tally would still be below 270. If Trump for example needed 3 EVs to hit 270, ABC and CBS projected Alaska, AP projected Arizona, and CNN and NBC projected Wisconsin, the EV tally for those networks would be 270, 278, and 277, respectively. Our infobox would have Trump still at 267, which would be at odds with every single major media source. The least we could do is declare a winner. Prcc27 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes; I still think we shouldn't yet declare a winner in that situation (that was the point of my original comment), but a footnote would be appropriate of course. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your proposal seems reasonable. Just one thing worth nothing, using 2020 as an example, I would imagine that the main media sources that you mention, except for Decision Desk HQ and Fox, will almost certainly make their major projections, like calling Trump or Kamala President-elect, more-or-less in sync with each other. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see AP being out of sync with the other sources, since they (along with Fox) use different data (AP VoteCast) than the other networks which are part of the National Election Pool. Prcc27 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - If it will avoid disputes, then great. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• If all five sources are needed to call a state, all five will have called the election by the time our tally gets 270. So it is not possible that we will get to 270 before they all do. On the counter situation (where some have declared and some have not, and our tally is below 270) we should not mention anyone declaring in the lede. This is an encyclopedia after all; we can be more cautious. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  What if our tally is below 270, but all major media sources have declared a President-Elect? Then would you support a mention in the lead? I understand not declaring a victor in the lead until our tally reaches 270+ and/or when all sources agree on a national winner, since we are not a newspaper after all. But I do have concerns with users getting impatient, like they did in 2020 when Georgia remained gray on our map, even though a majority of sources had projected a winner. Using light red/light blue on the map should prevent a repeat of this impatience, as far as statewide winners go. Hopefully, only mentioning national projections in the body and a footnote in the infobox, rather than mentioning in the lead, will be good enough for impatient users, if we decide to go that route. I am not opposed to a lead mention though, especially when a majority of sources declare. But like I said before, wikivoice would be inappropriate until all sources unanimously declare a President-Elect. Prcc27 (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I just don't understand how that could happen, practically. If the major media outlets are declaring a national winner, that means they would have already declared that candidate as the winner in states adding up to 270. That's our standard for states, per your RFC. So the only way WP could have a tally under 270 when all the outlets have 270 is if the outlets had different combinations of states adding up to 270. That is extremely implausible. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully you’re right (you probably are), I’m just trying to prepare for every contingency so that we don’t have to decide what to do last minute. In 2012, I do think Obama was projected based on different states. AP called Ohio then Colorado, and was late to call Wisconsin; while NBC called Wisconsin then Ohio, and was late to call Colorado. Although it was probably sorted out within minutes. I personally think it is plausible, because the presidential election is essentially 51 separate elections, and each network has their own rules. AP for example is usually more cautious about calling a state when the margin is .5%. Prcc27 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm in support of making the winner require 270 certified EVs. 180.150.39.111 (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Prcc27 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we just stop with the RfCs on Trump's Portrait and just prohibit them?

This isn't sarcasm, I'm being serious. Can we have it to a discussion and just have them all prohibited entirely.

1. They go nowhere
2. They're often multiple open at once
3. It doesn't do anything meaningful when we end uo with the same no consensus wording at the top of when they're closed.

I get this might be considered unhelpful, but when we reach the same agreements with the same topics I think we need to just put it to rest. Qutlooker (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Yep, Regarding WP:NPOV policy, if we place the official for both candidates, there would be no issues. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You are suggesting a MORATORIUM against RfCs on changing the image, which is possible and does seem to be reasonable in this situation. Where a proposal is made repeatedly, and essentially the same proposal is made again, without new evidence or arguments, only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

With the multiple Trump Photo RfC's that have been going on for months now. I think WP:MORATORIUM is necessary now. I have also have this edit to note the constant restarted arguments about which Trump photo to use. Qutlooker (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed though I think the outcome of the current item should make the consensus clear. I think most editors don't particularly like the 2017 photo due to age, but it is better (in the collective opinion) than any specific alternative. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As I stated at the very beginning of the RFC (if that's what it is), I don't believe any of the recent attempts by the same person to switch the photo to the 2017 photo really represent any form of consensus - for a variety of reasons. Once things quiet down I think a genuine attempt at finding peoples' views is possible, but really all of this seems to have been a distraction to actually change the photo against consensus and keep it that way. Note that I actually didn't (afaik) express any preference for any of the photos. Tduk (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments: Regarding RFC; Currently, several users are coming to a consensus that it is fair to use the official photo for both leading presidential candidates at the same time.

Or, the next best option is to avoid a more wasteful debate with WP:MORATORIUM. I think the reason the current debate started is that although it is not an RfC to change the Biden and Trump photos in March 2024, several users came together and reached a consensus that Trump should use an unofficial photo but Biden should use an official photo,in my view which is against WP:NPOV. Instead of further wasteful debate, I think it would be more productive to supplement the content about each presidential candidate's policies. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see such a consensus being formed; I also think changing the photo against consensus while an RFC is ongoing is not the best thing to have done. Tduk (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments: I think this discussion is a fair discussion about the current RfC, and it is an effort by users to productively create important Wikipedia articles that are suitable for WP:NPOV.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Compromise - Let's just knock this on the head and replace the 2017 portrait. Take William Jennings Bryan, for instance. There were eight years' difference between 1900 and 1908, and we use different portraits of him for those respective articles. There's not a lot of variety of photographs from back then, hence why we have the repeat between 1896 and 1900. But, now we do have said variety. Undoubtedly someone will start a RfC to replace Kamala's portrait with her official Oval Office one should she win.

Put it this way - if Trump looks older, if so much has happened and changed between 2016, 2020, and 2024, and if we have a literal plethora of relevant, high-quality images readily available, why would we maintain the old photograph for the third election in a row? Dhantegge (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: For reference, here's the RFC for replacing infobox photos in the 2016 US presidential election. So you can replace the 2016 photo. If 45th President Trump is re-elected on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, a new official 47th presidential photo will be taken, and the 2016, 2020, and 2024 election photos will be different. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not an RfC under WP:RFC. Just a regular discussion named as one. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's suggestion for efficient RFC process and constructive way for improvement of Wikipedia article.[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2024

Remove an unnecessary line in the ===Assassination attempts=== section. It is in between the second and third paragraphs. As you can see, there are two lines used for spaces, please change it to one. Diegg24 (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

The spacing has been fixed.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2024

Delete the line "Trump faced opposition in the primaries, easily defeating Nikki Haley.[393]"

The line adds nothing to the section it's in and is superseded by the following information. My tightness (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done Rather than take it out entirely, I just merged the first half of the sentence with the next paragraph with some tweaks and moved the source to the end of the following paragraph. Let me know if this works for you or not. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

13K murderers and 420K other criminals

So this numbers are based on the info confirmed by the Acting ICE Director Patrick Lechleitner. Here is the official letter. So why this is a "right wing" nonsense ?? M.Karelin (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Valjean (talk · contribs) and David O. Johnson (talk · contribs) dont forget to read the official letter. M.Karelin (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• And plz explain to me why "This is also the wrong article for this infor." ?? If the section name is "Border crisis", why this is a wrong article ?? M.Karelin (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Acroterion (talk · contribs) The section is called "Border security and immigration". So why the info has nothing to do with the Election, if it is one of the Campaign issues ? M.Karelin (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The section isn't a place to load up the article with things that you think are relevant to the election: you need explicit sourcing stating that the specific instance you're talking about is germane. And it appears that you're interpreting the data yourself. Please don't add WP:SYNTH to articles, and don't make up your own talking points, the politicians can do that themselves. I've also reheaded this section to something that is actually descriptive. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So just because you think that 13K murderers who were allowed to this country by this administration is not enough important info to include to the section about Border crisis. You do not even hesitate to explain why. So who is not neutral here ? M.Karelin (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition, everything related to the Border crisis is relevant to that section. M.Karelin (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

who were allowed to this country by this administration You are not neutral here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Why I am not neutral ?? The Letter says they were arrested and released because of the "catch and release" Policy. Before this Policy, such persons would have been deported immediately. So why I am not neutral ? M.Karelin (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Shockingly (/s) you are being incredibly misleading. Here is NBC News providing some very important context [2]. "A DHS spokesman told NBC News in a statement: "The data in this letter is being misinterpreted. The data goes back decades; it includes people who entered the country over the past 40 year or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this administration. It also includes many who are under the jurisdiction or currently incarcerated by federal, state or local law enforcement partners." Clearly the inclusion of this would be WP:UNDUE. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just read the NBS - "It is not clear when the first migrant of the 13,000 crossed into the U.S. Two law enforcement officials familiar with the data told NBC News many of the migrants on ICE’s non-detained docket, including serious criminals, crossed into the U.S. under previous administrations, including that of former President Donald Trump." Or this one - "The White House has yet to comment on the data. One official told NBC News the release of the data came as a surprise to the White House." And you call this source (NBC) professional source ?? OMG !! Who are those officials ?? What's their names ?? The same way it is commented by the Daily Mail . M.Karelin (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here are two new sources about this Border crisis issue - [3],[4]. Any comments about this ?? M.Karelin (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

And two more - [5],[6]. M.Karelin (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The Moonie Times, WP:NYPOST, and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS are unacceptable sources. Seems this letter is going around the right wing media bubble and not much else, so its WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

And I doubt that "Straight Arrow News", owned and funded by Joe Ricketts, is neutral or RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu (talk · contribs) The letter is an absolutely real document (please read it if you have time), signed by the ICE Director. The fact, that CNN and other "good source medias" are not talking about it, just shows how biased our Medias are. Sad, really sad fact !! M.Karelin (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. This is not the right article for this content as it is not explicitly election related. It is topic related, so go to the right articles.
2. It takes some original research to make any sense of these numbers from the primary source, and no attempt is even made. The numbers are just blasted at us, sans context.
3. What percentage of the total population of unregistered immigrants are these people? Since we know from other statistics that the crime rate for illegal immigrants is lower than the crime rate for the general legal populace, what's the real context of these numbers? Just blasting them out there, with no context from reliable secondary sources, is just plain OR and irresponsible.
4. What proof is there that these are just from this administration? They may be collected over the last many years. This letter doesn't clearly say that, unless I missed something.

This letter is a primary source that is being circulated on the fringes of right-wing and far-right media as part of Trump's nazi hate tactics. Don't bring it here. Find better, secondary, sources and go to the right article(s). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You call one of the candidates nazi, and I am the one who is not neutral here ?? OMG !! M.Karelin (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, read more carefully. Trump is using Nazi hate tactics, the same ones used by Hitler and his people to create hate against certain groups. Trump is doing the same thing with his lies about immigrants. It's a tactic that authoritarians use, and the personality types who like authoritarian leaders just lap it up like dogs eating their own vomit.

This thread should be hatted as it's generating more heat than light. In fact, I'll do it right now since this topic should not be at this page at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hat it now please. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Trump is using Nazi hate tactics, the same ones used by Hitler and his people to create hate against certain groups" - one more time shows how biased you are here. M.Karelin (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

CNN is now reporting on this, but is making clear that it's a distortion of 40 years of data, as you've been advised by multiple editors. It might be included with appropriate sourcing to secondary sources that describe how the data is being misused: Fact check: To attack Harris, Trump falsely describes new stats on immigrants and homicide. This whole thread is a good example of why we don't credulously cite primary sources produced by partisans. Please don't use Wikipedia that way. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

And a good example of why we need those "good source medias" to chime in with proper context of the primary sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is another set of false immigration claims used to attack Harris. They are spread by unreliable sources, including those mentioned above by M.Karelin. (It's worrying that an editor can't vet sources for reliability.) Now these false claims have been debunked. "Former President Donald Trump is wildly distorting new statistics on immigration and crime to attack Vice President Kamala Harris." Those offenders Trump says all came in under Harris? They came in over decades, including during Trump's presidency. The ICE "non-detained" data he's citing? It includes people currently in state and federal prison (since they’re not detained by ICE in particular).

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said in a Saturday email: “The data in this letter is being misinterpreted. The data goes back decades; it includes individuals who entered the country over the past 40 years or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this Administration. It also includes many who are under the jurisdiction or currently incarcerated by federal, state or local law enforcement partners.”

Read CNN's fact-check: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/29/politics/fact-check-trump-harris-immigrants-homicide/index.html Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

„Safe“ states

In the opinion polling section, there is a table listing all potentially competitive states, however you have this disclaimer above it: „states that are deemed to be "safe" or "solid" by forecasters The Cook Political Report, Sabato's Crystal Ball, Inside Elections, CNalysis, Decision Desk HQ, and RealClearPolitics are omitted for brevity“

I think we should then actually stick to that and remove Indiana, Mississippi and the Nebraska 1st from the table, as they are all considered safely Republican by all listed forecasters.

Secondly, I believe a discussion on whether or not states considered safe by all outlets bar RCP might also be omitted. I know that currently only affects the Maine 1st, but it does seem about comparable to 538 and the Economist in how confidently it predicts states. Storm0005 (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. I'll remove the three contests, but will leave RCP for now pending additional comment. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Absent objection, I have made the change. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I second this. I think Alaska, South Carolina, and NY should also be removed, as they're very leaning to one party or the other. 180.150.39.111 (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle, but we would need a different standard to use across the board as opposed to just excluding states ad hoc. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Debate POV concerns

I have some WP:POV concerns with the debate section:

1. There are currently two sentences regarding concerns about the moderators. This is WP:UNDUE and should be consolidated into one sentence only. “AP News cited an actual example of the unfair debate moderator ABC's biased debate moderation, who fact-checked Trump more than four times.” Not only is this a word salad, but it claims the debate was “unfair” in wikivoice, which is POV.
2. “Many voters thought Harris did better in the debate, but there are also criticisms that she lacked specific implementation policies.” Seems unfair for this to be one sentence. “Harris won the debate, but this” seems like POV-pushing to downplay how well Harris did. Not sure why we would mention her lack of implementation plans, when Trump is the one that said he has “concepts of a plan” for healthcare. I say remove the second part of this sentence altogether. If not, at the very least, the sentence should be broken up into two separate sentences, without editorializing.

Prcc27 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That first sentence was egregiously bad. I've tried to make things a bit more neutral, but feel free to work on it more. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I will once I am out of 1 revert only jail. In the meantime, I encourage other users to consider making the change without me. Prcc27 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I think something much more factual around how each party responded to the debates would be better. Ie. "Following the debates, X% of voters agreed X candidate performed better" (sourced) & Democrats responded with... (calling for another debate and praising her performance), and Republicans cast doubts on the fairness of the process including Trump himself alleging bias. -Hwikipedianuk (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The overall media consensus is that Harris won. The overall media consensus is that Trump lost. If the factchecking is mentioned it should be made clear to our reader that Trump lies about cats and dog and the legal status of the Haitian immigrants were fact-checked to clarify for the viewers. What the campaign staffs thought about the fact-checking is not pertinent. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Would mentioning Trump’s claim that immigrants are eating pets be WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments : that is exactly WP:DUE, however, I believe that WP:users can update the actual policies of the two presidential candidates on issues such as the economy, border security, and the war in Ukraine, because these are things that actually directly affect the American people. Another thing is that the ABC news of the United States publicly shamed 45 president of U.S.A by fact-checking him more than four times in real time by the ABC debate moderator's unfair debate modulation. However, Harris's several incorrect statements were not fact-checked in real time at all. It is also necessary to add the opinion of the Democratic Party of the United States regarding the analysis of AP News and CNN fact-checkers who said that the presidential debate, which should have been conducted fairly, was conducted with double standards. I noticed that many articles about fairness issues ABC debate on September. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We already have a main article for the debate; we don’t need to get into every detail on this article. It absolutely is WP:UNDUE to have more than one sentence on the controversy. And Trump was given more speaking time, so there’s that. Prcc27 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments :According to WP:NPOV, As criticized by AP news and CNN, it was the most humiliating unfair debate in the United States committed by the media that should be fair. In other words, it is unnecessary to say that Harris did well because the two debate moderators gave her the advantage, which made her speak well. According to WP:Undue, it is unnecessary to say that Trump had more time to speak because the two debate moderators and Harris, that is, three people, pushed the 45th US president into a corner and made him continuously defend himself. This is an accurate criticism of the unfair and biased progress of the ABC debate from other reliable sources. In other words, the fact that the 45th US president used the time to speak and defend the debate time was an example of the ABC debate moderator giving him a disadvantage, not an advantage. This can also be seen in other credible sources that criticize the unfair ABC debates. For example, the debate moderator tried to get the 45th President of the United States to emotionally escalate, causing him to get into a corner and make a mistake in his speech. This is an accurate and credible analysis by other reliable News media experts.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Who said Harris did well because of the moderators..? Most sources say she “won” because she baited him. Your claim is definitely not the mainstream viewpoint. It is only one POV, and we are supposed to give due weight to what most sources say. Prcc27 (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments :I've seen it in many places that the ABC debate was unfair and biased. For example, have you seen any news that says that SkyNews and Fox News were giving Harris a leg up? Example: https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/sky-news-host-slams-abc-moderators-who-assisted-kamala-in-trump-debate/video/9871c703c81f127a4267951d126665d1 Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sky News has an extreme right-wing bias. I say this as an Australian. 101.119.127.174 (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Another thing is that the ABC news of the United States publicly shamed 45 president of U.S.A by fact-checking him more than four times in real time by the ABC debate moderator's unfair debate modulation. However, Harris's several incorrect statements were not fact-checked in real time at all. Looking at reliable sources paints a much different picture: Former President Donald Trump delivered more than 30 false claims during Tuesday’s presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris (...) Trump again delivered a staggering quantity and variety of false claims, some of which were egregious lies about topics including abortion, immigration and the economy. Harris was far more accurate than Trump; CNN’s preliminary count found just one false claim from the vice president, though she also added some claims that were misleading or lacking in key context. From a distorted point of view, the moderators allowed Trump to make at least 25 more false claims without fact checking than Harris. (Additionally, you should know that Sky News Australia is only marginally reliable and that Fox News isn't reliable for politics.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis from CNN.

• Several media outlets, including the BBC and The Hill, have mentioned the unfairness of the ABC debates.
• For example, The Hill

(In summary) About the ABC debate moderator on September 10, Meghan McCain, a famous ABC debate moderator, said that the ABC second presidential debate was unfair and biased in the way it helped Harris, which was very damaging to the American people.

"ABC did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the criticism its anchors were facing late Thursday night.

“These are elite Manhattan debate questions – the American people are suffering and can’t pay for groceries and deserve answers how it will get better,” commented Meghan McCain, who once was a co-host of ABC’s popular table talk program “The View : “I don’t know what the hell this is but these moderators are doing the American people a grave disservice.”

• The ABC debate moderators, who have fairness issues, have admitted to some fault for their biased debate moderation. "I can’t be unbiased,”

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not a WP:RS, and your constant soapboxing is becoming tiresome. One sentence dedicated to criticisms by Republicans for the moderators fact-checking is appropriate; anything else would be WP:UNDUE. Dingers5Days (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The Hill and The Times of India can also be seen another WP:RS similar to Associated Press, Regarding the reference, TOI as the most trusted English media news in India, and also the reliability was rated by Reuters Institute. so please refrain from making personal attacks on trying to improve Wikipedia's important articles for their fair editing by follwoing WP:NPOV. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means we give due weight to what most sources say. You can’t just cherrypick one or two sources that match your POV, to make a claim not supported by the mainstream sources. This probably isn’t a rule, but I would think we would prefer American sources for an American election article over Indian sources? Prcc27 (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I see your feedback, I think that we need to have well balanced view from other part of world as per the important roles of U.S.A. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to ask for the opinions of users who are interested in this debate regarding the content below. :::Hello. I'm sending a courtesy ping to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in this WP topic. @Super Goku V: @GhulamIslam: @Vrrajkum: @Maximus: @Geffery2210: @Jfhutson: @InterDoesWiki: @LawNerd123: @Herostratus: @Nojus R: @Yeoutie: @Calibrador: @TDKR Chicago 101: @GreatCaesarsGhost: @Sthubertliege: @Memevietnam98: @WorldMappings: @Qutlook: @GoodDay:

1. If the content is supplemented to correct WP:NPOV regarding the presidential debate, it would be better to correct the biased content that favors Harris. 2. In other words, the content that says "the moderator fact-checked Trump but did not fact-check Harris" is recorded to be more specific, stating that Trump was fact-checked more than 5 times, and Harris was not fact-checked at all. However, another user reverted the current content, saying, "It's as if Trump only checked the facts once, and it's edited biasedly to create a negative image as if he said it was unfair, deleting the fair actual content. 3. The reason why it's necessary to summarize the actual content fairly is that Harris also made two false claims, but ABC did not fact-check this, and the ABC host also admitted in a later interview that he had biased himself during the ABC presidential debate. > I think we should record these actual facts so that WP:NPOV can be guaranteed in the WP content. > Please give your opinion so that the WP content can be edited fairly. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Your selective pinging does me a dis-service. You should have included every editor within this thread. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 17:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

From now on, when pinging, I will make sure to include all relevant users without leaving anyone out. Previously, there were typos in user names when pinging, so the pinging was not delivered to some users. I will be more careful to make sure no users are left out when pinging. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What "false claims"? Cite your sources. Remember that a "false claim" and a "lie" are not the same; a lie implies negative intent while a false claim can be innocuous. And I doubt that any false claims made by Harris are of the "they're eating the pets in Springfield" level. We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This may not be fair, as News subjectively determines whether a false claim is malicious or innocuous. I saw a BBC broadcast where two US presidential candidates were verifying each false claim item by item.

There is so much broadcast content that I am planning to take time to find the content - not today. I am also planning to share it when I find it. I remember that one of the two false claims was Obamacare.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw a BBC broadcast is not a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris won the debate, and Trump supporters thought the fact-checking was unfair. The section sums that up pretty well, and it seems to be more or less neutrally worded to me. We are only supposed to briefly summarize the debate on this article, whereas the main article is where we can get into more detail. The fact is, only one candidate made several false statements, and they are also the only candidate to make outrageously false claims like migrants are eating pets and Governor Walz supports abortion after the baby is born. I also am not aware of any of the debate moderators admitting they were unfair to Trump; do you have a source for that? Instead of pinging everyone, maybe you should read the room? It seems clear to me that nobody supports your proposal. Prcc27 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think wp:npov can be changed by a vote of multiple WP users. That is, even if, for example, 10 users make a claim, I think it may be against wp:npov. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, you are the only one that seems to have gone against WP:NPOV. You added to the article in wikivoice that the debate moderators were “unfair”. WP:YESPOV says “avoid stating opinions as facts.” I think the consensus is clear, and I am not going to entertain this discussion any further. Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that you are pushing a pro-Trump POV and are borderline disruptive. If you keep this up, someone is going to request sanctions. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871, I think the policy you are looking for is WP:DTS. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I already participated above. So I am going to quote myself: "Looking at reliable sources paints a much different picture: Former President Donald Trump delivered more than 30 false claims during Tuesday’s presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris (...) Trump again delivered a staggering quantity and variety of false claims, some of which were egregious lies about topics including abortion, immigration and the economy. Harris was far more accurate than Trump; CNN’s preliminary count found just one false claim from the vice president, though she also added some claims that were misleading or lacking in key context." --Super Goku V (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

And they had to twist themselves into knots to make Harris' statements sound misleading. Like one was "Harris claims Trump left with worst unemployment since Great Depression" is false because it was actually several months earlier in his term, not when he left office. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I was able to remind that Harris's false claimed about worst unemployment since Great Depression and the fact was actually several months earlier in his term. via the reliable sources - example: harris-made-17-false-claims-during-debate from Reuters and other sources Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Jesus, I don't know if you're trolling or just obtuse, but either way: stop. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow any users in wikipedia, but I do appreciate their constructive contributions or feedback as I can find the facts via suggestions from other users. I clarified my previous reply above. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:DTS. I got a bit annoyed that you wanted my input when you already had it, so I quoted myself. I will try not to do that again. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The article now states Republicans attributed Trump's poor debate performance to their perception of unfair treatment by ABC, because the moderators fact-checked him but not Harris. That implies that Trump was fact-checked while Harris was not. Is it a fact that nobody fact-checked Harris? Would it be better saying something like "... claiming that the moderators fact-checked him but not Harris"? Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what the AP article indicates.

"ABC moderators did not correct any statements made by Harris." David O. Johnson (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Because she didn't make any claims such as pet eating by migrants or murdering newborns. There is a reason he was fact checked and she wasn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Is "fact-checking" the same as "correcting facts"? I thought that "fact-checking" meant controlling whether facts were indeed (true) facts. And merely doing that control, isn't the same as correcting. (English isn't my mother's tongue, so maybe I have misunderstood the meaning of "check".) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the moderators intended to fact check both of them prior to the debate: LAT, NYT. It should be noted that ABC did post fact-checking to their website following the debate. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: I am not seeing any agreement or support above for your edit. Can you either modify it or see if there is some agreement for your edit? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Super Goku V, I see that you have already modified the existing edit. I will wait for other users to contribute in the future for the relevant part. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello -Super Goku V ; I think it's a good talk model for asking about Wikipedia's editing contribution [[7]] that may be controversial.

I also ask for opinions before contributing to this topic. I hope to update this content after receiving opinions from users in the next 12 hours or so. AP News is attached as a reference, but the content actually mentioned by AP News is missing, so I hope to attach the part below after receiving opinions from other users.

(Current)

Republicans attributed Trump's low debate performance to their perception of biased debate moderation by ABC News, because the moderators fact-checked him more than four times but did not fact-check Harris.

(Proposed edit)

AP News mentioned that the ABC moderator was a bit too corrective to Trump in a polarized country, which caused a controversy over fairness.

Republicans attributed Trump's low debate performance to their perception of biased debate moderation by ABC News, because the moderators fact-checked him more than four times but did not fact-check Harris.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't think you have a consensus for that based on the above discussion. If you go forward and make the edit, then don't be surprised if it gets reverted by someone else. Also as a reminder, 1RR is in effect. Do not do your edit if it would break 1RR again. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that I should ask other users for their input on this topic, so I did. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Trans rights (again).

Don't we think Trans Rights are more of an issue than LGBTQ rights in general? I honestly haven't heard either of the two political candidates mention anything about Gays or Lesbians on the campaign trail. (Aside from an Anecdotal story from Walz) Seems like the only hot-button political issue right now in regards to the LGBTQ community is Trans Rights. I don't know why the LGBTQ term has to be used when it's clearly Trans rights/people that are being attacked and spotlighted the most. I think Nonbinary and Trans people deserve a special spotlight. These last 2 years or so we've had dozens of stories and attacks on Trans individuals, (and partially drag queens). Virtually nothing regarding just Gays and Lesbians. I think not mentioning the non-binary and Trans community separately does a disservice to all the things that have happened in the last 2-3 years. (Which is actually a quickly a growing demographic on it's own right.) 68.189.2.14 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? The segment on LGBT rights quite clearly lays the focus on transgender issues, much like you suggest, and also links back to and article specifically about transgender issues. Storm0005 (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a bit of a discrpency between the section LGBT Rights in the paragraph later in the article and the mention of it in campaign issues ".... LGBT Rights. This discrpency deals primarly with the fact that the article states the following,

"Harris is a strong supporter of LGBT people's rights. She has denounced legislative attacks on transgender rights in states across the country.Trump has promised a rollback on Democratic-supported policies surrounding transgender individuals. Trump stated he will rescind Biden's Title IX protections "on day one" for transgender students using bathrooms, locker rooms, and pronouns that align with their gender identities. Trump has stated he would enact a federal law that would recognize only two genders and claimed that being transgender is a concept made up by "the radical left." Trump has pledged "severe consequences" for teachers who "suggest to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body.""

None of those statements seem to be applicable to Gay and Lesbians in particular. Instead of stating ...LGBT rights, in particular Trans Rights, it should just state Trans Rights. The entire article under the header LGBTQ rights on this page literally only deals with Trans Rights, even the WikiCommons picture is a Trans Rights protest. Anyone that has a fair an honest and fair assessment of this election cycle knows Trans Rights in particular are under attack. It would be like, in my opinion talking about Race issues, after the 2020 riots, in regards to George Floyd without using the word Black or African-American. We know the 2020 riots dealt primarily with police brutality effecting primarily African American communities and it would be a disservice to use a broader category when unnecessary. Sure there is other people of color affected like Latinos and Asians, (As well as White) but it would be negligent to not have a particular emphasis on African-Americans and how they are treated by law-enforcement.

Likewise I think it's negligent to group Trans Rights under LGBTQ rights, when people who are Trans have been especially targeted the last 3 or so years. Literally every culture-war issue that has come up in the last 3-4 years has been about Trans Rights. I feel like it's a disservice when a movement literally distinguishes itself with it's own flags and tries to establish it's own rights and awareness to just be perpetually lumped together with other groups that have different causes. I suspect that also other Non-binary and Genderqueer individuals will have awareness/social movements in the coming decades that will be unique to them as well.

68.189.2.14 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I second this. As a person who supports LGBTQIA+, the culture war is directed at trans people at the moment. 101.119.162.78 (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention there is a lot of Terfs in the LGBTQ movement. And a lot people who are Trans (from ancedotal experience) use pronouns and have Trans flags in their bios and don't necessarily associate with the wider movement. Pronouns on the other hand are not always common with Gay and Lesbian individuals. Gender Identity is also a whole different concept to sexual attraction, and there is a whole umbrella and spectrum of non-binary and Genderqueer individuals who may or may not be gay or lesbian.As a matter of fact a lot of them are not gay. It also seems like a movement (though not exclusive) to a different generation (Gen Z) and an entirely different social movement. Not every Gay or Lesbian person supports Trans rights, as a matter of fact some of the biggest opponents of Trans rights are Gays and Lesbians themselves(Many Trans people know that some of the most outspoken Terfs are Lesbians and Gays). Also there is very different public opinion when polled about Gay and Lesbian rights compared to Trans rights. Gay and Lesbian rights practically have universal support among the public of virtually every Democracy (With a few exceptions in some cases, like Japan), Trans rights are much less accepted, and face much more antagonism and hostility from the general public of said Democracies.(On various surveys support ranges from about 40%-70% across democracies.). The movements themselves and their goals also share very little in common and have distinct timelines. I don't think it's fair to group every person who is not cis-Heterosexual together.

68.189.2.14 (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No. The community at large has embraced the framing of "LGBTQIA+" as a response to the "divide-and-conquer" approach of their oppressors. So too has media and society adopted the acronym in place of "gay rights" which was used in the past. This suggestion, intentionally or not, embraces niche framing that is meant to undermine solidarity. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Who speaks on behalf of the "community at large"? That sounds like [WP:OR], is there a source for that? There's a Trans Genocide going on right now and it's being shuffled under the umbrella of LGBTQIA+ rights. [Brihanna Grey] would be a good example of this. This sounds more like a cynical political calculation than an actual fact. Just read the headlines for the last 4 years, and there's lots of individuals like [JK Rowling] and [Richard Dawkins] that support Gay rights but not Trans rights. Of special interest why are "communities of color" not linked together like LGBTQIA+? They're associated in the [Pride Progress Flag] but not in articles dealing with police brutality. Is there some form solidarity among racial and sexual/genderqueer minorities? Yes but it's not always the case. Sounds like cynical political calculation and tactics again. Do Asexual, Intersex and Questioning people really have a microphone in this country? Do Demisexual people really have a microphone? I mean be honest. The most these people get is a pamphlet talking about how gender is on a spectrum. I would wager, the typical 50 year old American knows who Gay and Lesbians are but has no clue who Demisexuals are. Nor do they know much about Trans rights. You can't really achieve solidarity unless you achieve awareness. The oppression and deculturalization of Native Americans is very different than the oppression of African Americans, which is also different than the oppression of Latino-Americans. Sure you could put them all together and say, "communities of color" but not to highlight each communities concerns seems negligent. And the Trans community is growing and growing and growing, whether you like it or not. They are a big proportion of Gen Z and are set to be a bigger proportion of the next generation. And if you just hit them with the label "LGBTQIA+" that does a big disservice to them. That's like telling everyone that's non-anglo Northern European they are person of "color" when their circumstances are nowhere near similar. I know there's cynical/shrewd political calculations going on here but be honest with yourself about the actual headline news stories and political controversies occurring in the last 3-5 years. I could link them all here and I guarantee you 95%+ of them all have to do with Trans Rights. This section needs reflect the times of 2024 and not 2013.

68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is naked POV pushing. Whether I agree with you or not is immaterial; this is not a forum. We reflect reliable sources, and reliable sources consider trans rights to fall under the banner of LGBTQIA+ rights. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Never said it was a forum, but it's pretty bloody obvious to anyone not living under a rock that Trans rights are under attack. Well I guess Shrewd Political Boomer Coalition strategy it is. I guarantee you in 20 years time, People will look at this article and scratch their heads. I guess LGBTQIA+ rights are going to "indefinitely" be a campaign issue. And by the way, reliable sources make no such statements in terms of the usage of Trans Rights, as a matter of fact, more [WP:RS] use Trans Rights that LGBTQIA+ rights. (Notice how none of these Trans advocates are holding Gay pride flags.). Even articles that reflect the usage of LGBTQIA+ countinually use phrasing such as , ...especially Trans individuals and ...Targeting Trans individuals But I'm guessing your some kind admin or gatekeeper here trying to follow a Shrewd Political Strategy like the DNC says, than actual reflect what's honestly happening in society.

"Nonbinary and transgender people have been at the epicenter of most of this legislation and thus continue to bear the brunt of the effects of these attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. While 2023 set the record for laws targeting the rights of transgender and nonbinary people, 2024 is already shaping up to be an even more difficult, dangerous, and harsh landscape." - Lambda Legal

"GLAAD has also tracked how candidates’ false rhetoric and claims against LGBTQ people, especially transgender people, were prominent in recent" -GLAAD

The Broader Category/Coalition is used, I'm not saying it's not, but it's pretty apparent Trans rights are being targeted this election cycle . I'm guessing CNN isn't a reliable source because "Shrewd Political Strategies/Language" are necessary when they literally state empathically, 2021, a recording breaking year for Anti-Trans legislation.. I'm guessing Shrewd Political Strategy it is, because Wikipedia admin(s) doth think all queer people are the same.

"Thirty-three states have introduced more than 100 bills that aim to curb the rights of transgender people across the country, with advocacy groups calling 2021 a record-breaking year for such legislation.  Many of these bills are rapidly making their way through state legislatures. On April 6, Arkansas became the first state to outlaw providing gender-affirming treatment to minors, a move that the American Civil Liberties Union said would “send a terrible and heartbreaking message” to transgender youth across the country."- By Priya Krishnakumar, CNN ~

68.189.2.14 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your position, I just think you are very confused about what we are doing here. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Checking incorrect news with Reuters.

Please find the (Suggested edit on Debate section) [[8]]

CNN reported that Trump made over 30 false claims during the debate, while Harris made only one. However, Reuters found that Harris made an additional 17 false claims, which were omitted.

According to the Reuters report above, CNN misled people in a biased manner, Please provide me with your feedback whether it would be appropriate for Wikipedia's WP:NPOV to correct this? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Uh, how closely have you read this source? Because you completely misinterpreted it. Looking too hard for a "gotcha"?

A day after the debate, Facebook accounts posted, “CNN's official fact-checker says Kamala lied 17 times in the first ten minutes.” That's the lie that Reuters debunked. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I read again the suggested news, so one false, two misleading and three lacked context. I also thought it was a bit strange. In the future, I plan to read the relevant supporting materials several times. "The report identified Harris’ claim that Trump left office “with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression,” as false. According to CNN, Harris also made two misleading statements and three others that lacked context."

(Second suggested sentence)

CNN reported that Trump made more than 30 false claims during the debate, while Harris made only one.[1] However, there was an online claim that Harris made an additional 17 false claims, which the Reuters fact check team verified as incorrect. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I checked factcheck.orgearlier, and they had something like 6 and 12. Can't remember the specific figures, but I can attach link if needed. Also, may I ask what is with your cherry-picking of data in such a way that you omit any irregularities for the Republican side while constantly looking for issues with the Democratic one? 27.33.134.168 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I made the above suggestion to revise the content to say that the Republican-related misinformation was verified by Reuters. The suggestion was revised to point out the problems on the Republican side with Reuters, so I marked the content with updated and changed the title to Checking incorrect news with Reuters. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Adding practical measures on Border security policy

Hello, To better understand the policies of both candidates, I think this section can update the actual planned actions.

Can we update below? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

For what purpose? Wikipedia is not a database for people to look up or "better understand" positions on the candidates (WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTNEWS), it's an encyclopedia. We include what has notability. Dingers5Days (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am aware of this. WP:NOTNEWS,

However, from the perspective of voters who are specifically electing the president, I asked for your opinion because I thought it would be helpful to supplement the current content of the summary to the

practical measures on border security policy that each presidential candidate is mainly putting forward. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

(Proposed update)

1) Harris calls for a five-year ban on reentry for border crossers, which also includes tougher criminal penalties for repeat border crossers.

2) Trump has outlined specific plans to use the National Guard to deport illegal immigrants.

References

Planning on putting current election for the entire week of the election. The vote counting may take days.

This should go up on the Sunday of the week Election Day is on. The article should not call a winner before a consensus of reliable sources do. For example, Fox News called Arizona early in 2020, but this article should not use such calls.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject with contents was a bit unclear, so final couniting would be out within a few days after 5 Nov 2024? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It might also be a good idea if the template contained a link to remind people of WP:RSN in case someone tries to add unreliable sources. Raladic (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Add a "Notable expressions and phrases" section (see 2016, 2012, 2008)

There is precedent of this if we look at the articles of the presidential elections in 2016, 2012, 2008, and probably even further back. The 2024 election has plenty of memorable quotes and phrases:

• "Childless cat ladies" (J. D. Vance)
• "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?" (Kamala Harris)
• "They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs" (Donald Trump)
• "Weird" (Tim Walz)

204.137.233.223 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be better if they were worked into the prose in appropriate sections (like the cats and dogs comment in the debate section) rather than making a new section just for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

For the proposed content, if you give your opinion on the relevant items, it is possible to insert each part. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This section is not really something we should emulate. While the 2016 one is pretty good. the 2008 one is largely uncited, and both it and 2012 seem to be forcing actual events into the box of "quips." As an encyclopedia, we'd be better off contextualizing catchphrases if they are holding any narrative weight for the contest. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Template for infobox

Should we make a separate template for the infobox? I believe we did this for past elections. The main advantage IMO is that it would be easier to enforce consensus on Election Night, since this article operates under WP:1RR. We could also decide to add the infobox to other articles, like Timeline of the 2024 United States presidential election, for example. Prcc27 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Electoral Collage forecast

Perhaps I'm missing it. But, wouldn't be more helpful if we had a totals forecast, rather than state-by-state? Example: 269 to 269. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The bottom of the forecast table already has the totals 2024_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_College_forecasts with the respective Democrat and Republican and Tossup forecasts. Raladic (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support having both. Although the national forecasts are just median EVs, and I worry readers could misinterpret what a national forecast total means. Yes Harris is forecasted to get 270+ EVs, but it is very much within the margin of error. Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could have a hypothetical total of 538. What we have, is leaving out many electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

538 hypothetically has Harris and Trump at 277-261 respectively. Prcc27 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Each forecast includes a number of EVs leaning D, leaning R, and tossups. Each one adds up to 538. I believe you are asking us to move votes out of the tossup column and into D or R. We obviously cannot do that as we are only reporting what the forecasters have indicated. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are forecasts on the final EV tally too. So we could include both if we want to. See 538. Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be more confusing to list 538s number (currently 277 for Harris) because it is not a prediction of an actual probable outcome, but rather a statistical construct (an average of likely outcomes, I believe). GreatCaesarsGhost 11:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Assassination attempts

Biden's speech is WP:Weight. It should include the parties directly involved in the assassination attempt and the victims, and the third person is indirect. Biden's image has been used several times on this page.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the video link, I don't see how it is undue. Trump's then opponent gave an official address to the nation about the incident. (Which seemingly contributed to him dropping out shortly afterwards due to his mistakes: The Telegraph, Slate)

Additionally, Biden's image is in the article three times to Trump's four to six and Harris' three to four images, respectively. (Depends on if you count your addition or not and if you count the images in the "This article is part of a series about [candidate]" navibox.) I don't mind including the Trump image from your edit, but I do not agree with using it as a replacement. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

regarding the this section, I have noticed that the content has been additionally revised. That is, I can see that the Biden video and the uniform photo of firefighter Corey Comperatore, who died in the incident, are included at the same time. This seems appropriate for WP:Weight. In particular, in the case of firefighter Corey Comperatore, it is unfortunate that he lost his life, so I think of Corey's family, and since each and every life is important, I think the photo is directly related to the title and has meaning in being included. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. We do not include content just because someone lost their life. Remarks by the President of the United States regarding an assassination attempt during an election are much more relevant and DUE than a photo of Trump at the RNC with the jacket of someone who died at his rally.

Goodtiming, you also just lied when you said "regarding the this section, I have noticed that the content has been additionally revised. That is, I can see that the Biden video and the uniform photo of firefighter Corey Comperatore, who died in the incident, are included at the same time. This seems appropriate for WP:Weight." I would imagine you would have noticed this, as you were the one that re-added it to the page. You are pursuing a flawed analysis of WP:DUE by stating that because Biden was not involved in the assassination attempt, his video should not be included in the section.

You are also engaging in original research that ignores the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources to push your personal views of the second presidential debate. You have also broken the 1RR on this page by pushing two reverts of content you disagreed within an hour after each other. BootsED (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Should I delete topic? 120.19.186.242 (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personally offensive remarks.

1. regarding the assassination attempt incident,

I registered the photos of people directly involved in the assassination attempt incident because I thought they were directly related.

[[9]]

2. Afterwards, Super Goku V added the Biden video to the existing photos and edited the content of the second presidential debate. [[10]]

> I understand that I was the first to create the Talk page related to the attempted assassination incident, it is for listening other user's feedbacks.

In other words, In my view, there was no previous agreement through the talk page on whether to include Biden's video or photos of people directly involved in the attempted assassination.

3. Super Goku V suggested me to update the content, but I was able see this user's comment later after the user's edit.

And Noticed that the user Super Goku V edited and supplemented the content that I edited previously.

> In response to this, I replied that I would wait for other users to make additional edits to that part. (In other words, there were no further revisions or changes after Super Goku V 's update)

[[11]]

> After the above user edit, I thought it was appropriate to WP:Weight post the pictures of the people directly involved in the assassination attempt and the Biden video at the same time.

> In other words, I supplemented and revised the content of other existing edit by adding a summary, - there was no reverts but updated summary of the contents.

> Another user, Super Goku V, supplemented and udpated the contents[[12]] and I accepted it by response [[13]]. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there is a misunderstanding in the second paragraph about which edits were made when, though the last sentence of that paragraph isn't wrong. However, the DUE part isn't my main issue right now. As far as I can tell, you did break 1RR with those two edits, regardless of my edit afterwards as both were reverts of prior edits from different users. Would you be willing to admit to the issue and commit to not violating 1RR in the future? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply here, Goodtiming8871. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like you to understand that I made two edits in Assume good faith. In other words, I understand that I made two edits sequentially, and later, both edits were partially changed by other users and partially reverted. In the case of 1RR, I understand that if your edit is reverted, you are prohibited from editing the page for at least 24 hours. And I recently found out that in this case, a warning sign appears when you make an additional edit. For this reason, when I make an edit, I check to see if anything has been reverted and try to edit within the given scope by making an additional edit. In addition, I am planning to check in advance on the talk page to see if there is anything that seems to be an agreement, and if there is, I will be careful when summarizing or supplementing the content, or I will ask for opinions on the talk page. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In the case of 1RR, I understand that if your edit is reverted, you are prohibited from editing the page for at least 24 hours. And I recently found out that in this case, a warning sign appears when you make an additional edit.

Alright, I think I see the problem and how we got here. This isn't how 1RR works. First, if your edit is reverted, it doesn't count to your limit. The person who reverted you is instead at 1RR for 24 hours. If you partly or fully revert someone's edit, then you are at 1RR. You can keep editing after hitting 1RR, but you are prohibited from again reverting or otherwise undoing other editors' edits for 24 hours. Additionally, you don't get a "warning sign" when you have hit 1RR, you have to manually keep track. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message about more details of edit period. I will read it carefully again to understand it well. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not following Goodtiming8871's timeline, but what happened from my perspective was that Goodtiming8871 removed the file of Biden's statement from the White House with Trump paying respects to Comperatore at the RNC. For the reasons I listed above, I partially reverted that edit and another manually as there had already been another edit since those two. In the case of the first edit, I left in the photo of Trump and just restored the file, which I touched on above. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification! I did not see the comments made in the other debate POV concerns section above, so this topic discussion got partly split between two sections on the talk page. BootsED (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The photo of Trump with the jacket of Corey Comperatore is thus far the only high quality image that best represents the assassination attempt on Wikimedia Commons. If it were just a photo of Trump speaking at the RNC podium, I would choose the Biden video over that, but this picture features the target of the assassination attempt paying their respect to the victim of the assassination attempt.

If there were a quality image of Trump in Butler before, during, or after shots were fired that was fair use, I think that would be the obvious choice for this section (this would be similar to how the 1964 presidential election page has a photo of Kennedy in the convertible for the assassination section of that article).

But given that there is not one available, for a section about an assassanation attempt on Donald Trump, the picture of Trump paying respect to Comperatore is the best visual media to use for this section, because the photo is more relevant than the video of Biden's statement, as it shows the target of the assassination paying respect to the victim who was killed during the asssassination attempt. BlueShirtz (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. The section is about Trump, so a picture of him is clearly more relevant than a video of Biden. I wouldn't object to using both, but the section seems to be too small to warrant two. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur. The focus should be on Trump, not Biden. Yes Biden is the current president, but he was not the target and he isn’t even a presidential candidate anymore. Prcc27 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

For a page about the presidential election, a video of Biden addressing an assassination attempt against a leading presidential candidate makes much more sense for inclusion than a picture of Trump at the RNC with the jacket of someone who died at his rally. Biden is still the president of the United States, so he doesn't have to be a candidate in the election to be included in this section. So the argument that Biden's remarks are "not relevant" is moot. I have nothing against the picture being included on the page, but it belongs better in the "victims" section of the Butler assassination attempt page, which it is already is. This page is not about a victim of the assassination attempt.

Also, I see people saying that the picture should be chosen because "it pays respect to the victim". This is not a legitimate argument. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Paying respect to victims is not something that Wikipedia does and should not be considered when making decisions. BootsED (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Nowrap in Nominee Tables

Is there a particular reason why “Vice President of the United States” (for Harris) and “President of the United States” (for Trump) are forced onto one line? It doesn’t really make a difference on desktop but on mobile it results in Walz’s and Vance’s pictures being shrunk down to accommodate the wider box for Harris and Trump, respectively. I don’t understand why the text can’t just wrap normally. I would like to know if the nowrap can be removed. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it is just a presentation/formatting thing. I would say go for it. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox Trump's main photo

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.

No consensus, I strongly suggest editors not restart this discussion considering the many of these discussions that lead nowhere. Qutlooker (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Hello, Regarding Trump's main photo of "2024 United States presidential election", there were several discussions previously. - example link: Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7 I'd like to confirm which photos can be used. I've included the top-voted options based on my understanding, but I think limiting it to three additional choices will give us the most efficient results. If a new, better image emerges, we can compare it after this RFC process

• For this RFC process, I propose that we only allow users to vote for one best photo for the Infobox Trump's main photo. This will simplify calculations, as it's easier to determine the winner based on a single vote per user.

• Official

>Every U.S. elections always using official portrait but not in presidential primaries, for example, in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton's official portrait was used for 2 times although two times were sequence 4 years ago. weakness of this photo: considering that the age is a concern among some voters, the images of relatively recent can minimise that concern. Trump's 2017 portrait doesn't show a drastically different Trump/no change in appearance.

• Option1

>the long-standing "smug" image; This can be seen as an unkind and arrogant, but on the other hand, it can be seen as a confident looking

• Option2

>it is smiling freindly photo with his face,like Kamala but Trump's expression in the his body is tilted to the left instead of facing the camera.

• Option3

>it is smiling freindly photo and suitable camerawork - example: at eye level, face and body facing camera and he is also smiling like Kamala but there's just an impression that makes him look uneasy. (Above description: I've compiled a summary of some users feedback.) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in the Infobox Main photo. @Super Goku: @GhulamIslam: @Vrrajkum: @Maximus: @Geffery2210: @JFHutson: @InterDoesWiki: @Prcc27:@LawNerd123: @Herostratus: @Nojus R: @Yeoutie: @Calibrador: @TDKR Chicago 101: @GreatCaesarsGhost: @Sthubertliege: @Memevietnam98: @WorldMappings: @Qutlook: @GoodDay: @Tduk:

Official and Three alternative options.

• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  Official Portrait October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06); 7 years ago (Official)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 1)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 2)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  October 10, 2023 (2023-10-10) (Option 3)

Voting Section

Comment - I don't think this is a useful question; none of the photos are from this year, and all of the photos that aren't the 2017 photo are fairly similar, so the !votes will go either to the 2017 photo or the recent photos. This is also at least the 5th time these exact 4 photos have been suggested, and each time it is not a useful exercise. There needs to be a truly meaningful attempt to determine if consensus has changed from the (until recently changed) 2023 photo that was in use, hopefully by an as-yet-uninvolved party. I suggested a simple "use the 2017 photo or a more recent photo" poll first to make the issues more clearly separated but this advice has so far been ignored. Tduk (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I say we use the 2017 portrait, but that's just my opinion. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion about 2017 portrait Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The Offical Portrait is my pick. InterDoesWiki (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official portrait For the sake of consistency and to avoid another debate about which candid pick to use. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment – if you can only vote for one out of 4 options, does this not create a spoiler effect? If half of the people do not want the official portrait and half do, doesn't the half that doesn't want the official portrait split their vote between the three other options? DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No. You are creating a false grouping of three of the options literally defined as "not the fourth option." If anything, a spoiler effect is created favor the current image (option 1) as any other option would need the super majority we call consensus to win. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The explanation of user:GreatCaesarsGhost is Correct, That is RCV based runoff, the winner is the one with the most votes among the four options. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 is not the current image. It was for whatever reason already replaced with the 2017 photo DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I support the official image. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Why aren’t there any photos with Trump having a neutral facial expression? And why is a photo proposed by a sockpuppet one of the options? Prcc27 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official, the only normal looking photo. He looks pretty much the same age in all these photos. The main difference is that his head is tilted weirdly in the "option 1," and he just looks extremely weird in the other two. --JFHutson (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment – I don't like any of these options.

• I don't understand the support for the official portrait when the Age and health concerns about Donald Trump are a very real part of the election. Trump is 78 but was 71 when the official photo was taken, which is a big difference, even without taking his age and health concerns into account.
• Option 1 (the smug one) has an odd camera angle (seemingly taken from beneath?), Trump's eyes seem to be not matching his face and body making him seem to look down despite facing forwards, and he isn't smiling so much as doing some form of smug look.
• Option 2 also seems to have been taken from below, and Trump's face is not facing the same way as his body and his smile is slanted.
• Option 3 has good camerawork but he just looks wrong, somehow. In a way I can't describe.

I've attached an image I cropped into a 3:4 portrait which is similar to what I think a portrait should be (not suggesting it would be, he is slightly looking away from the camera and not smiling very much)

My personal criteria for a portrait is that: a portrait should...

• represent his age as of the election
• have the camera at (or seem to be at) eye level
• have him smiling (ideally with teeth to match Kamala's but not strictly necessary)
• have his body and head facing forwards

DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Age and Health Concerns are 100% a part of this election. However- this wikipedia article is not here to express an opinion on that. Just my reason why I'm tossing out any personal opinions and just looking at the portraits as 1) Which one is the best photo and 2) which one best matches Kamala's portrait. (IE- which 2 photos are the most similar and thus least biased.) We could get into such deep waters if we tried to get concensus on what a portrait should ~say~ about a candidate. Trust me- I would love to see one that highlights the fake tan and has one of his ridiculous faces..... but thats how I see him, thats not, necessarily, how history will see him, nor is it how an unbiased person would see him. But I do like your suggested portrait here.... maybe not for the top of the article- but in general- good photo to show his age, but not make him look . . . off kilter. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nightenbelle, this picture isn't presidential election infobox material, but it could definitely be used for something. My opinion of course. InterDoesWiki (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In regards to your thoughts on the 2017 photo: obviously it’s not Wikipedia’s job to form an opinion, but it is its job to be accurate.

I think it would be misleading to show Trump as being younger than he actually is, because that, too, sends an opinion. So I think we should put up a recent image - for fairness, perhaps one from 2021 as that’s when Kamala’s picture was taken? DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

To my eye he looks younger in this than the official portrait. So I don’t see the advantage of this picture. His eyes are also dark. Between that and not smiling, it’s not an improvement. — JFHutson (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested it as an improvement, noting that he’s not staring directly at the camera and not smiling as much as he should be in an info box photo. I said something like that - such a photo could be on commons right now for all we know DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok rereading your comment I guess you are not proposing we use this photo? I can agree that your criteria are good. I guess where we disagree is whether a 7 year old photo can “represent his age at the election”. I think the White House photo does this well because he looks so similar to how he did seven years ago. — JFHutson (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on the non-free images I’ve seen lately of him (such as on Getty images) - he doesn’t look great. I’d include them here for reference but that would of course be a copyvio but I can say that in my opinion he looks significantly older than in 2017. That’s why I oppose the 2017 photo so much – I do think it would be misleading to present Trump as being younger than he actually is DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the breadth and nuance of your argument, but we have to choose a photo that actually exist. We cannot display a hypothetical photo "like X, but with slight variation." Saying none of the options is acceptable is non-productive and off-topic. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Everyone looks better in a posed (and touched up?) portrait than candid shots. Harris looks much better in her official portrait than in many of these: [14], as well as these in 2021. If anything she is getting a bigger boost in her portrait. I agree that a 2024 professional portrait would be better, and if one can be found that is an improvement on the 2017 White House photo I would definitely support it. But I don't see the oldness as a big drawback until Trump goes through a significant change in appearance. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think smiling should be a necessary criteria for an image to be used in presidential election articles' infobox. I believe this image is the best one that should be used, the others either have bad angles, or in the case of option 3, just look wrong EarthDude (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official Personal opinions and preferences aside, I think the official portrait is most appropriate for 2 main reasons. 1- it is the "Official" portrait- its how he and his campaign have chosen to represent him- and in the general article on this election- why would we stray from official portraits for the main portrait? Use other photos in other articles or in other places in this article- but for the main photo- let’s keep it simple and use the main portrait for both of them. Secondly- this photo and the other photo are good comparisons. Both candidates are in similar poses, zoom is similar, they are both well-made portraits. There is little room for bias between the two- we can't say we're sending any hidden signals by using such similar portraits. Thats my s cents :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't seen the White House photo - which is only being called "official" because people have started calling it that - used in any recent Trump material - can someone show someplace it's been used officially by the Trump campaign? That might be helpful. Tduk (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  The official portrait was how he and his campaign chose to represent him almost 7 years ago, and things have changed drastically since then EarthDude (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment (2) I don’t think the portraits need to be equal as has been suggested previously. Just because Kamala is smiling in her portrait does not mean that Trump MUST smile in his portrait too. For example, 2008 United States presidential election has Obama not smiling whilst McCain is smiling. We really just need a good picture, not for the two pictures to be equal. DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed- I'm not so much concerned about matching facial expressions as matching quality and tone. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I like DimensionalFusion’s proposal. It’s newer, professional/presidential, and doesn’t have a cheesy smile. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think that a photo for a US presidential election should be balanced against its competitors. I agree with User:Nightenbelle to some extent, and interpret it as follows:

• For a presidential election photo, the photo officially selected by the US White House is appropriate.
• Since Kamala Harris, Trump's competitor, also used the best photo among her many photos, if there is a photo that matches the competitor in terms of 1) pose, 2) eye level, 3) zoom, 4) face angle, and 5) photo quality, it is fair to use that photo.
• In other words, if Kamala Harris used Official portrait of Kamala Harris and used a photo that can determine the image of the person through the quality of at least 5 of the factors that determine the quality of a photo , then since Wikipedia is in the public domain, I think it is fair for Donald Trump, Kamala's competitor, to also use Official portrait of Donald Trump in the article of 2024 United States presidential election. If you use a non-official photo between two competitors in the public domain, I think it would be fair to find a suitable photo among the unofficial photos on the right example, such as Kamila Harris's one of the photos, to avoid giving one side a disadvantage from the WP:NPOV perspective.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Still think official portrait should be the one that's used. Calibrador (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official The flag in the background should match that in Kamala's portrait, which is equally "polished". Senorangel (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am partial to option 1 simply because it's been the photo used for quite some time, but I acknowledge there was no consensus to implement it. Therefore I think it is easiest to keep the official portrait for practical reasons (given the obvious inability to agree.) DimensionalFusion's picture is my preference among the ones proposed, however. Also, remember WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; there is no "voting" taking place here. Dingers5Days (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I asked above, but got no reply. Why are we calling it the "Official" portrait? Is there any indication that the Trump campaign uses this image? Tduk (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  It his official White House photo. It doesn’t matter whether the campaign uses the photo. They are not constrained by copyright like we are. - JFHutson (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, I agree, except "official" has some implications to people coming to this unaware, as you can see from some of the comments above. This whole thing is obfuscated by having so many different photos, and labelling them differently in each post. I'd like for there to be a clear RFC but this isn't it imo. Tduk (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: regarding WP:NPOV, Since the competing opponents in the outlook use official photos, the official photo name is used as an option name to remind users about WP:NPOV. To ensure that Wikipedia articles can be edited fairly, there are many unofficial photos of Kamala, such as the unofficial photo option of Kamala mentioned above. Please make suggestions for these.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, part of the thing here is not so much that it is his official portrait, but that it is the only one that is *a* portrait at all: the photographer has set up a lighting rig, has the subject's attention, etc. The photographer would have taken a dozen or more shots, from which the best was selected. The others are candids - photos taken while the subject was doing something else. It naturally leads to a photo of lesser quality. The best examples will be from professionals looking to monetize their output, and thus not free to us. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Photographers who take pictures of the President or Vice President are likely to be among the most professional photographers. I remember an interview article with a photographer in Life magazine who said that he takes at least a hundred pictures from various angles to find the one best portrait. For this reason, it raises concerns about WP:NPOV that Wikipedia lists as having the same quality rating for a casual, candid, non-professional, non-photographic portrait and a professional portrait. WP:NPOV is understood to be a rule that should be adhered to, even if users and editors agree on it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I cannot follow your point. WP:NPOV has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. Choosing a better photo over a lessor one is not bias. The "official" is good because it's a professional portrait that Trump posed for in an ideal setting, and it's free because it is the work of the US government. It is difficult to find anything comparable that is free and of high quality, because Trump has not sat for a portrait, and those who are shooting him are not offering their work for free. Some do (such as Gabe Skidmore, who provided the 3 alternatives seen here). But the pool of available photos is reduced considerably by concerns of copyright. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment:I agree that selecting a higher-quality photo is not biased. My neutral point of view was that all presidential candidates should have equal access to high-quality images. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official - use official for both candidates. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I think if all the editors were to suggest using unofficial photos of both candidates, there are some good ones for Kamala, and the one example above is fine. It would create a strong image of her. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official - Yes - use official for both candidates.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: Please see the discussion on this I have made. I vote Neutral `Qutlooker (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Knowing these discussions, WP:MORATORIUM needs to be implemented. I would like to note that these discussions are one of the major reasons I added the {{round in circles}} template. Because I assume we'll end up with no consensus at the closing comment again. Qutlooker (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is consensus reached? Qutlooker (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think so; it may be worth thinking about changing it to the status quo which existed before the image was changed after this RFC was started. Tduk (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  The image before this RfC was started was the current official image photo. [[15]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral - Still don't have a preference to the image other than maybe changing the 2016 election article to use a pre-2017 image to avoid an issue of reusing the same official portrait three times. Following Qutlooker's comments, I am in favor of a moratorium until after November given that we have had similar RfCs that have failed to generate enough agreement on a preferred image. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I understand that some user's feedback for netural. I also agree with WP:MORATORIUM to some extent for this topic, and I think that they believe the WP Editors can concentrate on other beneficial topics to the voters of Presidential election this year. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Reason for deleting notavote and related records, RfC usually comes out at least 2-3 weeks after the result.However, I think it is unfair that a specific user interfered by inserting notavote just 48 hours before the official RfC voting started, thereby blocking the voting. * The notavote inserted by one user has been deleted. * If you want to insert notavote in the future, please mention the relevant WP regulations and detailed reasons to get the consent of other users. The related records are summarized below. :* 23:47, 2024-09-02 RfC created - Title: RfC Inforbox Main Trump Photo => * 3 September 2024 12:01 user:Legobot "rfc|pol|rfcid=506FBD" added RFC ID (official). ==> * 4 September 2024 21:24 user:Tduk added notavote. ==> 00:32, 9 September 2024 , user:Goodtiming8871 removed notavote ==> 9 September 2024, Notavote back as - as consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Goodtiming8871: I am very confused here by your second reply here. Are you trying to say I did something wrong or did you mean to reply to someone else? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: You have made your point clear, and I also understand your feedback about changing the photo of the 2016 election article to a pre-2017 image (or another official Trump photo, if we can find one). In short, your feedback is clear to me. Thank you for sharing your feedback and contributions to WP:community.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fine that my point is clear, but your point isn't to me. What is this "blocking the vote" mean? What are you saying about it being "unfair that a specific user interfered." You don't seem to mention me in your comment, but you replied again to your reply to me, so I am a bit confused here. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I agree with Super Goku V's sentiment, I don't think Trump should have the same three portraits for 3 very distinct presidential elections in a Row. 2016 Should be pre-presidency, 2020 should be official and 2024 should be option 1 or something during the campaign. Likewise it makes no sense for Biden to have a presidential portrait in 2020 when he was still a candidate. The presidential race should reflect an accurate image of the candidate from that year. It's also very likely when he loses he will run again in 4 years, and by that time the 2017 portrait will be more than a decade old. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I understand the second suggestion, aside from using the official photo, to be fair to both competitors, to stop the wasteful debate with WP:MORATORIUM and let WP: users focus on more productive things from a neutral standpoint. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I also agree with DimensionalFusion it doesn't make logical sense to have a 7+ year old picture of Trump when he's become much older in the time period. The difference between an nearly 80 year old man and a 70 year old man is huge. His face looks much older now, he uses a lot more bronzer, has a wrinkly neck, and lost about 20 pounds. His hair is also really thin and patchy, and he has fine lines all over his face, and rambles more incoherently. Trump can rarely keep a straight thought, or answer a question without rambling now. Trump is really showing his age in this election. Also the way the photo is shot the lightning is not really comparable to Harris'. For a good example, check out the 2004, 2008, 1972, 1968 presidential elections, where the photos are comparable68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:: I think User:jfhutson's comment is reasonable. When using official portraits, each presidential candidate looks more convincing and better than candid. Harris also looks younger and more vibrant than her current age(example - right), even though the regular unofficial photos had some advantages for her. If there is an RfC requiring both candidates to use unofficial photos, this could be an option as well. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The only thing we should care about in my personal opinion is if the image properly captures the subject tied to an event. In this case, I haven't see any issues with the images as they all look appropriate. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback about presidential images for both candidates. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

7 years is a long, long time. Most presidents go through significant greying and changes in appearance in just 4 years due to the stress! If Bush, Obama and Biden all have recent photos for their most recent elections, Trump should too. I think Harris' picture is fine, Trump's not so much. Seems like this article wants to be biased towards Trump. And sense Trump and Harris recently had a debate, it only make sense to capture what they look like more accurately in this election. And Trump looks very aged, and old, compared to the 2017 photo. Harris doesn't look like she aged to much sense 2021, however.

68.189.2.14 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Trump has aged in seven years. He does look noticably older now. Dhantegge (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official:: There is no compelling reason why Wikipedia should use the official portrait for one candidate and a candid for another. Both have served in executive office. Using their executive office portraits is appropriate. Given the contentious nature of the election and the tendency of Wikipedia to tilt left-of-center, applying the same standard for both photos seems to be the most neutral path. Jcgaylor (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comments: I appreciate your comment about the requirement of the photos that both candidates be held to the same standards. I believe that is a WP:NPOV principle. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I do not see the point in using the same image for the third election in a row. It was one of two official portraits - so? We don't have to keep re-using the same boring old portrait just because it was official. I would personally support any of the above except the official one. Trump is going to be an unusual figure in that he has been the nominee thrice in a row. His career outside office since 2021 has been notable enough to merit taking one of the convention photos from July and using it instead. Dhantegge (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment:I think Super Goku V 's opinion is also reasonable, the user's feedback about changing the photo of the 2016 election article to a pre-2017 image (or another official Trump photo, - there's another official photo, I noticed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Request for any change - Let's just replace the 2017 portrait. Take William Jennings Bryan, for instance. There were eight years' difference between 1900 and 1908, and we use different portraits of him for those respective articles. There's not a lot of variety of photographs from back then, hence why we have the repeat between 1896 and 1900. But, now we do have said variety. Undoubtedly someone will start a RfC to replace Kamala's portrait with her official Oval Office one should she win.

  Put it this way - if Trump looks older, if so much has changed between 2016, 2020, and 2024, and if we have a literal plethora of relevant images available, why would we maintain the old photograph for the third election in a row? Dhantegge (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's how it works. You have to get concensus first in order for a change to occur. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback and I agree with your opinion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  @InterDoesWiki But I am trying to get consensus? Dhantegge (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn't what you said/implied. A Request to Change is different from voting to Change. InterDoesWiki (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Change I agree with Super Goku V that recycling the same portrait for 3 elections in a row for 8 years is not ideal. An idea would be to change to his first presidential portrait, which coincided with his inauguration, for 2016.
  Even if that happened, I’d still agree with DimensionalFusion and Dhantegge that the 2017 portrait is too outdated to accurately represent him during this election, when he looks considerably different—significant weight loss that resulted in wrinklier skin, hair thinning, and a darker tan, to the point that his skin now looks copper-colored. GhulamIslam (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Yes, we have ample variety, and yet we insist on sticking with outdated rules, which don't apply to the infoboxes of elections in any other country. Dhantegge (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• CommentTrump's official portrait is 6 years old, twice as old as Kamala's official portrait. Trump has aged considerably since then, and the official image has become too outdated. But all the other proposed images look very bad, due to things like bad angles. I think the following image is the best for this EarthDude (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In response to user suggestions for using official or unofficial photos for the two presidential candidates, I have updated one example of Kamala's unofficial photo as an option in the future.Even unofficial photos can be preferred by some users because they give a sense of trust and make you look more experienced. However, since you can't hide your age with professional makeup like an official photo, the real age is exposed.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment While I agree that the official photo is just too old and that having the same image for three different election is odd, I also don't like the images for Trump, including the 2024 image; he's just not looking to the viewer, and the placing of the shoulders is uneven, which is why I propose that this August 2024 image by Skidmore is used. Smiling, even-shouldered, red-tied, and "aged" Trump; seems like it clears all the requirements. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 00:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Update: There was already an RfC form for replacing the infobox photo in 2016 United States presidential election. I thought it would be better to make it clear to users, so I updated the title to RfC. It seems reasonable to replace the 2016 United States presidential election photo with the proposed new photo. In the case of the 2024 presidential election, if President Trump is confirmed to be re-elected on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, a new official photo will be taken, so there will be another official photo option at that time, so it would be reasonable to replace it through RfC.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the one on the right looks good, having the same official portrait for 8 years in a row and then (potentially) 12 years in a row is bonkers. The difference between what a 70 year old man and an 82 year old man? And then if he loses again (likely) and runs again it'll be a 86 year old man with the same portrait, absolutely ridiculous, because of the "official portrait rule" which doesn't actually historical exist as people pointed out with William Jennings Bryan. ~~

  68.189.2.14 (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  As for the photo, there are a few unofficial photo options for Kamala. I think it would be fair to have both unofficial photos for both candidates and we could have RFCs for that. As for the election results, Previously, all major media outlets predicted Hillary would win in the 2016 election from reliable sources, but that was not the case. I think a lot of people are watching to see what the results will be on Tuesday, November 5, 2025.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2024 (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.

Should we merge 2024 debates with this article?

WP:DNFTT Qutlooker (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
108.5.216.21 (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC) Can you provide a reason why we should do that? This article seems long enough at the moment. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC) I think we should, and add it to the debates. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC) I think that keeping the 2024 debates as it is in the separate article could be easy to read. There are several Wikipedia articles on the topic if there is enough content.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Proper english please 27.33.134.168 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Please do not malign editors with limited English proficiency when their point is clear. I'm sure your Russian isn't nearly as good as their English. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove RealClearPolitics' vote predictions

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.

---

Currently, we've removed RealClearPolitics' vote predictions & state predictions from all articles except for the vote predictions on this one. Can someone do that? 27.33.134.168 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:25, 11 October 2024 (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.

typo

Leading campaign issues are abortion,[18][19][20] border security and immigration,[21][22] climate change,[23][24] democracy,[25][26] the economy,[27] education,[28] foreign "'policyand"" the Israel-Hamas War,[29 2607:FEA8:A4E2:7B00:6A84:23E9:37B9:BDF5 (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for informing us! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Change link to the Biden/Trump debate in the opening?

When going through the introduction, there is a mention of the debate between Biden and Trump, leading onto mentions of it exacerbating concerns about Biden's abolity to run a campaign. Right now, it links to a section of a general page on the 2024 debates relating to that debate. However, there's also a separate, distinct article on this. Would it be wise to change the link to the page itself, especially as there doesn't seem to currently be any discussions on removing or merging that page? Walpole2019 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There was such a discussion on another talk page, but it seems to have ended on the 4th with a split. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

In the independent candidates thing add Doctor Shiva Ayyaduri as a anti vaccine conservative running as independent 107.115.159.8 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Question: So from what I can see, he is only on seven state ballots per Ballotpedia and isn't eligible to serve as President. So, why exactly do we need to name him? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Based on a similar discussion, this won't be done. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Opinion polls table

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.

---

On the mobile Wiki, the opinion polls table is way bigger than it should be. It makes other things small. 31.217.17.204 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not seeing where other things are becoming smaller as a result, but I do see that it extends four columns too many. Not sure what the fix would be though as each forecast is only one column. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Narrow the columns, maybe? Use abbreviations, possibly use a colourcode of some sort, etc? 27.33.134.168 (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC) Stricken comment made in violation of WP:SOCK. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A colourcode would be frowned upon by WP:COLOR. Abbreviations and removing the year from the dates could be helpful. If there is no opposition to this, I will try it within the next 48 hours. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

We can use the ones provided by WP:COLOR 27.33.134.168 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Stricken comment made in violation of WP:SOCK. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The main problem is more, Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information.. If you would like to suggest what needs a legend, then I can consider making a change. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done Took me a bit longer to actually do the change due to forgetting briefly, but I have use abbreviations and keeping the dates simple to attempt to reduce the size of the table. Let me know if that works or if it is still too big. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is still too big. You could try making a table that one could slide, like the national polls table. – Odideum ^💬 19:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I took another look at in in mobile mode on desktop and I don't see where the nation polls table 'slides' at all. I was assuming there was a scroll bar or something and don't see it. Can you clarify what you mean? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I also tried to squeeze some more size out of it. Hopefully this gets it a bit closer. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2024 (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.

the US Vice Presidential Debate

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.

---

Can we add one or two more summaries to this article? If necessary, you can find other sources. I think it would be helpful to add the key parts to the WP related topic. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn't an important topic. All major pollsters concluded that the results were about even. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Stricken comment made in violation of WP:SOCK. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than trying to decide who wins, wouldn't it be more important to summarize the differences between the candidates' claims and the implications? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who watched it, there weren't any notable ones. In the presidential debate, we saw Trump claiming they were eating cats & dogs. Both Vance and Walz managed to evade this within their own debate, because they were reasonable. And as the guy 27.33 said above, the results were even, and didn't have any meaningful effect on the polls. 101.119.97.30 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved I added some more detail to the already existing VP debate sub-section in line with the other debate sub-sections. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Biden Photo

Should we use Biden's official portrait on the image under the infobox saying about his expiration date? G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Stricken comment made in violation of WP:SOCK. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Bush Jr. and Obama do have their official portraits under the infobox in elections they did not run. So I think you get the point. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Expiration date as in the end of his term? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove RealClearPolitics from polling.

RealClearPolitics has a strong Republican bias, and has been dumped by many major pollsters due to this. A great example is that Minnesota is listed by them as a toss up, despite no other pollster agreeing. The conservative bias is also acknowledged on the Wikipedia article about them. 101.119.162.78 (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) 18:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably true. Probably a good idea. Not sure what the current consensus is on this. Andre🚐 06:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to make a new bit here. Can we Please remove the %s for RealClearPolitics forecasts? They tip the averages by a good few tenths of a point. 101.119.102.25 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

All pools are biased, some pro Dem, some pro Rep. This is our reality. M.Karelin (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There are left-leaning polls, like YouGov, there are right-leaning polls, like Harvard/Harris. And then there are bad hack polls like Rasmussen and Trafalgar which can't be defended as having a coherent polling methodology. RCP is closer to the latter. However, I think we'd need a preponderance of evidence in reliable sources to consider downgrading RCP. Andre🚐 09:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

A few points then RCP has labelled Minnesota, a state regarded to be +6 democratic by all major pollsters, a 'tossup'. RCP has an incredibly strong lean. Looking at other Republican Lean's (CNAnalysis for example) shows this as they do not follow polling averages whatsoever. As mentioned above, Rasmussen Reports was removed due to bad methodology. A few sources here accuse RCP of bias/unreliability, and strong bias isn't good in polling. https://www.niemanlab.org/reading/real-clear-politics-was-a-trusted-go-to-source-for-unbiased-polling-the-trump-era-changed-its-tone-and-funding-sources/ https://adfontesmedia.com/realclear-politics-bias-and-reliability They disputed the results of the 2020 election, something no other pollster has done. That makes them more unreliable than not.

The argument that 'extreme democratic leans in polling means we shouldn't remove this' isn't a good excuse. I do think we should look into other pollsters, but this one seems most biased. 101.119.153.162 (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I second this. 120.19.186.242 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think both IPs have a good point. But I think we need some actual registered users to weigh in also. Andre🚐 23:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

the other two IPs are very similar, probably same account 120.18.94.230 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I seconded this for reference. 120.18.94.230 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I might agree with that. They also listed ME-1 District as Likely-D, while Harris is up around 20-25 points in that district. Oudomo (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

this is my IP. (was on holiday) 27.33.134.168 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I support removing. RCP has always had somewhat questionable standards for inclusion[16]. I've noticed them omitting polls without any particular reason and occasionally using a RV number when the preferable LV is available. While it is okay for aggregators to disagree on the structure of aggregations, the fact that their result always leans further to the right (their own position) than others is suspect, especially given a lack of transparency on their inclusion policy. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious if WP:RS applies here; if reliable sources included RCP as an aggregator, it may behoove us to include them as well. However, IMO, they are clearly a Republican outfit and their inclusion standards for polls reflect that. It's also worth distinguishing between polls and poll aggregators. RCP, like 538, doesn't really conduct polling, they just take an average of the polls. Dingers5Days (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If RS are using them along with peers in a "lay of the land" report such as [17], I would agree. But legitimate outfits will also use it to support a narrative they are pushing - see [18] - while ignoring contravening opinions. Personally, I think the only reason to list aggregators numbers is to reflect the true state of the polls from an objective perspective. Including someone who quite clearly has their thumb on the scale is not a service to our reader. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both of your thoughts Andre🚐 20:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

From WP:RSP: "There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided."

Sources labeled as fact-checkers or pollsters should have a pretty spotless reputation. I say leave them out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done (diff) Andre🚐 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose ban: It’s normal for polls to lean either Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. In addition to that, I haven’t seen any reliable, unbiased sources that have given concrete evidence that their polling methodology is based on anything unethical. RealClearPolitics has been widely cited in Wikipedia and elsewhere. It’s also a very well known poll aggregator. The decision to ban the site shouldn’t be taken lightly. CountyCountry (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, we aren't banning them, but the existing consensus at WP:RSP was to avoid their usage, so we're conforming with that. That was from 2021, so not a problem if you want to start a new thread at WP:RSN and have a new RFC on the reliability of RCP. For now though, ignoring the 2 IP editors, we have at least 3 editors asking to remove them, which is a good enough working consensus for the time being when combined with the precedent. Andre🚐 22:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t consider what we have as consensus. RCP’s polling aggregation has been used on many Wikipedia articles for at least several years now, and for most of the time there’s not much pushback (at least for the aggregates). You would need more support for removal to achieve consensus. My other point against removal is that we have other aggregates listed on Wiki articles. The results of these aggregates can be different, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The results for each aggregate can be used as comparisons and averaged as well. CountyCountry (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, technically, you are allowed to revert my change, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the 3 users above would revert that. But, I don't see that I need more support, unless there is someone else that agrees with you, since it's implementing an RSP consensus. Andre🚐 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus you mentioned said that RCP “should probably only be done with caution” and “there seems no reason to broadly label them as unreliable”[19]. The discussion on the site’s reliability was more about their political articles and not the polling aggregates. Even then, their polling aggregates can be used with caution on election articles. As I have stated before, readers can compare polling aggregate results on the articles. They can compare what RCP’s numbers look like vs the other aggregates. You need more consensus to remove RCP polls. CountyCountry (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is very little commentary from WP:RS on the bias of RCP's polling averages, as you point out. NYT has 2 articles where they quote analysts who argue RCP is biased, but I have not seen any other outlets discussing this. [20] [21] Dingers5Days (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, you forgot to remove their actual polling by %. But that helps a lot. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Would be a bad move. Plus, there's no consensus. CountyCountry (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think looking into DDHQ/The Hill might be worthwhile too, they have extreme Democratic leans. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

”Extreme Democratic leans” doesn’t mean their polling results should be removed.CountyCountry (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Update;

I've removed RCP's predictions & polling in all states which are dodgy (Minnesota, Wisconsin, NC, etc) so then it isn't counted into the averages. The problem is, the averages refuse to update. Can someone fix this? 14.203.148.107 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The averages don't update automatically. I can work on it, but may not have time to complete it quickly, in case others want to jump in. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I usually don't update the averages, just pundits polling. I just let someone do the Mean calculations and update it. Oudomo (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I updated and recalculated the numbers. The numbers didn’t change much. CountyCountry (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@CountyCountry

I'm the 101.119 guy, why you removing all my posts??? And who is I would be bias if it was allowed??? 220.240.171.237 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Responded to on my talk page. You seem very suspicious. CountyCountry (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose downgrade: as it's combination of Democratic and Republicans polls, I think that we should receive more feedbacks before deciding it. E.g. feedback timeline for minimum one or two weeks. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

These aren't partisan polls. RealClearPolitics might as well be. 120.19.139.231 (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Point of order We're not talking about polls, we're talking about aggregators. Polls can be partisan, and aggregation is used to level off the data. Some explicitly account for partisan lean, some weigh for reliability. But other than RCP, all apply a logical and consistent policy with the intent of producing objective results. No other aggregator has been accused (let alone credibly) of a partisan lean. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hence the removal. We should also remove the raw polls (the ones displaying percentages and not states) by RCP, as they're both disproportionately tipping the average. It'll be hard to do it in other articles, but I can do those. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that many of the IP users here seem to be from the same people.:

• 101.119.153.162, 101.119.162.78, 120.19.186.242, and 120.19.139.231 are Australian IPs that geolocated to a very similar area.
• 27.33.134.168 and 120.18.94.230 are Australian IPs that geolocate to the same area.

If you are an IP user, please use the same IP. If you use multiple IP accounts, that will create the illusion that you are more than one participant in the discussion. CountyCountry (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I was on holiday and therefore was using the three 120 ones, but 27, 101, and the other 101 aren't mine. I actually sent a thing saying that I was the one who originally said 'I second this.' 27.33.134.168 (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Mind you, my old Wikipedia account was banned and I couldn't figure out how to appeal. That was a long time ago though, and I haven't needed a new one. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait, so you are saying that the "27" IP isn't yours, but you are commenting using the "27" IP. That doesn't add up. Plus, having a blocked account and not knowing how to appeal isn't excuse for using an IP account. This is a clear case of block evasion. CountyCountry (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm dumb. I meant that one of the 120s wasn't mine, not the 27. Sorry for the confusion. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I am 27 as well, it's just that I'm not at my house, and will start removing RCP predictions from articles immediately. 2001:4479:6201:B00:21F9:EED1:C74D:6986 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would, but for some reason, my wifi is dodgy & my phone changes often bc of data stuff and the fact I'm gonna swap off Vodafone onto Telstra (Am Australian) 14.203.148.107 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You’re not alone. Coincidentally (?), there is another Australian IP user that had to use multiple IPs because they claimed they aren’t at their house. Also, I think it’s interesting (fun fact) to note that all of the IPs that have participated in this discussion are Australian IPs. If many of these IPs are independent of each other, then what a coincidence and what are the chances? Not only that, but they are all adamant about banning RCP polls. One of the IPs even went as far to say that Decision Desk aggregates should be removed. Anyways…one of them has removed RCP polls despite the fact that there is no consensus to overturn the long-running status quo. And also the whole process was unusually quick. I oppose removing RCP aggregates and my reasoning is earlier in the discussion. I have much more pressing issues off-wiki, and so I don’t plan on engaging in disputes, either in talk pages (I’ve already made multiple comments explaining my reasoning) or in the form of reverts. I’m busy off-wiki. I will definitely continue to update other aggregates. CountyCountry (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This comment shows bad faith for at least 6 different reasons, but lets just start with the fact that RCP was not removed by an IP, it was removed by Andre (who added a comment saying they did so!). An IP could not edit the article because of the ECP. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You have made a number of accusations against me, so I must respond. I’ll try to make this as short as possible. For your first point, I respectfully recommend you to read this guideline. For your second accusation that I was lying, please view [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], and [29], and [30]. They've also claimed that there’s consensus to remove the Cook Political Report, even though there hasn’t even been any discussion on it![31] CountyCountry (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

well, as for myself, I am:

27

Two of the 120s

The weird IP (2001:etc:etc)

I'm not the post maker though. But I suspect I'm one and the two 101s are the other person. The fact they also have very similar IPs (same first 5 numbers) is even more in favour of that. 14.203.148.107 (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably the last time I will say this, but please use one IP address. Using multiple IPs may make the whole discussion unorganized and confusing if multiple IPs are from one person. If you’re unable to use one IP, then just make an account. Very simple. If you’re the one that said that their old account is blocked, then get that issue settled first before editing. CountyCountry (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In all that diff research, did you bother to look for the one you were actually talking about: [32]. Hey, look at that! You were lying! Maybe you should focus on those pressing off-wiki activities. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t even talking about that diff at all. I was already aware of that diff you just showed. Just look at my discussion earlier in the thread. Anyways…I was referring about the state page diffs because that is usually where I edit. Plus, the vast majority of the RCP removals on any of the election articles were done by the IPs. Don’t put words in my mouth! CountyCountry (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• The WP:RSP entry for RealClearPolitics, at least, does not imply confidence, so yes, it probably shouldn't be used if we're just citing it as the primary source. If we're citing other pollsters people object to we should also discuss their objections, but the issue with RCP isn't that it's biased, it's that there's reason to believe that its bias is interfering with its accuracy. The fact that other high-quality sources are excluding their polls also suggests that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy where polling is concerned. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm no professional Wiki editor, so forgive me if I'm replying in the wrong place, but how do the other aggregates, several if not all of which have bias, not get the same treatment? Why wouldn't it be that their biases affect their accuracy, and how do we know that RCP is the one that's off? From what I've seen, RCP hasn't even been that far off from the other aggregates' data. I'm not suggesting RCP is unbiased; it certainly has bias. But then, so do the other aggregates, and if they have bias, then that bias is in one way or another going to affect their polling data and/or aggregate methods. Also, fact-checking and accuracy in polling? We don't know if a poll is accurate until the election, and if you're talking about the crosstabs of a poll being way off, then most of the other aggregates include plenty of those polls as well. We should be including both right-leaning aggregates and left-leaning aggregates. Redguy07 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  The bias is far more extreme with RCP, and they have credible claims against them, as well as also being the only aggregator that claims that the Republican Party won the 2020 election. They also have suspicious records on their state classifications (Likely D for a +25 district in maine) and marked Minnesota, a state that's +6D, a tossup. They also have suspiciously low predictions for almost all of Harris' election % wins, putting her at +2.2, which is nearly a point under the adjusted average without it counted. The only other aggregator/predictor with this much bias could also be CNN, as they're significantly underpredicting some states, but it's not a difference of marking Minnesota a tossup. RCP has Pennsylvania, a state marked as +1 by other aggregators, as polling towards Republicans. They put it at +0.1R before I removed it. They use very dodgy methods and are the only aggregator that has very partisan leans. Therefore, I want their % aggregations gone from the main article as well, as it'll fix the averages so then it's not as Republican-leaning. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  First they came after Rasmussen because of "rep bias", even tough they predicted Biden last election, but I was silent. Next they came after 538 because of "rep bias", even tough they predicted both Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020, but I was silent. Then they came after RCP because of "rep bias" and not showing their candidate up like others (the biggest hypocrisy being the fact RCP shown Harris being up most of the time, only recently having her score down, why weren't you removing them back then? I guess RCP was okay for liberals when they shown their candidate up in bigger numbers).

  Don't you see the pattern here? I may not agree with Dem bias polls (Susquehanna, Bloomberg, etc...), which I see there a lot, but I won't be removing them like we are in some Nazi Germany no other information or what. What next will be removed because of muh candidate isn't up and reality isn't always sunshine and rainbows? 2A01:C846:3A81:1500:203D:8011:7472:CABB (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice: 27.33.134.168 is User:I would be bias if it was allowed, an indef blocked account. The IPs that they use are socks and their contributions and talk page comments should be reverted and striked respectively. CountyCountry (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with talk page comments, but they seemed to not have harmful contributions to anything 220.240.171.237 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of RCP... The suggestion is total nonsense... --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: can I ask you why you think it's nonsense? Great Mercian (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Was the reliability of RCP ever discussed and if so where? Governor Sheng (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is where. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, support removing RCP. This isn't as simple as "some aggregators are Dem-leaning or Rep-leaning", it's inclusion breaks WP:RSP. We've wasted way too much time fretting about IPs and not enough time addressing the actual problem. Great Mercian (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this (as an IP) 220.240.171.237 (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

IPs or socks aside, several real users expressed support for removing it. Myself, GreatCaesarsGhost, Aquillion, Valjean, and Great Mercian, and possibly support from Oudomo. With Governor Sheng, Goodtiming8871, Redguy and CountyCountry against. I wasn't sure of Dingers5Days if that is a oppose or support removal or M.Karelin. Anyone else besides some IP or socks? No offense guys if you are a not socking IP. Andre🚐 08:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

None taken. I must say it's quite annoying when people mistake me for the other person. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Popular Vote...

Are we going to reference the 2008 election, for the third time? It's getting kind of tired at this point. Every more recent election is bound to have higher vote totals due to increasing population. They will both likely get over 70 million votes, I don't think it's reasonable to reference 2008, once again.Joe Biden got the most votes in history, that doesn't need to be qualified ~ 68.189.2.14 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you rephrase your point? This article does not mention 2008 a single time, nor does it include the word "popular." Joe Biden is not a candidate in this election, and was only a VP candidate in 2008. I have literally no idea what you are saying. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: Do not post early calls or vote numbers until confirmed.

Again, I'll be monitoring this page on the week of Election Day. Many states have already begun early voting.

The page is extended confirmation protected, but still, we will not post or display calls for states (i.e. color in states red or blue) until there is widespread consensus. This is particularly applicable to swing states.

Wikipedia must be reliable, and our goal is not to be the first to call the winner or providing information as fast as possible. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The consensus is 3+ major sources (i.e. ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC) for light red/light blue on the map; all 5 sources for dark blue/dark red on the map and for the infobox tally. What do you think about my proposal for creating a whole new template for the infobox? If we keep the infobox on this article, each user will only be allowed 1 revert on Election Night, which will make it harder to enforce consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point we need a custom edit notice for this page. We have statements like these that should be noted as a edit notice. Qutlooker (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I support a custom edit notice. How do we create one? Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

On the Sunday of the election, for at least the entire week, the notice will be up. We may need a custom edit notice--we may have to make a template/banner for this specifically. I will make a thread or group of threads (i.e. one for each swing state) for us to get consensus from 3 & 5 major sources. This is one rough draft JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should be more specific: “Do not post calls for states until ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC unanimously make a projection”. The 3+ source criteria only applies to the map on Commons; whereas Wikipedia is only concerned with unanimity as far as the inclusion criteria is concerned. Prcc27 (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of that for the swing states and potentially other relatively competitive states--i.e. those that were won by less than 10% in 2020. For most safe states, I think 3 sources is enough to do light red/blue on the map. Proposed notice:

The current criteria is to do lighter shades for any state with 3 or 4 projections from one of the 5 sources. We do not need to make a distinction between swing and non-swing states. Prcc27 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800: You might need to make an edit request here Prcc27 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia has no time limit. Only states should be colored when all major sources call it. cookie monster 755 15:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead proposal

First, go further in depth about the issues of the election, maybe try to highlight some specific ones like abortion, border, etc. like other election articles. Then, move the criticism of Trumps comments to the end of the section, so that it isn’t harping on him but just part of the issues of the election anyway. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that abortion, border are the major parts for this election topics. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

“Will be”

Is there a reason why the article says “will be…” when this election is technically already taking place in states that allow early voting? I think a note should be added that it is an ongoing election in some states. cookie monster 755 15:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a note next to "will be" saying early voting has begun in several states. I think the intention was for the page to make it very clear when the technical election day is, but I added the note to reflect a more accurate picture. Catboy69 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I support this wording. I'll add on the Sunday, November 3rd. The banner will stay on for the entire week. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding that now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it is needed until actual Election Day. The information regarding the election is nowhere near in flux as it will be on the 5th. Prcc27 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Liberal agenda

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.

---

Love how it’s so focused on trumps flaws but ignores Harris and her nonsense 98.18.15.201 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What well sourced flaws of Harris' are omitted? HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For one, her attempt while she was Attorney General of California to keep nonviolent offenders in prison past their sentences in order to get cheap labor. This is easily verifiable. 2620:0:5080:160:898A:D471:2B14:C6F3 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No sources, no edits, and don't ask other editors to do your work. And free prison labor is not usually considered a "liberal agenda." Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. 2620:0:5080:160:898A:D471:2B14:C6F3 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Bias

In the section about Harris and President Trump’s debate, you use CNN as a source multiple times for important information. Wikipedia is not biased, CNN is. What has happened to Wikipedia? Shameful 108.24.127.83 (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. CNN is a reliable source. BootsED (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

CNN having a left-wing bias has nothing to do with anything. Several right-leaning sources are also used. Yavneh (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

When CNN has a left-wing bias, what other news sources with a right-wing bias are used in this article? e.g. fox news. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, CNN is a reliable source. Fox News Politics is an unreliable source, and should not be used. Wikipedia should not add unreliable, non-high quality sources just because one believes they provide "balance" to viewpoints, as this would break WP:RS and WP:FALSEBALANCE. BootsED (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

bias

why is criticism over trump's campaign so rampant compared to kamala harris's? this article doesnt go in depth at all about how she was not elected by her party and yet focuses on anti-trump rhetoric, just an example of Ideological bias on Wikipedia really Benga502 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are free to add content to the article that criticizes Harris, provided it has reliable sources. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I think we need to add an FAQ. This question has been answered multiple times. Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I added an FAQ, same answer as the FAQ in the Donald Trump talk page, because most NPOV disputes are about content relating to Trump, with some also about Harris. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (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.

Add a median and/or mean state prediction

In the state prediction tables, I've noticed that there seems to be a bunch of different pollsters predicting a bunch of different things.

I had an idea for this.

Could we possibly implement a median system? I'll explain this Let's give an example The state 'Wellington' is a Solid Purple state according to GenericPollster1 (+3) The state 'Wellington' is a Likely Green state according to PollingWithNobody (-2) The state 'Wellington' is a Tossup according to ICantFindAName (0) This would mean that the state would be marked as a tossup by the median table.

The other idea would be making a mean of that.

So, you'd have +3, -2, and 0. The mean would be 1, therefore the prediction would be Lean Purple (+1 according to this calculation). A few notes. +1 would be lean D, -1 would be lean R +2 would be Likely D, -2 would be Likely R. +2.5 would be Very Likely D, -2.5 would be Very Likely R +3 would be safe/solid D, -3 would be safe/solid R.

Tell me what you think of this idea. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

the polls are all over the place and I'd like to see a smoothing as you propose, but I think it would be original research. simple arithmetic operators aren't OR, but I figure median or mean are. soibangla (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

then why not get simple arithmetic operators? 220.240.171.237 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

After the election, we can calculate the tipping-point state, closest states, and median state. Since Washington, DC is a "state" for the EC, the median state is the 26th state out of 51.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we ban IPs?

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.

---

This is not a joke, we have already had several things of IP spam and Sockpuppetry here. I believe we add protection to this page. Qutlooker (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I second adding page protection to this talk page. BootsED (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I also found out that there are anti-Trump or anti-Harris IP users and some of them are Sockpuppetry. For example, anti-Trump IP users (or anti-Harris Users) using Sockpuppetry have previously distracted other real user's contributions with their IPs. - e.g. the_US_Vice_Presidential_Debate[[33]]

Hopefully, genuinely constructive IP users will be able to express their opinions on this talk pages but, we need to block spam IPs with Sockpuppetry. I think it would be inconvenient, but helpful to the spirit of Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It'd be very inconvenient for me to make an account. Should I make one nonetheless? 220.240.171.237 (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To specify:

I don't have a personal email (I'm a bit of a hermit in real life) therefore my contributions would therefore be likely to get lost if I leave my work. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend suggesting it at WP:RFPP, though they usually don't lock down talk pages. For examples of successful requests, here are two recent ones: 1 & 2. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have requested one, will see what happens. Qutlooker (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2024 (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.

Add more information about Harris in lead.

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.

---

There’s 10 sentences related to Trump in the lead of this article, and three sentences about Harris. I think there should be more info about Harris (and maybe less about Trump) to balance out the information. The notable things about this election have not just been about Trump, but about Harris too. Cleebadee (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2024 (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.

Trump vs. Harris details in the lead

Reading the lead of this article for the first time, and I'm struck that there are an awful lot of details about things Trump has said and done since 2020, but almost no details about Harris. The paragraph on Trump is indeed a bit jarring to read not because the lead doesn't include negative material about Harris but because the lead includes so much about him (all negative, though I wouldn't argue for WP:FALSEBALANCE) and doesn't include any material, positive or negative, about Harris. The second paragraph needs an overall summary of the character of Harris's campaign.

Then, along the lines of the suggestion above, it could use more information about platforms. It's a long article; the lead could be longer. I thought about taking a stab at this stuff, but figure it might've come up before. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Any reader(or those in the distant future) wanting a quick rundown of both candidates will be left disappointed. The paragraph about Trump is longer than the rest of the lead itself. Some elements could be merged (like "false statements" and "conspiracy theories" as well as "unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history and a continued breaking of political norms"). A paragraph about Harris campaign can be added as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27: closed this section because it's "already being discussed in the section above". Presumably, since you didn't actually specify a section, you're talking about the "bias" section? I've reopened it because bias is not the subject of this section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the bias in lead once again section. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Mixed: I do think we should add a bit more about Kamala's campaign, about anything that may be of note. However, I also do think that if Trump takes up half the section and it's not erroneous nor repetitive, then it shouldn't be changed. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I sort of feel like the info about Harris in the opening section dives into minutiae that doesn't really feel like it belongs in an opening section (which should summarize the topic), like her interview on fox news. Some of the criticisms of her seem to be stated as objective and seem poorly written and/or vague, and there are formatting issues.

"Her speech sounds like “word salad.”"

"and that she would show new ideas and experiences."

" Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes." with spaces between the cite notes

It can be argued for like others have that there needs to be more balance in the mentioning of the issues that the candidates have, but it seems a little sloppy with Harris. WWWHHHHYYYYYY (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In an effort to move forward, I made a bold edit to the lead, with changes detailed in the edit summary. Main goal was to address the above. IMO it still needs another good sentence about Trump between Trump's campaign is focused on economic nationalism, deregulation, and a strong anti-immigration stance. and His campaign has been noted for making many... Maybe something about him defending his record while in office? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you. The lead is supposed to be a summary, your edits were too verbose. We already have a paragraph saying which campaign issues are going to be important for the election. Information on what the candidates’ views are on these issues can be found in the body paragraphs. The reason why there is a lot of focus on Trump, is because it is WP:DUE to focus on prominent controversies. Is there a prominent controversy of Harris? Anyways, this section is redundant, please refrain from duplicate discussions, and take your concerns to the relevant section above. Prcc27 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE in the lead is based on what's in the body. Hoping to get additional perspectives on whether this is an improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That is better contents and improved part for this article. In particular, if we summarize the content a little more, I think the core parts will be conveyed better.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance cannot be changed by user agreement. In particular, there was no agreement that issues held by Harris, which have various reliable sources, should not be included in the Lead section, and only Trump's issues should be included. I think it is against the spirit of Wikipedia to demand an agreement that issues held by Harris, which are mentioned in prominent sources such as CNN and VOX, should not be included in the Lead section. Please improve the contents that I updated summarized in the lead sectionGoodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in this article.

@Prcc27, Personisinsterest, GoodDay, Rhododendrites, Czello, BootsED, Aquillion, Super Goku V, Andrevan, Yavneh, HiLo48, Ca, and WWWHHHHYYYYYY: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the Bias in lead once again section above. BootsED (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

At least it was. Seems like that discussion has died down in favor of discussing it here as the last post there was five days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed since last time. We have put the relevant information in the lede. We summarize[d] the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It still cannot be helped that a political party and their candidate for office had a number of prominent controversies related to the prior election.

Regarding the paragraph, I don't see it covering any prominent controversies. Part of the problem seems to be that two of the sources were the same week Harris' campaign for president started and four sources were about her recent interview with Fox News. On that last subject, I am disappointed in seeing another attempt to use Fox News as a reliable source despite WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. It was brough up last month, Goodtiming8871. As a reminder for the future, Fox News is not reliable for politics and is not a reliable source.

I will add that if it is clear that there are prominent controversies involving Harris, then they need to be included. But I am struggling to see that here. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

(Suggested part on article) Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, with her background as a prosecutor, has been criticized as a very poor communicator when it comes to expressing policies on many important issues. Her speech sounds like “word salad.” For example, she struggles to present her vision for the country to voters on how to improve their lives. Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office, as well as issues with her leadership, also raise concerns about Harris’ management style. However, Harris said she would demonstrate a leadership style different from Joe Biden’s in an interview with Fox News, a conservative channel that Democrats have previously avoided, and that she would show new ideas and experiences.

Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her. For example, the United States has failed to stop Iran from raising funds for aggression to other countries for the past four years. Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes.

Hello @Prcc27: I am asking about your claim that only very important controversies should be included in the lead, but generally, important controversies that voters can base their choice of the US president on should be excluded, or can only be included through the agreement of other users, which means that important controversies about Harris will eventually not at all be included in the lead.

Was there an agreement through RfC that only very important controversies should be included in the lead, and even if they are important controversies for voters about Harris that voters can base their choice on, they can only be excluded from the lead or can only be included through the agreement of other users? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I usually try to stay away from these 'too-negative' description for Trump/'too-positive' description for Harris, content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Lead part, which currently lists more than 10 negative things about Trump, big or small,

Regarding Harris, wouldn't it be fair to the voters to list all three or at least one major issue about Harris's past 10 years or more that could actually influence voters' choice of U.S. president, and let them know that Harris has several or at least one flaw?

In Wikipedia's summary of the election that determines the future of the United States, which should be recorded fairly, it is unfair that only one candidate's flaws are listed, and the other candidate Harris is recorded as if she is perfect and has no flaws at all. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to balance the lead, in any way you see fit. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Fairness has nothing to do with it. WP:RS determines what is included on the page. The fact that one candidate has numerous controversies and RS detailing them does not mean the page should be "balanced" to be "fair" to the other candidate as that would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We also have several RS detailing the historic nature of Trump's controversies in the election, from his criminal record to his authoritarian statements and rhetoric. We don't have anything comparable with Harris' campaign. None of the sources you have provided are about an actual controversy regarding the Harris campaign. BootsED (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

”Harris… has been criticized as a very poor communicator” Being a “poor communicator” isn’t a controversy, even if it was, we would probably actually need to mention Trump’s linguistic pitfalls. ”Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office”. I have never heard of this “controversy”, but again, what about Trump’s staff turnover rate? I’m pretty sure Trump’s turnover rate is a more well known controversy (which by the way we don’t even mention in the lead). ”Kamala Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her”. This is based on an unreliable source called Israelhayom? We have already explained to users like you why we do not have anything “negative” about Harris in the lead. And quite frankly, I’m too exhausted to repeat myself. Prcc27 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, they are called Israel Hayom. Currently, both the .com version and the co.il version appear on over 600 articles each with some article using both for references. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

In relation to this, isn't it in line with the founding spirit of Wikipedia that Wikipedia editors should list the three major weaknesses of Harris, based on reliable evidence, that could allow voters to judge whether Harris is a person who can do a good job as president, whether Harris is directly or indirectly responsible for the war in the Middle East and how she will handle it in the future? The language can be softened by referring to the above-mentioned content.

For the past 10 years or more, 1) Harris has frequently changed her words and has difficulty establishing and implementing specific policies, 2) leadership in organizational management, and 3) verification of her role as the second most powerful person in the United States for the past four years and her promise to do a good job in the future. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Let’s assume the source is reliable. It would still be WP:UNDUE to edit the article based on 1 source. Blaming her for a war when she is the vice-president, not the president, is bizarre. I’m not entertaining this discussion any further unless there is a real, well sourced controversy. Prcc27 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to "balance" content on a page to appear neutral. If the majority of reliable sources describe someone as a liar, the page will reflect this. It is not the job of editors to "balance" the page as this would be the introduction of editorial bias. Wikipedia goes on what the majority of what RS says, we do not "balance" content as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. BootsED (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• I mean, WP:FALSEBALANCE also applies to total coverage, not just to negative vs. positive coverage. The due weight for how much we discuss Trump vs. discussing Harris is based on coverage; it's possible that there is simply a lot more coverage of Trump, which means you'd expect an article about the election to devote a ton of text to him and much less to Harris. We could look up coverage of Harris and then weigh it against what's already in the article to make sure our balance is in the right place, but intuitively it's not surprising that there would be more coverage of Trump. (The fact that Harris only became the candidate near the end of the campaign also contributes, of course, and isn't really something with any precedent - it is possible our balance is off as an artifact of that and the article just needs to be updated to reflect recent coverage, but it's also possible that that just means there is less coverage of stuff that Harris did before she became the nominee, which we can only reflect.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Pov-pushing false balance

Can someone please remove the POV-pushing, anti-Harris paragraph in the lead? It was re-added by a user that is not following WP:BRD. Now the lead has a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even if we were to add Harris’s weakness in the lead, obviously using wikivoice is inappropriate per WP:YESPOV. Not to mention, their edit disregards WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Prcc27 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The election is LESS THAN THREE WEEKS AWAY. WE CANNOT BE DOING THIS. "Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, with her background as a prosecutor, has been criticized as a very poor communicator when it comes to expressing policies on many important issues. Her speech sounds like “word salad.” For example, she struggles to present her vision for the country to voters on how to improve their lives. Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office, as well as issues with her leadership, also raise concerns about Harris’ management style. However, Harris said she would demonstrate a leadership style different from Joe Biden’s in an interview with Fox News, a conservative channel that Democrats have previously avoided, and that she would show new ideas and experiences. Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her. For example, the United States has failed to stop Iran from raising funds for aggression to other countries for the past four years. Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes." Personisinsterest (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is a terrible, unencyclopedic paragraph. I wish I could revert it myself, but we are under WP:1RR (which I am not happy about). Prcc27 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted it. Goodtiming8871, do not edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There was no agreement that only one of the two major candidates could be criticized, and that the other candidate could not be edited even if there was a reliable source. I suggest that you include some more refined sentences from reliable sources such as CNN and VOA, and I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion on the relevant parts on the Talk Page above. [[34]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was only significant controversies should be included in the lead. None of the sentences you added were significant Harris controversies. Prcc27 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will respond to your feedback through the talk created above regarding your opinion. If there are duplicate or related titles, please respond through the talk page we started first. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We cover things according to the balance of how they are covered in mainstream media, not based on putting our thumb on the scale to make it 50-50. And when it comes to the lead in particular, this means the lead should reflect the body (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), which in turn covers the best sources in accordance to their weight. Or, put more simply - would you assert that the media, overall, has been equally critical of both candidates? If not, our article shouldn't be expected to be equally critical, either; and no matter how you feel about that coverage, trying to "correct" it here by putting undue emphasis on criticism of one candidate relative to how much overall coverage it makes up would be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In the article body, we have eg. an entire Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump section, an Election interference section, an Age and health concerns section, and lots of details in the Campaign themes section; all of these reflect major aspects of coverage of the race and therefore need to be covered in the lead. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE to look at that and then dig up every single criticism you can find about one candidate, no matter how obscure or unique to a single source, and cram it into the lead in an effort to produce a "balance" that doesn't represent coverage overall. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)