Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Trump image RfC

Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article: Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Screw it, let's use his mugshot. Goes hard and is also quite recent. Buildershed (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Updated: five more options - Option E ,Option F ,Option G ,Option H and ,Option I - total five additional choices. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• A - A seems to be sufficient enough, I don't see why we need to change it, it looks recent enough. I would note though that none of these pictures seem inaccurate enough to not serve the general purpose.

MaximusEditor (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option F

I want to laugh whenever I come to this article, because American politics has become a circus. Buildershed (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Option F is okay for me as long as Trump is smiling. my 2nd preference is option C Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump infobox images

• 
  Option A (Current infobox image)
• 
  Option B (Nominated for deletion)
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option C (Cropped)
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E
• 
  Option F
• 
  Option G
• 
  Option H
• 
  Option I

They're 5 years old. What's the point when we have suitable options A and C from just last year? GhulamIslam (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

While the 2017 photo is a bit dated, the 2019 photo offers a more recent and positive representation (it was taken just one year ago). Compared to the frowning 2023 option, the smiling 2019 image feels more fitting for an official photo.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option B: it is a recent photo, and it looks more presidential. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close: A discussion on this was just opened above and thus WP:RFCBEFORE hasn't been satisfied. Let people try to reach a consensus before starting an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  There are actually several sections open, and it is becoming very difficult to try to discuss and form a consensus. Better to centralize the discussion into an RfC. We typically decide photos via RfC anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Tend to agree. Multiple discussions (mostly among the same handful of people) about what amounts to the same thing but not producing a clear and actionable consensus, isn't helpful. RfCs are useful for several things, and agreeing on the best option among a choice of available photos is often one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  My bad. I missed the 4/8 discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• B as first choice, A as second. C looks ridiculous. A is arguably a better picture from a portrait perspective, but has distracting background elements. B doesn't have those, and is a reasonably good as a portrait, and is not a silly, hammy thing like C, so let's use that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  PS: The later-added F and H also look fine (though the images need cropping, especially H). PPS: The even more newly added option I would also work, but should be cropped; it's very smiley, but looks much less fake or leering than several of the others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding C, Biden and Kennedy both have the same fulsome smile in their photos, it's fine from a portrait perspective. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Trump just looks like he's faking it when he does it. F & H are more natural-looking smiles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• B or C are equally fine for me. "A' looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy, but we're supposed to be neutral here, for almost anyone that means using a positive-looking picture when one is available. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• A or C - The lighting on B doesn't look good for an infobox. Longestview (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B is the cleanest looking. There's no guideline relating to the lighting of photographs in infoboxes. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• A: It is somewhat recent with it being 9 months old and, in my opinion, looks visually pretty good with him not having a awkward smile and is well lighted. B is not a bad pick but it is soon to be 1 year and 9 months old, so this is an important reason why I am holding this option back Punker85 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think it has to be that recent, after all, Biden’s presidential portrait is older (2021). I think the main argument with regards to recent photos was that Trump’s 2017 portrait was way too old for an infobox in 2024. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• A or B. C just looks ridiculous, as User:SMcCandlish said. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B. He has a more neutral expression. Senorangel (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) After the update with additional options, D seems to be the best photo overall. Senorangel (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• If I had to choose a photo of Donald Trump, I would still choose his main presidential portrait, but if one of the three above is complete, B would be better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B. C looks very unnatural, as said by many people. While A Isn't really Presidential like. InterDoesWiki (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option C. Most representative of how he currently looks, especially in regard to his weight loss, and the best match with Biden's picture out of the three. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The new “option D” is not good; eyes looking away from camera, mic in the way, head slanted. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• A - used in our article for the Republican primaries. In B he's blending into the background chameleon-style and C and D are fairly poor. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B - neutral expression, portrait-style. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B — neutral, non-distracting. A would be my second choice (per Herostratus: "[A] looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy"...) and C is my last choice, as it looks entirely ridiculous. What's a picture from, the dentist's office? Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B per reasoning given by other editors here. It definitely should not C. KlayCax (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B - seems quite moderate looking, to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or a more recent photo of him from his trial. He looks pale and sickly in B and not his usual orange self! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• A because C and D are poor for reasons others have mentioned, whereas B makes Trump blend in. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Option B is currently nominated for deletion, which could impact this RfC. [1] Prcc27 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume That is going to be the deciding factor, because it seems more than a majority have reached a consensus on using B, though the RFC is still ongoing. InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• A first choice, D second choice. There's too much shadow in B and C looks a bit goofy. Some1 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A first choice, B second choice if B is not deleted. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A is my only choice. B is too shadowy, C is too smiley, D has a mic in the way and his head is slanted head, so those are out of the question IMHO.
  Which is not to say there can't be some other picture E which is better than any of these, but that's a bit besides the point.
  Subjectively, A also seems more representative of his personality—which precise adjectives it conveys is left as an exercise to the reader, as different people may assign positive or negative ones, but in any event it is very, very much a quote-unquote "Trump" look
  167.88.84.136 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A. B's nominated for deletion, C looks ridiculous, and his head is cockeyed in D. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  @JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333: In the event that B does not get deleted, would you still prefer A? Prcc27 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm...like others said, B does seem pretty shadowy. Yes, I would still prefer A. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• A is the best option here. C and D have downsides, A does not; it's neutral. I was going to add that the lighting on B is a tad dramatic, but seems like we don't need to worry about that anymore. TheSavageNorwegian 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we should assume Option B is an option if/until it is actually deleted, but of course users that prefer option B should have a backup option just in case. Prcc27 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's a fairly open and shut case. The user uploaded a number of Getty images because he did not misunderstand the license, and they are subsequently getting pulled. There is zero reason to think we would retain it. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. But as of now, it has not yet been deleted. Prcc27 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• A - For the high visibility contrast. B looks likely to be deleted, but is also low contrast and fades into the background. C is ridiculous and objectively doesn't even look like the subject. D would be my second choice. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Updated opinion with new options added: Expressly unchanged, adding that for all options added (E-I) are not as good as option A or D, primarily because the lighting is really bad. E also has another ridiculous facial expression which makes it inappropriate. The contrast for F, G, and H is so bad that he basically whites-out into the background. I is slightly better in this regard, but only slightly... it's also too small, and the straight face-on angle does not accurately reflect his appearance. And because it's come up a few times, I agree that his official portrait should not be used. Fieari (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• C “a photo of Donald Trump with a warm smile instills hope. I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024. However, if Photo C is not chosen, could someone locate an alternative picture of Donald Trump wearing a cheerful smile?
  For instance, could anyone locate a copyright-free photograph of a smiling face, (in other word: A winning smile), akin to the "4 big smile" featured in The Guardian News below? Additionally, may anyone peruse the collection of photos taken at the White House or any potential copyright-free locations. thus far? If we cannot find an appropriate photo now, I hope we can replace it when a suitable one becomes available. News link: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Why the heck should "I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024." factor at all into our analysis LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As the person who took 3 of these photos being considered, why isn't his official portrait just being used? He doesn't look that different. Calibrador (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good point !

  Since the official photo clearly identifies Tump, and serves its purpose well, would it be acceptable to use it again instead of replacing it? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because of the consensus reached at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#Biden and Trump pictures that a more recent picture of Trump should be used instead of his 7 year old presidential portrait that fails to reflect his current appearance. GhulamIslam (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t necessarily disagree with that consensus, but I really do not like photos A, C, and D. If we are not going to use the presidential portrait, I feel like we should still use a photo that’s presidential. And these photos fall short of that IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• C, similar to Biden's picture and doesn't have a weird facial expression. Nosferattus (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• A. Not going to repeat the same arguments made above, but B has the large shadow, C is alright but is not the best photo, D has a strange facial expression, and I am against using the official portrait. Yeoutie (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Official is my preference. A is my second choice. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option H - I like the "Option H " because this photo has a professional and reliable look. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment What brought about the need to change the image? He doesn't look that much different in each of the options so what caused the start of this RfC? Tepkunset (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment The concern seems to be that the official photo, chosen in 2017, might be outdated. While some agreed to consider a replacement if a better recent option emerged, there appears to be no significant difference between the current choices. Given five new options have been added, it might be helpful for those who previously commented to revisit the selection. SMcCandlish , voorts (talk, Herostratus , Longestview ,voorts,Punker85,Senorangel,InterDoesWiki,Tim O'Doherty,Cremastra,KlayCax,GoodDay , LegalSmeagolian,Wikipedia1010121,InterDoesWiki,Some1,Grahaml35,JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 , The,GreatCaesarsGhost,Fieari Additionally, Dear Prcc27 (talk), the agreement to change the photo wasn't mentioned on this talk page. Could you please point the link us to where that discussion took place? e.g. "Archive_7" or any other place? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here's a link to the discussion to change Trump's photo

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7#Biden_and_Trump_pictures David O. Johnson (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: My concern with the new photos is that though they're not as old as the presidential portrait, they're still not new; correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all from 2019, right? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Biden photo is from 2021, while the current Trump photo is from last year. The whole impetus for changing Trump's photo was that it was out of date compared to Biden's.

  [2] David O. Johnson (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I still think A is the best out of those options. Regarding the new additions: E has a noisy background; F is blurry; G is not bad, but the text in the background is distracting; H has his hair blended in with the background; I is blurry. Some1 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I know there's a consensus not to use Trump's portrait, but some of these pics are during his presidency. Can't see why the logic behind not using Trump's official portrait doesn't pertain to some pics taken 2-3 years after the official portrait was taken. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Prcc27: @SMcCandlish: @InterDoesWiki: @MarkiPoli: @Cremastra: @KlayCax: @GoodDay: @Herostratus: Those of you who preferred option B, what do you think of this photo from July of last year? (same date as current infobox image)

  

  Meh. Looks confused/doubful/skeptical/worried. Not a very flattering image.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option C is still my preference for reasons already stated. GhulamIslam (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• I actually think it is the best photo proposed so far (aside from Option B). Prcc27 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• If option B is going to be deleted? Then stick with option A. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• B first choice (neutral expression), A second choice. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What should the criteria of inclusion be for the state infobox?

Should a candidate be included in the state-level infoboxes when:

A) They are added to the national infobox

B) They have achieved ballot access (not write-in) and 5% average polling for that state (per the major aggregators)

C) something else?

GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Bish. Not sure whether or not aggregates are necessary for states if not available yet. On one hand, using major aggregates could establish due weight in the polling. On the other hand, if a candidate is polling well over 5%, we may be capable of doing our own calculations to come to that conclusion in lieu of having aggregates available. Prcc27 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• A - Best to keep consistency, across the board. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If Evan McMullin can be included on the Utah infobox despite not qualifying for the national infobox post-election, RFKJR should be able to qualify for a state infobox regardless of whether he is included on the national infobox pre-election. A 5% threshold and ballot access for states and a 5% threshold and ballot access (albeit 270+ EVs) for the main infobox is consistent. Prcc27 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Evan McMullin obtained 21% of votes in Utah, 6 points above the threshold in polls that the Commission on Presidential Debates imposes on third party candidates in order for them to participate in debates.

5% in polls is too low a threshold. Esterau16 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

5% is the current threshold for the national infobox pre-election & post-election (whether you support the threshold or not). Why would we have a higher threshold for state infoboxes? Prcc27 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a new RfC on that topic because I consider that the Rfc you refer to is ambiguous and did not produce a clear and solid consensus. Several of those who participated in that RfC did not fully decide on 5% or 10% Esterau16 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Esterau16: If users said 5% or 10%, what makes you think all of the sudden we would go higher and say 15%? 15% was already suggested at the RfC, it was rejected, and you are being disruptive by starting yet another RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with A. I also agree that the candidate must have official ballot access (not write in).

Disagree with the 5% threshold in the polls. 5% is too low a threshold. Third party candidates tend to be above 5% in the months leading up to the election and drop off as election day approaches. A very clear example was candidate Gary Johnson in 2016. In the months leading up to the election polls consistently showed him above 5%, there were even several polls that had him above 10%. However, Gary Johnson only received 3% of the nationwide vote. I believe the threshold in polls should be 15% nationwide and statewide, the same threshold that the Commission on Presidential Debates imposes on third party candidates in order for them to participate in debates. Esterau16 (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

C - If a candidate meets the established inclusion criteria nationally, they must be included in the infobox. If a candidate is polling at 5% or higher in a state, but not nationally, they should be included in that state's infobox (akin to the McMullin situation last election).XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• B is sufficient. I like the McMullin example for why national inclusion shouldn't determine state infoboxes. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  B - Another One that didn't make the National Infobox but Did with the State Infobox (Vermont) Is Senator Bernie Sanders, Through Write-in Votes. Also, Countering Esterau16's Statement, A Clear example of Third party candidates can do as good as their polling is Ross Perot in 1992 (specifically after he rejoined the race.) While yes, he lost a lot of steam, but he ended up with 18%-19% of the Vote. InterDoesWiki (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  It does seem WP:CRYSTAL to assume a third party candidate will underperform their polls. Prcc27 (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not when it happens every election. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  InterDoesWiki just gave an example of an exception. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• C 5% of the vote in November. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  That introduces a bias for or against candidates. It's also a clear instance of WP: CRYSTAL. KlayCax (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's a reflection of reality in a two-party system and in no way involves CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn’t shut out third party candidates completely from the infobox. We don’t do so post-election, so we shouldn’t pre-election. Prcc27 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why not? The U.S. political system mostly does, so why shouldn't we reflect that? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don’t for the national infobox, so why would we for the state infoboxes..? Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am saying that we should not put them in any infobox before the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good luck with that. We already agreed that third party candidates should be included in the national infobox pre-election (if they meet the threshold) per the RfC. It looks like there is consensus for state infobox inclusion too. Prcc27 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't need luck. I have the fact that no candidates have access to 270 and are polling at or above 5% other than Biden and Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, stop the persistant pushing of the viewpoint that the U.S. is a 2 party system. It is VERY TRUE, but that does not mean that Bobby is irrelevant and that he will not perform well. That is a clear bias against him. And, I am saying that just like KlayCax is saying the same thing from the same viewpoint, I do NOT LIKE BOBBY. But there are examples of people just as relevant in a 2 party system. Such as, I don't know, ANOTHER presidental election here! 2 of them, actually. Just because it was a 2 party system when Ross Perot performed well TWICE in a row does not mean he should not have been included in the infobox, which he was IN A 2 PARTY SYSTEM because he exceeded expectations. Now, I know what you are saying, "But Jayson, that only happened because he got enough votes in the election to meet such expectations, whereas now the election has not happened yet" and I understand what you are thinking, but Bobby has exceeded expectations for a third party candidate so much, he has gained so much grassroots support from the ground up and polled consistantly high, similar to what Perot did. This IS a 3 way race in a 2 party system, and if you just keep saying that same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, saying that its a 2 party system and thus any third party candidate cannot be in the infobox because they are automatically irrelevant, then you are wrong. Jayson (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  You do not know what I'm saying. Two-party system's lead sentence: A two-party system is a political party system in which two major political parties consistently dominate the political landscape. That fits the U.S., no? Saying it's a three-way race does not make it so, especially when one of those three candidates is only on a few ballots. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not always a two person race for states though, and this thread is about states. We included Evan McMullin in the infobox pre-election since the polling suggested he was going to do well in that state, and he ended up getting over 20% of the vote post election. Are you saying we should have waited until after the election to add McMullin to the 2016 Utah infobox? The current state polling does not necessarily suggest a “three way race” per se, but it does suggest RFKJR is likely to meet the 5% post-election threshold. A third party candidate only needs 5% to qualify for the infobox, they do not have to be anywhere near the number of votes as the major party candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  And we should wait to see if they get 5% of the vote in those states. Listing McMullin in 2016 before the election was a mistake, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  More revisionism, goal-posting, and attempts to rule by mob on Wikipedia. No surprises here!

  People would've burned Anderson and '96 Perot alive if those circumstances were present today. But when it comes to candidates on other country's elections, suddenly there's no discussion. Just shows how dysfunctional the current revisionist consensus is. Wikipedia's American bias is certainly coming into play here, that part is undeniable. Borifjiufchu (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• A or B Either the candidate is on the national infobox or they are (on the state ballot + polling above 5% for that state). I disagree with Muboshgu's logic as it's forcing subjective POVs against all other candidates. If we are listing any candidates pre-election, we must use a neutral metric, instead of favouring just 2 of them. Both A and B are reasonable metrics imo, so combining them is logical. Soni (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• A I think B would be reasonable if we had robust, diverse polling in every state, but we won't. States will get more polling if they are competitive between Trump and Biden; RFK's potential will be immaterial. So the decision to include or not is going to be based on very light data, especially given the low threshold. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• B Ballot access and 5% polling seems reasonable to me. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• B is rather apt here, and is in line with past precedent. People pushing for A are just goal-posting further, and have not treaded outside of the Presidential election articles, no offense. I can't see why people keep making up new rules and consensus changes and passing it off as mob-law just to prolong their side of the edit wars.

Borifjiufchu (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

B Isn't this how it's always been? 5% polling in the state, then you should be added to the state infobox. This shouldn't be what we're debating. What we SHOULD be debating is how many polls with a third-party candidate with 5% or more are needed for inclusion. In Utah, RFK Jr. has polled with 5% or more. However, it's only one poll. So, should he be included with only one poll, or does he need two? Or three? 65.129.55.67 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We have no history or precedent, as there has not been a third-party candidate in WP's history that polled as well as RFK is. We do have a consensus to 5% in results, but that is very different because third party candidates in US presidential races tend to under-perform their polling. Ergo, a candidate that is polling barely over 5% is almost certainly not going to get 5% and be in the infobox after the election. Some here (myself included) think this would be undesirable, so pre-election inclusion should attempt to reflect reasonable expectation of post-election inclusion. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Dobbs v. Jackson or January 6th in the lead?

Should Dobbs v. Jackson, January 6th, or election denialism be in the lead of the article? This sentence was recently added into the lead of the article (that I removed):

The election notably comes after Trump's prior attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack

But it seems WP: UNDUE to me if we're going among the opinions of voters. Among most, January 6th only comes as the most memorable part of Trump's presidency among 5% of voters. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if scholars of democracy ranked it much differently.) If we're going to add anything: shouldn't it be the repeal of Roe v. Wade? If anything, that seems the most probable event to change the ballots of voters.

A similar debate on what to include awhile back ended up with a general agreement (maybe even consensus? albeit no RFC was done) to exclude everything. But wondering if that still holds.

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the removal. It may or may not be undue, but it should not be added absent discussion. IMO, the current (long standing) scheme of including a simple list of issues in the lede which are fleshed out later in the issues section is ideal. We do not have to get in endless, unsolvable debates about relative weight of each issue. Dobbs is covered by "abortion" and Jan 6 is covered by "democracy." We should not give any greater weight to any issue. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Was making sure there was a general agreement on the matter, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. KlayCax (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support the removal from the lead except for brief mentions, as the issues are expanded upon in their own section. The lead is mainly about the election and candidates themselves, per due weight. 2601:280:5C01:B7E0:183B:9BAC:6E83:EFFE (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither should be in the lead of the article, though I'm not opposed to mentioning the subjects elsewhere. These are issues that were major in the 2022 midterms, but most people have moved past these two specific events. AmericanBaath (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. In your post, you say the mention of January 6 and Trump's former attempts to overturn the election are undue because one poll shows that 5% of voters remember the events of January 6 among a list of questions about what they remember most about Trump's presidency. However, three other sources also detail how the event has impacted the election, including a Washington Post Analysis (a solid secondary source) and a poll that puts it among one of voters top concerns. Lastly, the opinions of voters should not be the sole judge of what gets put in the lead of an article. Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history, and the January 6 attack was the first attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power in recent memory and is an event of historical significance, as the provided sources stated. The fact that a former American president is now running for reelection directly after these attempts is noteworthy, and deserving a mention in the lead of the article. These events are also mentioned multiple times within the body of the article itself. Here are the three sources that were used for those who are interested.

References

Also, the sentence in question was not added recently, but has been there for several weeks (I think two months?) now. I believe you are referring to a separate edit that added a poorly referenced YouGov poll to the lead, whose removal I do support. You also claim consensus was reached in your decision to revert your deletion of the information, which is not the case. You posted this forum section at 23:05 May 21, had a response from one editor at 00:31 May 22 and removed the information claiming consensus at 22:59 May 21, before the individual who you claimed consensus from had even responded. Thus, the onus would not be on inclusion, but on removal. BootsED (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the unilateral action here was out of line. Both issues are germaine to this election. January 6 in particular is still relevant as this is a rematch between the same two candidates, and since one of said candidates is facing prosecution for his role in that. For the same reason, I might suggest that the Electoral Count Act is also germaine to include here. But in any case, one poll is not sufficient to eliminate such issues, and acting as if there is a consensus before other editors have had a chance to weigh in is disingenuous and violates Wikipedia policies. I strongly advise against any efforts to strongarm a decision in that way. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Well the addition was made a unilateral action, wasn't it? The balance of issues to appear in this lede has already been the subject of several discussions, so no one should be making large changes without discussing it first. Separately, no one is arguing that the issues are not germane. The argument is that every effort should be made to limit the size of the lede lest in become unwieldy. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to push back that the change was “unilateral”. Some users did express support for mentioning Dobbs in the lead in past discussions. Also, I believe the consensus was to wait until Trump was the nominee/presumptive nominee before we considered mentioning January 6th in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Dobbs & January 6th merit a mention in the lead. Yes, we don’t want to say too much about them because it would be WP:UNDUE, but 1 or 2 sentences is WP:DUE. Democracy isn’t usually a campaign issue, it is pretty unusual for it to be a top issue let alone an issue at all; 2024 is definitely an outlier in that sense. We do a disservice to our readers when we do not briefly explain in the lead why democracy is all of a sudden a top concern for this presidential election. The lead is where you should briefly explain the nuances/point of clarification of issues that are more complex than the usual issues. Foreign policy? The economy? Immigration? Healthcare? Those are always/almost always issues in presidential elections. As for abortion, yes abortion is usually a top issue anyways, but the landscape nationwide has changed drastically with the Dobbs decision, which might also be worth mentioning. I strongly support mentioning January 6th in the lead and I am leaning towards supporting mentioning Dobbs as well. Prcc27 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but part of the problem is phrasing these issues in an accurate and neutral way. The phrasing we are discussing here fails to do that. "The election notably comes after Trump's prior attempts..." Why is it notable that this election comes after the prior one? What we really want to say is people are afraid that Trump is going to try to cheat again, or if he wins he will dismantle systems of democracy to stay in power. But how do you phrase that briefly and neutrally? Do you give a chance for the counter argument, refuted but widely held, that the election will be stolen from Trump? ~ I'm not saying we can't do it, I'm saying it's difficult, and what we have now is better than the passive "notably comes after" GreatCaesarsGhost 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we're trying to say that Trump is going to cheat again and dismantle democracy in this sentence. I think the notability comes due to the unprecedented attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack being events of historical significance, not just because they happened in the prior election. We're not making any claims of "Trump will destroy democracy" in this sentence, but reporting on major historical events involving the same candidates in the current election. I'm not sure how you can get more neutral than that. BootsED (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So the answer to the question "Why is Jan 6th relevant to this article?" is "because the same candidates are involved." I personally don't think that's important enough for a full sentence in the lede. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I also said it is an event of historical significance? And provided sources that backed that up? The fact that the same candidates are also involved merely adds to the reason we should include it. It is not the sole reason. Don't misinterpret what I said, please. BootsED (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking why Jan 6 is being mentioned in the lede of this article, about an event that happens close to four years later. The fact that Jan 6 "is an event of historical significance" in no way suggests we should note it here. The Battle of Hastings was also quite significant! I'm not being daft here: I understand there is a connection, but in order to promote it to the lede of this article, we need to articulate the connection first, then consider whether it passes muster. We're speaking in whispers and implications, and that is not appropriate. The current handling of the issue works well; we should be cautious before throwing it out. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The simplest connection is that former President Trump made multiple attempts to overturn the 2020 election, and his supporters attacked the Capitol for the first time since the British invasion in 1814. Trump is currently facing a criminal trial for his role in attempting to overturn the election and his role in the attack. Trump has repeatedly brought up the events of the day and has promised to pardon those involved. The attack represents the first time in modern history that a losing candidate attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power. That candidate is now running for office again. I think the connection should be pretty clear! BootsED (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I know the connection you are attempting to imply: 1) He did this last time and 2) he's probably going to do it again. What I'm saying is we cannot imply something that is so controversial as #2- it needs to be stated and cited. If you state #1 without #2, you are attempting to draw an inference to a fact that you cannot support with citations. Absent #2, #1 is irrelevant. The article actually does state #2 (in so many words) down where there is room to do so in a nuanced way. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe we are attempting to say #2. No claim has been made that Trump will or will not do anything. The sentence merely mentions Trump's former attempts owing to their historical nature and his current run for office. It is background information that provides greater context to the election, especially since both candidates are running again. We are merely mentioning past events due to their relevance to current events. I see how one could infer that we are trying to imply something, but this is not the intention.

We might need more editor input on this issue as currently the discussion is mostly between yourself, me, and Prcc27. BootsED (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur with BootsED. We do not have to say anything about Trump’s role in the lead, we can leave that to the body paragraphs. A concise statement that this is the first presidential election since the January 6th Capitol attack would suffice. Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The primary issues are already stated in the lede.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

January 6th isn’t just a “campaign issue”, it’s a significant historical event that has already had an impact on the 2024 presidential election. In fact, Trump was initially disqualified in some states because of his role in the Capitol attack. Democracy is the campaign issue, January 6th is the background information. Prcc27 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump hasn't been disqualified in any states. The January 6th riots have their own article, if people want to learn about it they can read about it there.XavierGreen (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

He was until Trump v. Andersonwhich says now it’s the choice of Congress now, not the state. Qutlooker (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

To encourage more editors to discuss this point, I have created an RfC on this topic. Please move future conversations to this RfC. Thank you! BootsED (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for comments: Should a sentence mentioning Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack be included in the lead?

Should the following sentence be added to the lead:

The election notably comes after Trump's prior attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

BootsED (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Support

• Support Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history, and the January 6 attack was the first attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power in recent memory and is an event of historical significance, as the provided sources state. The fact that a former American president is now running for reelection directly after these attempts is noteworthy, and deserving a mention in the lead of the article. These events are also mentioned multiple times within the body of the article itself. BootsED (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support restoring the sentence. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Without "notably", per MOS:INSTRUCT and MOS:EDITORIAL. The facts (which are supportable with bulk of the RS material, even if there is a strong current of denialism in far-right echochamber media) are highly pertinent to the subject, and arguably among the most important aspects of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good catch. I agree, the word should be removed. BootsED (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support: the wording without “notably” if and only if there are enough sources to back it up, per WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• (Summoned by bot) IMO would not be due in a lead that's barely two paragraphs. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that this would run afoul of the manual of style. I also share Compassionate727's reservation about weight. Pecopteris (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the lead of this article should focus on the 2024 presidential election, and given the lead currently mentions Trump's conviction for 34 felonies this seems a bit like overkill. There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if I'm weighing in on the overall RFC question, but NPOV does not mean we need to include criticisms against all candidates. It just merely means we should not be giving undue weightage to one over the other. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. If one candidate has much more serious and widely covered criticisms levelled against them, that's reason enough to include just that. Whether that applies here... That's for the RFC to decide. Soni (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I might have worded it poorly, but my point was that piling on criticism after criticism of Trump in the lead with no mention of criticisms against the other candidates would be undue and not representative of a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting we should mention criticism against Biden and Kennedy, but think that adds to the argument that it would be undue to add everything against Trump in the lead. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Oppose as proposed - the sentence should certainly not include the word 'notably', which is improper editorialising. As for whether it's due in the lead at all, I'm not sure that it is. It's a kind of 'sky is blue' assertion - this thing that happened in 2024 happened after something that happened in 2020 - well, yes, obvs. For it to be worth mentioning it would need to go on to explain how the former event influenced the latter one. So yeah, the sentence as proposed isn't worth adding. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  If the word "notably" was removed, would you support the proposal? I agree that the word "notably" should not be there. BootsED (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I stated previously in other sections above.XavierGreen (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• This would be undue given the length of the lead. The most important thing about Trump in 2024 is probably his convictions. CurryCity (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that at this time it is undue unless we vastly expand the lead. We could easily include a passing reference to it after the election though when Trump calls the results into question again. Yeoutie (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have said, Trump's 2024 convictions are notable, but the 2020 and 2021 events have long since passed and their only notability to this election is if those actions were among his 34 felonies, or if after the election there are interviews stating that these events are why people didn't vote for Trump. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue weight. Other issues have been shown to be more important to voters. The current arrangement elegantly addresses weight vs. thoroughness. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

For those who are curious as to where the sentence in the lead would go, it was previously located after the sentence, "His predecessor Donald Trump, a member of the Republican Party, is running for re-election for a second, non-consecutive term, after losing to him in 2020." BootsED (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the Stormy Daniels affair be stated as alleged in the article?

There's been a debate on here (and on related pages) on whether the Stormy Daniels affair should be stated as "alleged" or simply stated as factual at this point? Many have stated that the conviction de facto concluded that Trump had a sexual affair with Stormy Daniels. (Through logical implication.) However, he was never de jure stated to have done so. What should we state? Several news stations have now taken it as a fact. Others are still saying "alleged". KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Alleged until convicted by a jury, is my understanding. If the affair didn't happen, why would you pay $130,000 and hide the payments for it? I think the logical implication is right. This discussion would probably be better on the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal page, though. BootsED (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It is plausible to pay hush money to someone if you think they are about to publicly accuse you of something that didn’t happen. Prcc27 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, if you think the mere allegation will damage your reputation and don't want to deal with that. I don't think "until convicted by a jury" is the right standard, though. That will never happen, seeing as it's not a crime to have an affair, and hasn't been in a very long time. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It does seem that neither "alleged" or "proven" is quite right under the circumstances. This article currently reads "payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels (regarding an alleged sexual encounter between them)". I would suggest a change to the verbiage used at Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York which says "payments made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about a sexual encounter between them". GreatCaesarsGhost 14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I oppose same. All the jury found was that he was guilty of charged aagainst him, misreporting payments, nothing else.XavierGreen (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Chronological order for Electoral College forecasts?

Should the 2024 United States presidential election#Electoral College forecasts table be re-organised to be in chronological order from left to right? That would make it more likely to correspond to more recent data. The problem is that that would require re-organising the table's left-to-right order every time one of the organisations re-issues a new forecast. Currently that doesn't seem to happen very often: there are only three columns from the past four months - all in May 2024. But there would likely be updates more often in the remaining few months through to Nov 2024. Boud (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would have cause to complain if you wanted to do this, as there does not appear to be any other order currently employed. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

For this excerpt: …the bill was opposed by Trump who claimed it would hurt Republican's ability to run on immigration as a campaign issue. "Republican's" should be changed to "Republicans'" (apostrophe after s), since the subject is Republicans collectively.

Additionally, the commas after quotes such as "not people," and "drill, baby, drill," should be after the quotation marks, since these commas are generally not part of the quotes themselves.

Lastly, in Democracy: Trump has played down but not ruled out violence after the 2024 election if he does not win, stating, "it depends." The comma after “stating” is not needed. TavianCLirette (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done I have moved the apostrophe in Republican's and moved the commas after the quotation marks. I have left the comma after "stating", however. It has been a very long time since I studied English but I was taught that it was correct to use a comma after words/phrases like [they] stated, [they] said, [they] opined, etc. so I believe this is grammatically correct. As it's been a while and I'm a mathematician not a linguist, I'm happy for someone else to make the change if they disagree with me. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:QUOTEPUNCT, the comma is optional. As such, I don't see a need for it to be changed. SilverLocust 💬 07:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

Hello! I took this photo and it is currently in the separate page for third party candidates in the 2024 election. I think it would look great in the third-parties section of this main page, so I'd love for it to be there. Permission for use has been granted to wikipedia and everything already. Here is the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yard_Signs.pngYangGang2024 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now The third party section is a bit cluttered by boxes right now, so I'm not seeing a great place to fit in the image. I'm also not sure the image adds much to the section. WelpThatWorked (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2024

Change RealClearPolitics opinion poll from Trump +0.7 to Trump +1.1 208.65.20.180 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Polling can be updated over here, where extended confirmed access is not required. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The "RFC: What shall encompass "Ballot Access"" section was archived early

The discussion was still ongoing. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)