Should Dobbs v. Jackson or January 6th in the lead?
Latest comment: 5 months ago24 comments9 people in discussion
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.
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. GreatCaesarsGhost00:31, 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.
^Balz, Dan (January 6, 2024). "Three years after Jan. 6 attack, the political divide is even wider". The Washington Post. ISSN0190-8286. Retrieved April 14, 2024. Three years on, there is no escaping the impact on American politics of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Other issues will significantly influence the 2024 presidential election, but few define more clearly the contrasts, stakes and choice that will face voters in November than Jan. 6.
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. GreatCaesarsGhost13:38, 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" GreatCaesarsGhost15:33, 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. GreatCaesarsGhost18:15, 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. GreatCaesarsGhost19:34, 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. GreatCaesarsGhost15:54, 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)
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)
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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
What should the criteria of inclusion be for the state infobox?
Latest comment: 5 months ago35 comments14 people in discussion
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)
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)
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% 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)
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)
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. GreatCaesarsGhost16:57, 22 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.
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. GreatCaesarsGhost13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Chronological order for Electoral College forecasts?
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. GreatCaesarsGhost14:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2024
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. AdamBlacktalk • contribs17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Should the Stormy Daniels affair be stated as alleged in the article?
Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
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". GreatCaesarsGhost14:03, 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)
Again, we are not meaning to suggest that affair as true or proven. Rather, we want to refrain from suggesting that it is false by using a loaded phrase per MOS:ALLEGED, given the preponderance of facts. GreatCaesarsGhost11:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Trump and Biden on the infobox
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It is not yet officially known whether Biden and Trump are the candidates. Shouldn't their pictures be removed from the infobox until then? Cenbutz1 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
They are the presumptive nominees, and we make that clear in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of the election, and removing them would mean leaving out valuable information. Prcc27 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Alice Cooper
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Alice Cooper has supposedly announced a bid for president, see: [1].
I’m guessing it should probably NOT be mentioned here, as it would likely be considered a joke/promotional stunt rather than a serious campaign effort. He does have an “Alice for President 2024” website, but if you click on the “Campaign Trail” link, it takes you to a list of upcoming concerts for his current tour. He has “run for president” multiple times since 1972, but in true Alice Cooper fashion, it’s always been more of a shock act than anything serious. I doubt he’s even filed with the FEC, or is planning to. And if we included everyone who has joked that they were running for president in 2024, the list would have to be a whole lot longer. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
What if the user says "their debate preparation"
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Don't expect a page to be made before the 2024 election. There's not really anything that can be written about 2028 right now beyond speculation, which isn't really what Wikipedia is for. Longestview (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
In July 2017 us member of the house of representatives form Maryland run he was the earliest presidential candidate to run
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Coolxsearcher1414, you added Illinois and Mississippi to the table in the Forecasts section, based on 538's forecasts. However, a note was added yesterday describing how 538 (and Economist) are not used to determine which states are included in the table. By my estimation, if IL and MS are added, then no less than ten other states are in similar situations and should also be added to the table (CT, DE, IN, KS, LA, MO, MT, NY(!), SC, and WA). I think it is preferable to leave IL and MS out at this time, based on the solid/safe categorization of nearly all other forecasters. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just want to preface this that yes, I do agree with them being on there: but I think they look a bit... hollow without the images. The odd spacing is an eyesore. Should we include simple images for the two candidates there (e.g. a "KS" edited from the Kennedy-Shanahan logo, or something similar to their website favicons)? This is more a visual complaint than anything... SphealKent (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
You're referring to the absence of a party icon? I would say no; don't fake something. You can just reformat the table if you don't like the gap (see Perot in 92). GreatCaesarsGhost19:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Trump VP Photo
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Seeing how Trump's running mate will either be Burgum, Vance or Rubio (Source), how would these images look like for the GOP box? Especially given how there's a likely chance we'll know by the June 27th debate (Source) I figured candid pics would be best to match Trump's candid pic. These pics are not too cropped in to their faces as is the Trump photo used in the GOP section (with Burgum's being different from the one used in the candidate's section for the sake of variety/to be the same ratio as Trump's pic).
I figured it'd be good to have a good idea which image to use when the running mate is announced prior to them being announced so as to avoid an edit war/dispute. Having a consensus is always good too. Feel free to add some other alternatives! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Those sources don't really support either of your conclusions regarding timing or confidence-level. It's a waste of editors' time to debate the best photo for (at least) two guys that won't be in the article. GreatCaesarsGhost18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. According to NBC, Trump's VP pick might be announced by the end of the month [2], making the discussion moot. It's easier to just wait it out. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
And... what happened? There was no VP Pick. Debate happened last night and there wasn't even an announcement from him or anything. If anything, next month will be when he most likely announces his VP (or the convention chooses one for him). Qutlooker (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Debates in the lead?
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why are we going into so much detail about the debates in the lead? If you look back to the 2020 election, not one word was even said about the debates in the lead; it definitely seems WP:UNDUE. Per WP:NOTNEWS, “Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.” Yes, the recent debate currently has a very significant impact on the state of the race. But it is doubtful that the debate will be as impactful in November. I also feel like some Democratic leaders panicking about finding an alternative candidate is a little bit WP:CRYSTAL for the lead. If this was the 1970’s, maybe the sentence would be warranted in the lead since political parties used to have more power, and voters had less power. But from my understanding, in modern politics, Biden is the presumptive nominee and will remain the nominee as long as he doesn’t step down, which he already declined to do so. Any mention of the debate(s) should be brief, but I honestly think it might actually not belong in the lead at all. Prcc27 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago85 comments36 people in discussion
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)
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.
Option L Though I'm still a supporter of using his official portrait (won't start an old debate), option L seems a good updated pic. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Trump infobox images
Option A (15 July 2023; 16 months ago (15 July 2023))
Option B (deleted)
Option C (28 October 2023; 12 months ago (28 October 2023))
Option D (28 October 2023; 12 months ago (28 October 2023))
Option E (29 June 2019; 5 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option F (29 June 2019; 5 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option G (29 June 2019; 5 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option H (29 June 2019; 5 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option I (29 June 2019; 5 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option J (15 July 2023; 16 months ago (15 July 2023))
Option K (6 June 2024; 5 months ago (6 June 2024))
Option L (6 June 2024; 5 months ago (6 June 2024))
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)
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)
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)
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: It is somewhat recent with it being 9 months old and, in my opinion, looks visually pretty good with him not having a awkward smile and is well lighted. B is not a bad pick but it is soon to be 1 year and 9 months old, so this is an important reason why I am holding this option back Punker85 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) ; Modified by Punker85 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
L: One of the most recent pictures of him here by a good amount, he doesn't look weird, in my opinion, he have a relatively neutral face and have correct lighting for me Punker85 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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 is my only choice. B is too shadowy, C is too smiley, D has a mic in the way and his head is slanted head, so those are out of the question IMHO.Which is not to say there can't be some other picture E which is better than any of these, but that's a bit besides the point.Subjectively, A also seems more representative of his personality—which precise adjectives it conveys is left as an exercise to the reader, as different people may assign positive or negative ones, but in any event it is very, very much a quote-unquote "Trump" look167.88.84.136 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
A is the best option here. C and D have downsides, A does not; it's neutral. I was going to add that the lighting on B is a tad dramatic, but seems like we don't need to worry about that anymore. TheSavageNorwegian15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
K, now that it's been introduced, is a very good option, probably my favorite. L works great too, and the lighting is more normal. I'm still happy with A otherwise. (Wow, this rfc has been going on a while!) TheSavageNorwegian22:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
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. GreatCaesarsGhost20:05, 24 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: [1]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)
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)
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)
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)
The Biden photo is from 2021, while the current Trump photo is from last year. The whole impetus for changing Trump's photo was that it was out of date compared to Biden's.
Thanks for the ping. I still think A is the best out of those options. Regarding the new additions: E has a noisy background; F is blurry; G is not bad, but the text in the background is distracting; H has his hair blended in with the background; I is blurry. Some1 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
Close and try again Given that B has been deleted, there is no consensus for a change and it is unlikely one will develop this long after the thread opened. That said, I think J is probably the best, and K & L are an improvement over the early suggestions, including A. However, they are likely not being given full consideration by editors that checked out of the conversation. We should probably close this now, and pick up the topic again later. GreatCaesarsGhost14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Something that could make Options A - J Ineligible is that A Prescent in All or Most U.S Presidential Article's is that the Pictures for the nominee's for the infobox has to be from that year the election took place, with the exception of the Incumbent or Elected, in which their Presidential Portrait is used, Option A - J were posted/Taken before 2024, with Option E - I being posted/Taken in 2019, And Option A, C, D, & J Being Taken in 2023. InterDoesWiki (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Ineligible is too strong a word. The preference is to use a high quality photograph contemporaneous to the election. But where it is not possible to achieve both, quality is paramount. See 1968, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 for examples of very aged photos being used. GreatCaesarsGhost14:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
After checking, I can see your point. And I can using the word "Ineligible" as opposed to "should have less consideration" was a mistake on my part. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree for closing this conversation and making a new one. A lot of options were added after the start of the discussion and option B, which was a strong contender, as been deleted. So, not all options received the same amount of consideration by all editors which is not very fair Punker85 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Close And Try again: Orginally, this looked to be a contest between Option A & B, With Option B taking A Massive Lead But Option A slowly equalized.. Then Option B got deleted which disrupted the RFC, which resulted in scattered voting. At this point, there will never be a winner. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
We shouldn't have "presumptive" nominees in the infobox at all. Particularly considering that various betting markets have Biden at 65-35% for the nomination right now.
In this case they have already been popularly voted by their parties, and Trump has a 75% majority. Biden also has a large majority. Why do we need presumptives? Also going off topic what's your chess ELO I play too 59.102.22.11 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Shooting or assassination attempt?
Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I mean when theres a gunman who fired at the president specifically and didn’t just start mowing down people, I’d call it an assassination attempt. Los Pobre (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source to confirm this? The closest thing to a confirmation I heard was that the FBI said they were treating this as an assassination attempt, but they also said a motive has not been confirmed. Prcc27 (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Multiple RS's refer to it as an assassination attempt. Does anyone think it *wasn't* an assassination attempt? The guy went on the roof and wasn't trying to hit Trump but got his ear by pure luck? Call it what it was. SeanusAurelius (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Is Trump/Vance the official nominee or presumptive?
Latest comment: 4 months ago12 comments8 people in discussion
Is Trump the official nominee yet, or is he still presumptive? Doesn’t Trump have to accept the nomination first? I definitely still think Vance is presumptive, he has to be nominated at the convention for it to be official. Prcc27 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I think Vance should be removed as well until the roll call, Trump may have announced Vance is his pick, but he's not presumptive in the same way Vice President Harris is Talthiel (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Vance is presumptive, we generally take presidential candidates at their word and do not usually wait for the convention vote before calling their running mate the VP nominee/presumptive nominee. I do think we should add “presumptive” back to Trump until he accepts the nomination. I would do it myself, but I already made my revert for the day. Prcc27 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Then I still feel like he isn’t the official nominee, but I am not sure what the RNC rules are or whether acceptance is required. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Speaker Mike Johnson has just declared both Trump and Vance as the official Republican nominees for President and Vice President of the United States. GandalfXLD (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Citation 325 typo
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I propose removing the part of RFK Jr. and Cornel West ticket table header, the "title" of the ticket table, that state that they are in the ballot in some states under their self-created party because they are mostly known as independent candidates and they are in the ballot in other states under different parties, so it would be unfair to only include their self-created party but not other parties Punker85 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 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)
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)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Option A (15 July 2023)
Option B (deleted)
Option C (28 October 2023)
Option D (28 October 2023)
Option E (29 June 2019)
Option F (29 June 2019)
Option G (29 June 2019)
Option H (29 June 2019)
Option I (29 June 2019)
Option J (15 July 2023)
Option K (6 June 2024)
Option L (6 June 2024).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
3.jpg)
.jpg)
2.jpg)
5.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Comment: My concern with the new photos is that though they're not as old as the presidential portrait, they're still not new; correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all from 2019, right? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}