Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Cornell West candidate box

I think we should remove Cornell West’s candidate box. He is still way below 270 EVs ballot access, and it does not appear that he will hit this threshold anytime soon. Prcc27 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally like Cornel West, but you are likely correct. It is an enormous shame that the U.S. system is not truly democratic, so a proportionate percentage of influence depending on the total number of votes is granted to all of the parties that enter the election, like in many European countries. David A (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Prcc27:, as a third-party candidate, only Kennedy even deserves to be considered for a candidate box. (And it seems like he'll barely finish with 5% due to double-haters dramatically decreasing after Biden dropped out. 15%-> 7% in 2 weeks is insane. A lot of Kennedy's support, of course, was not about him, but because of a strong dislike of both Trump and Biden that many people had. With Harris: that seems to be reduced quite significantly.) KlayCax (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We should keep the Green Party and Libertarian candidates’ candidate boxes. They have 270+ ballot access, and they are relatively mainstream third parties. Prcc27 (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He is included in most polling, so I would keep him there, as he is still a notable candidate. Lukt64 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He is certainly notable enough to get a candidate box, there is a ton of media attention given to him (much more than Oliver). Due weight would argue that he is relevant enough to be included at the level of coverage on the page that he currently is.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should because I think he was notable when he declared his candidacy and switched affiliation twice and he is still notable since he is way more regularly polled than a lot of other less notable candidates Punker85 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but monitor I concur with above that as long as he is 1 of 5 candidates being frequently polled, it should stay. I don't know why they are still polling him, but they are. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

But the threshold for the third party candidates seems to be ballot access.. Seems weird to have one criteria for third party candidates and another for independent candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not exactly accurate. West and RFK got boxes long ago, before they had any access (or the opportunity to get access), on the basis of them being famous people and nominally credible candidates. I don't recall anyone arguing against this (and certainly not convincingly). Removing West now based on his campaign fizzling out is a reasonable suggestion, but it would be acting on vibes rather than any specific rule. But since we are making a decision based on vibes, I could not see the logic in having a box for Oliver and not West, given that pollsters are treating West more seriously. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RFKJR residency

We currently list RFKJR.’s residency as “California”, even though he claims “New York” as his place of residency. How should we handle this? [1][2] Prcc27 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we just omit it? Listing either California or New York without elaboration could be an issue. Is there really much value in listing a candidates declared home state? I'm aware that his running mate is also from California, but the "concern" about them winning the state is a little silly. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It might look a little weird omitting his homestate while leaving everyone else’s homestate, especially in infoboxes. Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump's and Harris' aren't showing in the infoboxes in the candidate section. But if that doesn't work for everyone, I would favor listing New York with a footnote indicating the dispute. GreatCaesarsGhost 10:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, the candidate boxes for third party candidates and Vance do mention the home states. As for the infobox.. this is what it looks like if we leave that field blank. But listing NY with a footnote could work. Prcc27 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I added New York as RFKJR.’s home state, with a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a court rejected Kennedy’s New York residency claim. Should we re-add California as his residency..? [3] Prcc27 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

NBC News: Kennedy resides in California with his wife, actor Cheryl Hines, but in testimony, he said the couple had always intended to move back to New York. This and the AP should be enough to re-add California. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Another Extended Confirmed Edit Request, 13 August 2024

Please change the red link Silver Bulletin to [[Nate_Silver#Post-FiveThirtyEight_career:_since_2023|Silver Bulletin]] or to not be a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McYeee (talk • contribs) 06:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved: I've created Silver Bulletin as a redirect to the target you mentioned. Left guide (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed Edit Request: Please remove {{date}}

Please remove the {{date}} template by undoing [4]. The documentation of that template reads, in part "This template should only be used internally in other templates". McYeee (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for pointing this out. Undone the change. Raladic (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Edit Request

Please do one of the following.

1. Insert "{{cn|date=August 2024}}{{As of?}}" after the last sentence in the section September 10: Harris vs Trump which reads "The two campaigns have not yet agreed to any other debates."
2. Replace the period of that sentence with "as of {{subst:today}}}}.{{cn|date=August 2024}}"
3. Cite the claim and include a date in prose.

McYeee (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Would this count for a citation? "Campaign officials for Vice President Kamala Harris said they would consider debating Donald Trump in Grand Rapids, but first he must demonstrate his willingness to participate in an earlier commitment. Trump, the Republican nominee in the 2024 race for the presidency, last weekend announced on social media his plans to debate his opponent, Harris, on Wednesday, Sept. 25 in Grand Rapids. On his Truth Social account, Trump said the debate would air on NBC and be anchored by Lester Holt. Harris campaign officials, though, said they reached no such deal with Trump or NBC on the debate." The date of the article is August 13th. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That source looks good to me. Please replace the period at the end of that sentence with "as of 13 August. McYeee (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done with some tweaks. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please replace the text inserted above with "As of 14 August." — Preceding unsigned comment added by McYeee (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - nex time, please open a new separate edit request instead of reopening and already addressed one. Raladic (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Frank Luntz ... Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House

Edit ...

Pollster Frank Luntz says ... "I'm going to say this for the first time ... the Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3p8krLZneA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz 67.173.189.1 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is merely an opinion, it therefore does not belong on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pollster Frank Luntz said it again ... the Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/08/14/donald-trump-is-actually-giving-away-this-election-says-pollster-frank-luntz.html 98.46.118.50 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead is not neutral

This lead is not neutral. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but I think that the lead could be more balanced.

The lead mentions a lot about his authoritarian, dehumanizing, and false statements he's made. But this does not happen in Harris' paragraph. It simply states facts about her campaign. And I think it might be irrelevant, given no other political things are said in the lead. I think if you want to mention this, you should just expand the section about policy. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead mentions a lot about his authoritarian, dehumanizing, and false statements he's made. But this does not happen in Harris' paragraph. It simply states facts about her campaign. – that seems a factual and accurate summary of how the campaign has gone so far, though.  Nixinova   T   C   08:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I reinstated it for now, @Nixinova:. I think it should be kept. But perhaps a shorten version could do? KlayCax (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Way shorter. Right now it stands at "Donald Trump's 2024 campaign has been criticized by legal experts, historians, and political scientists for invoking violent rhetoric and authoritarian statements. During the campaign, Trump has repeatedly dehumanized those who he sees as his political enemies, while also repeating false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him, part of a broader election denial movement that has gained popularity among members of the far-right in the United States." Too long. Just maybe say "Trump's campaign has been criticized for its perceived violent and dehumanizing statements against political opponents, and has been accused of authoritarian rhetoric." We don't need to mention 2020, the media really doesn't do that. And we should find something the media criticizes her for too, maybe her Gaza policy. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean that it doesn't talk about her shortcomings. All of this is accurate, but I think it's undue. Sure, the things he says are notable, but they aren't mentioned enough in the media consistently to get multiple sentences in his paragraph. We should just have a big section about the policy debates going on, and mention it there. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the lead is not neutral and this blurb should be removed. It's also true e.g. that Biden-Harris admin oversaw historically high inflation, but that campaign talking point is not appropriate for the lead. TocMan (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I re-added a trimmed version. It seems WP:DUE to mention his authoritarian tone and his legal troubles. Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is good, thank you. Personisinsterest (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of endorsement-related lists

I have started a AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements. Despite the name, it is for all the lists of endorsements, not just Biden (but someone had to be nominated first to start a multi-afd, and Biden was first in the category, so he got to be the one in the name). Opinions are welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Debates are a mess

The debate situation is a mess, and our coverage is starting to reflect that. I think we need to have an open discussion here as events emerge to ensure we are reflecting the facts accurately and avoid edit warring. The actual facts around the debate are very difficult to parse. For example, reliable sources are indicating that Vance agreed to a debate on CBS on October 1. Now we are seeing Vance hedging on that and asking for concessions.[5] GreatCaesarsGhost 17:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2024

Can you please update the Economist column in the Electoral College forecasts table? It says updated August 13, but looks to be out of date to me. VA is a toss-up, for example, on Wikipedia but 83% chance of winning on https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/prediction-model/president/virginia/ 80.6.246.219 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Democratic Party

In the section about the Democratic Party, it says that, should Kamala Harris be elected, she would be the second African American president. However, I believe that she is of Jamaican decent, which would make her the second black president, but not the second African American president. I believe an edit should be made to correct this Sutapurachina (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not by individual editors' interpretations of ethnicity. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

To add, "Jamaica is a country where more than 90% of the population is of African ancestry," said Judith Byfield, a professor at Cornell University who teaches Caribbean and African history. "So the idea that because her dad is Jamaican she has no African ancestry is completely false." --Super Goku V (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification, I did not know this Sutapurachina (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Harris portrait

C'mon @Willform, this must be some kind of joke. We reached consensus on Kamala's Vice Presidential portrait being used. Just like how Al Gore, George H. W. Bush, Walter Mondale, and Richard Nixon (1960) all had their official portraits used. If you think a different image should be used please initiate a discussion about it instead of making the decision by yourself to change it. TheFellaVB (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there was a time issue before, so the agreement was reached in an inappropriate way and went in a different direction.

I think it would be fair to allow Trump to use his own portrait even now.

Or at least the next best option is to use option 6 above. This option is the second best for the portrait. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris' picture in the "Democratic nominees" section of this page

Hello.

The image used to represent Kamala Harris in the "Democratic nominees" section of this page has not been properly cropped, and as such makes Harris look too small to Wikipedia visitors.

As such, I request that the top image for Harris will be used in this section as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election#Democratic_nominees

David A (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the intent is to not crop or lightly crop in that section. Compare and contrast with 2020 where you see the majority of the images show the upper body of all of the major party candidates. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant that it is the same photograph, but the top one has cropped away the area above her head, whereas the lower one has not, so I would like us to reuse the top version of the image. David A (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I was just trying to point out what the intent of the section appears to be as it does seem intended to not be a headshot of the candidates. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. No problem. Do you and other Wikipedia editors find it acceptable to use the main photograph there then? David A (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If no one else objects, then feel free to use the cropped versions if you believe it would be an improvement. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. David A (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo

In the section Economic issues, under Campaign issues, in the paragraph beginning with "Trump has proposed," the word "illegal" is misspelt as "illegial" JustSomeGuy4361 (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@JustSomeGuy4361: Fixed, cheers! BD2412 T 02:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Michigan

If anyone still has the stomach for an RFK Jr. infobox issue, can you please go to Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Michigan‎#Kennedy in infobox? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

We’re really going to rehash this? Prcc27 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You're insisting that there is a consensus that doesn't exist, so I guess we have to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think an uninvolved admin should make a close here. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Another forecast for the electoral college

CNN etc. are the most prominent, but here is another to add:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2024/polls.php

It has all the latest polls. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The forecasts all use more than just polling, which Leip does not. That page is just averaging the three most recent polls, so its not really a forecast, just a state-by-state poll aggregator. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to above, the methodology here is really janky. Straight average of 3 most recent polls gives too much weight to outliers. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Biased hate toward Trump

WP:DNFTT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is there paragraphs stating “Trump's campaign has been criticized by legal experts, historians, and political scientists for invoking violent rhetoric and authoritarian statements. During the 2024 campaign, Trump has continued to repeat his false claims” right on the front page where uninformed voters can see and make assumptions yet Harris and Biden’s “deep state rhetoric” or their false claims are not mentioned at all. This is literally the definition of propaganda 2601:804:C201:6DB0:A2:5203:D513:8707 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Because it has been, silly pants. Dhantegge (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC) No, it isn't. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC infobox tally reminder

Hello. Just wanted to remind everyone that there is an active RfC regarding when to add a state’s projected electoral college votes to the infobox. Just reminding everyone in case it was overlooked by some. Prcc27 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr. status

In his announcement, RFK Jr. said he's suspending his campaign, but not 'ending it'. He said he's staying on the ballot in blue states and encouraging his voters to vote for him in those states, but he is withdrawing his name from the ballots in red/battleground states while endorsing Trump and encouraging his voters to vote for Trump in those states.

My question is, should he be considered as a withdrawn candidate or should he still remain on the Independent section like before with a footnote? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So he wants to be a spoiler candidate. Without evidence that he matters enough to be one, we should give him as little placement as possible. Mark him as withdrawn, while acknowledging what ballot access he has. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Keeping him in withdrawn section, but adding like a footnote adding that he's on the ballot on some states/somewhat campaigning as a spoiler candidate in some states? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Since he is actually still on the ballot, he needs to be listed in the Independent section.XavierGreen (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of people are on the ballot/going to be on it. But if he doesn’t even have an active campaign, it seems WP:UNDUE to include him in the independent section. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How is it undue when its reality and news media is giving it attention? It is NPOV to exclude him.XavierGreen (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He is a minor candidate who is dropping out of the race. Why should he be included? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He has sufficient media attention right now. Stop predicting the future. You said he wasn't gonna get close to reaching 270 EVs, yet he did. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel quite vindicated by the fact that he dropped out in August. I said he was not worth the attention and I was right. I see no evidence he got to 270 EVs before, but he certainly doesn't have them now.

And if Wikipedia ran solely by getting sufficient media attention right now, we would be overwhelmed by Kardashians and other pop culture items. I will predict the future again: RFK is not going to sustain todays media attention (you know, when he is dropping out) into November. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You just love going on and on, huh? Lostfan333 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Focus on content not contributor – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I will. Anything for you. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Do it for yourself, because your current behavior could lead to sanctions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize. Lostfan333 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't he trying to be the opposite of a spoiler candidate and exit all races where votes going to him would affect the election? BenDoleman (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But this discussion is getting off topic. Prcc27 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I see As to his electoral future, Kennedy said he would only work to remove his name from ballots in swing states because he wanted to give his to give his supporters in "red states" and "blue states" a chance to vote for him without "harming or helping." Not a spoiler, but not relevant either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He has withdrawn and endorsed someone else. If he starts to actively campaign we can revisit this. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

During the primaries when someone drop outs, it's said they've suspended their campaign. So, not much difference here. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

add 1 word

i can't edit but i think we should add the term "new" to: along with his "new" running mate, Ohio senator JD Vance. Avy falk (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Trump infobox

Regarding RfC: Trump infobox photo Existing agreement on Can you post a link? About 50 numbers of existing discussions and agreements regarding President "Donald Trump" are summarized and there is a direct link at the top of the talk page. However, it is said that there has been an existing agreement on this content - photo, but since there are many archived topics, can you post this at the top of this talk page or here in this talk page? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I did not receive a response to my inquiry, I looked it up and found that an agreement was reached in March of this year. Below is the information. ref link Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7

In summary, a total of 9 people voted, 6 in favor, 3 strongly or slightly opposed, and the agreement was reached in March of this year, 2024.

The basis for the agreement is that 1) in the past, in the case of photos from the US presidential election that were more than 5 years ago, they were required to change them to new photos and participate in the election, and now 2) since voters may be concerned about President Trump's age, it was said that in order to allay concerns about this, it would be reasonable to use photos from the past 3 years.

Since the above agreement seems reasonable to me, it would be difficult to reverse the agreement and reuse the photos that were officially designated 7 years ago, and I suggest that you upload 3 or fewer photos from the past 3 years and proceed with the vote while reducing the options until more than half of the users who participated in the vote agree

Especially for the 7-year-old photo, when doing a new RfC, you should summarize the reasons why the existing users above agreed to the above and inform the users that the option should not be selected for the 7-year-old photo. It seems that an agreement will be reached if you inform them of the reason.

Although the current photo has an arrogant expression, the good thing is that it has a smiling expression, is confident, and looks young for its age. However, the head angle and expression are strange, so I think it should be changed to give a positive and friendly image.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Texas Swing state?

I know that currently the community is talking about North Carolina but Texas should be looked at again new polls show consistently that Harris is down 2-5 points from trump John Bois (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems WP:UNDUE, we would first need mounds of reliable sources which show that Texas is a swing state. It is original research for us to base it on solely on polling. Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Does no one understand what the term swing state means? It is not a "close state." It's a state that "swings" from party to party. North Carolina has gone for the Democratic candidate once in the last 10 elections, and then by 1/3 of one percent. Texas has gone red ELEVEN straight times. There is no swinging! GreatCaesarsGhost 14:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

And Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have gone red only once in my lifetime. So if North Carolina isn’t a swing state, neither are those rust belt states. At the very least, MI, PA, NC, and WI are “battleground” states. Prcc27 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think your age is a particular relevant data point, except perhaps to explain how you could think this argument holds water. North Carolina went blue 16 years ago in an election where the Democrat won by 7%. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin went red 8 years ago in an election where the Republican lost. And not just any Republican - the same one who is running this year. In any case, Texas has never gone blue in your lifetime, so I'm not sure what your point is. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We’re just gonna have to follow the sources. We say NC is a swing state, because that’s what the sources say. If the sources ever say Texas is a swing state (which I doubt they will for this election cycle), we should too. Prcc27 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. However, swing state and battleground state are now used interchangeably. North Carolina is a swing state. Texas is not. Yavneh (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets.

Hello all. I would appreciate all of your input here, about possible sock puppetry being done in these RfCs: [6][7]. Your insight is very much appreciated. Prcc27 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

I don't know why someone who always thinks the same is accused of being a sock puppet. You can't just accuse without evidence. What if they always read Wikipedia and find my proposal? Why should someone who thinks the same be accused of being a sock puppet? Why would you do that to me? Teknologi Positif (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I'm shocked because I just proposed a photo about Trump and there are people who think the same but you accuse me of being a sock puppet. Teknologi Positif (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC) This talk page is not the place for you to defend yourself. Please only add comments on the matter to the sockpuppet investigation page. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I have no problem with anyone else. It's just that I'm confused when I submit a proposal for a new Trump photo and there are people who have the same opinion as me, I am accused of using a sock puppet. Maybe I shouldn't submit a proposal for a new Trump photo anymore. I know you are a Democrat, but I ask that you have good intentions towards me. I am actually an Independent and not affiliated with any party. That's why I submitted a proposal for a new Trump photo with a smiling face to be on par with Harris's photo which is also smiling. But if you want to silence my opinion and accuse me, I am willing and sincere. Teknologi Positif (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

"Bobby"

Trump calls RFK Jr "Bobby". He is NOT Bobby. And we should not call him "Bobby" in the article. He is nothing like the real Bobby. The real Bobby was a hero to many Americans. He was immediately favored to win the 1968 election. I was 21 and ready to vote. But for an assassin bullet, America and the World would be different. Most likely BETTER but at the least different. As the Family says, "This is a travesty". We should not sanction a travesty. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• This thread may be a tad early since "Bobby" is not yet mentioned in the article. But should he be, we should only use Robert Kennedy JR. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making such decisions, based on emotions. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If sources cover Trump calling him Bobby, then it might be suitable for inclusion, especially as a comparison to JFK. Even then though, it should be brief here as this is more focused on the election overall. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no comparison. Even his family never calls him Bobby. It's a Trump gimmick. I'm just saying...His name is Robert Kennedy Jr. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources make a comparison, then we could consider it for inclusion. As it stands, reliable sources only seem to be quoting Trump and members of the Kennedy family when using the word Bobby with regards to Kennedy Jr and not actually using it outside of those quotes. So there is no reason to add presently. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This section does seem premature and unnecessary. Why are we worried about a problem that hasn’t even happened yet? We should use the common name of an individual. Prcc27 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I know. It is premature. I was just so upset (Yes emotional) when I heard Trump call him by my hero's name. Do any of you young whipersnappers have a hero that died to soon, whose life would have changed the direction of your country? A hero whose name is being scorned by mis-application. I am a veteran editor that does not do social media. I come to Wikipedia to communicate with fellow editors. I hope you will excuse my humanness. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood, but please remember WP:NOTAFORUM. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump photo as of 27 Aug 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to suggest the final image to change on the profile photo based on three options from other Wikipedia users. Please give me your opinion on this. I propose that the RfC voting start on Tuesday, August 27, 2024. For election 2024 photo, The existing 2017 official profile picture has been agreed to be changed in March 2024 for the following reasons, so it is excluded from the options.

the previous agreement of profile photo was reached in March of this year 2024. this is the information. *ref link Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7

In summary, a total of 9 people voted, 6 in favor, 3 strongly or slightly opposed, and the agreement was reached in March of this year, 2024.

The basis for the agreement is that 1) in the past, in the case of photos from the US presidential election that were more than 5 years ago, they were required to change them to new photos and participate in the election, and now 2) since voters may be concerned about President Trump's age, it was said that in order to allay concerns about this, it would be reasonable to use photos from the past 3 years.

(option:1) Trump's current photo. (Opinion) Trump's head angle is awkward and his expression looks arrogant. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15)

(option:2) Trump's updated photo-2.(Comment) Trump's bright and friendly facial expression, and the photo was taken within the last 3 years. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15)

(option:3) Trump's updated photo-3.(Comment) Trump's bright and friendly facial expression, and the photo was taken within the last 3 years. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15)

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on inclusion of RFK Jr into the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion obsolete now that Kennedy has dropped out. Nojus R (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Now, I would like to specify some things.Firstly, there is ongoing debate on whether he qualifies for the info box based on previous Rfcs, which mainly states from my observation that he needs to: A. Poll consistently above 5% B. Be eligible for 270+ electoral votes Today he qualified for B with Texas certifying him for the ballot, but he has dropped in some polls to just below 5%. Knowing these things, can we say that he qualifies or not? Do you think: ✅Aye: he does qualify for the infobox ❌Nay: He does not. Leave your comments for why so and elaborate on it. The specifics for what the info box will look like will be seperate. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment The RFC does not say "Poll consistently above 5%"; it specifically mentions "generally." The agreed upon criteria were: "Criterion #1a: A candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)" and "Criterion #6: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and meets criteria #1a, #1b, or #1c." See here for the RFC:[8] David O. Johnson (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson Ah, thx. Also leave your opinion on inclusion of him in the infobox Jayson (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jayson Aye

To comment on the polling, there are a lot of issues going on with the polling at the moment and we shouldn't take them for granted. Many of the polls, which are also being listed in the aggregators, that include Kennedy and third party candidates didn't include them as separate options for the respondents but rather as something to put in under "Other". Some polls will make this easy by labeling it as (VOL) for voluntary. YouGov doesn't do this to point out but they do have the option "Other" and list only Trump and Harris. Compared to appearing on the ballot as an option, this is equivalent to a Write-in which unless you are Joe Biden in New Hampshire earlier this year, you will barely get many votes.

TLDR, many polls will portray their results like they gave Kennedy, West, etc equal chance to Trump and Harris but when in reality, made people have to write them in.

For accuracy's sake, we should only include polls that we know provide the other candidates their own option to the respondents. Buildershed (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/evidence-Tl3Mr6u to back my claims up Buildershed (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand how aggregates work, and I am not going to explain it again. Prcc27 (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 I have read what you said already. Buildershed (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, this just furthers the fact that he's not considered as major of a candidate as Harris or Trump, and thus is evidence against including him in the infobox. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Unknown-Tree 2%-4% as a write-in? Buildershed (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

My point was that he's not being considered a major candidate. He's not considered on the same level as Harris or Trump, but rather on the same level as West, Stein, and others, which aren't being included in the infobox. I also don't think he'd be much higher if he was in the polls. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's a nay from me. A fairly low-polling candidate/undue weight. His polls don't look much different from the other third party candidates running now. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is simply not true, West, Stein and Oliver are not getting polls in the 5% range.XavierGreen (talk) XavierGreen (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Massive Aye from me. Sure, Kennedy has dropped in the polls but he has now reached 270+ EV, so I say it's time. No excuses. Lostfan333 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Aye -Once he is Consistently polling lower than 5%, then it's a done deal. InterDoesWiki (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He already is. Of the last 5 polls in a five-way matchup, 3 of them are below 5% and 1 of them is exactly at 5%. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your vote doesn't make sense. You say AYE to include but only if his polling is below 5%? GreatCaesarsGhost 20:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure he actually has the 270. Do we have a source? I see some people pointing to the RFK WP page, but several of the references there are iffy. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

❌Nay The average of the five aggregators is under 5%. 2 of 5 are below, and the numbers are falling. While "generally above 5%" is open to interpretation, I would also ask everyone to read the prior discussion. Most of the people supporting 5% were conflating polling with results, and made no comment recognizing that partial ballot access would reduce this number. In any case, there is a generalized consensus to add him if appears to be a serious factor, expressed by some combination of ballot access, polling, and news coverage. While ballot access is expanded, the polling has fallen by more than half and the news coverage is exclusively laughing at him. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, the access count is now 260, as IA, PA and LA do not have independent confirmation and we cannot ascertain with certainty what the primary sources say. If he is still at 5% in 3 out of 5 when he gets to 270, I would support interpreting that as meeting the qualification of the prior RfC's consensus. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I am open to waiting for better sources for IA, PA, and LA. But even then, it looks like some people just don’t want to add RFKJR no matter what. Prcc27 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I imagine you could ask an uninvolved admin if it came to that. I would suggest that the prior RfC still stands as consensus, and this one does not overrule it as it only asks "should we add him at this moment?" and much of the resistance is questioning whether he actually meets the standard of the prior RfC, rather than seeking to subvert it. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment. The previous RfC's outcome suggested general polling above 5% in major polling aggregators (mentioned 538, RCP) and 270 EV ballot access. He has reached this threshold with 538 and RCP, but not in The Hill. He generally meets that criteria. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If the new threshold though is consistently polls above 5%, then Nay. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no "new" threshold. The RFC result was about polling aggregators, not polls themselves.XavierGreen (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the recent polls show that RFK under 5% in state polls. There have not been a lot of polls lately that show him at all. the ones that do include him usually have him hovering above 5%. But it also brings up the point of when polls expire. Because he has polled as high as 21% albeit it was likely an outlier and against Biden. He has met the criteria that was outlined. It makes little sense to change it now. I say Yay to include him. 2601:243:2401:15A0:F497:92DF:61D6:E25D (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. RFK should be included on the infobox because the precedent is that third-party candidates get on the infobox. We see this with elections just about every country aside from the USA, with candidates much less likely to win their elections than RFK Jr. All previous doubts as to if RFK will be able to get 270 EVs have been silenced and his polling generally shows him above 5%. The idea that he shouldn't be included flies in the face of all precedent outside of the USA, and the idea that he shouldn't be included because he is unlikely to win or that some think he is unlikely to cross 5% is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is not up to Wikipedia to judge candidates' chances of winning. RFK is a national candidate with the best polling for a third-party candidate since Ross Perot, therefore it is clear that he should be included. Frankly, I fail to even see the need for discussion on this issue. Collorizador (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

All previous doubts as to if RFK will be able to get 270 EVs have been silenced Have you read any posts on this page? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

RFK is certified for 293 electoral votes, with 209 awaiting certifiaction.[9] Collorizador (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia-made image is not a reliable source. Looking at a few states, I see discrepancies. Like a PA legal challenge for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. We do not know what the legal challenge will bring. Biden was included in the Ohio infobox despite potential legal trouble as well. Collorizador (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't know what the challenge(s) will bring. Therefore we should be defaulting to exclusion, not inclusion, until it's sorted out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why was Biden kept in the Ohio infobox then despite the potential legal trouble there, then? Collorizador (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They had a workaround. RFK ballot challenges are different from the Ohio situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

AYE, Kennedy has enough electoral votes and generally polls above five percent. I see a lot of people commenting here, I respect their opinions, but we must also respect the rules. Fact is, most Americans know about Kennedy and a decent chunk support him. He will impact the election moreso than most other third-parry candidates and therefore should be included. 2600:6C83:1E00:24:773C:C1A1:3DEC:1D20 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Nay. He just doesn't have the polling anymore, and no RS has actually reported that he has actually achieved 270; to say he has is WP:SYNTH. In my view, he doesn't meet either criteria, let alone both. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, FiveThirtyEight has him at 5.1% and he's been falling. If they go below 5%, a majority of aggregators will be below 5%, in which case there's really no defense to putting him in; if we add him now, it's likely we'd have to remove him in a couple of days. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

By stating he is at 5.1%, you are admitting that he has met the critera to be included in the last RFC and your edits removing him from the infobox are therefore disruptive by your own admission.XavierGreen (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please modulate yourself and AGF. The editor did not say "he is at 5.1%" he said "FiveThirtyEight has him at 5.1%" which does not meet the criteria of the RfC. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant now, isn’t it? Yavneh (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is this discussion labeled an RFC? It hasn't been tagged as such. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay Sorry, its my first. Jayson (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is already an ongoing discussion regarding this above as well. He clearly meets the inclusion criteria, as he has at least 270 ballot access and is above 5% in a majority of polling aggregators as stated on the page itself.XavierGreen (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He does not have "access" to 270 EV. The Hill says 174 confirmed. Why do we have to continue to beat this dead horse? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I can already spot a few inaccuracies. For one, the Texas AG certified him for the ballot. Let me go look for some more. Jayson (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Jayson, the 174 confirmed includes TX. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Oof my bad XD Jayson (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The Hill's chart is not a reliable source. For example, it says that NJ is not "confirmed", however the NJ Secretary of State (who has the final say on ballot access in NJ) has stated that RFK, Jr. is on the ballot in New Jersey. See here [10].XavierGreen (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@XavierGreen Also California. The state Independent American Party, which has ballot access last I checked, nominated Kennedy for the ballot. Jayson (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:THEHILL is reliable. Where's your source for "he has at least 270 ballot access" XavierGreen? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The Hill's chart is not reliable. Another example, as another user stated is California where the AIP has nominated RFK, Jr. The AIP has ballot access in California. The Hill seems to be excluding states where RFK, Jr. is on the ballot via nomination by pre-existing third parties. See here [11]. NYT has him "confirmed" in California see here [12].XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

NYT appears to give RFK fewer states than The Hill. We can't engage in WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A summary of reliable sources does not violate Wiki SYNTH. See [13]. The ballot access page itself provides reliable sources for each state that shows he has access to more than 270 electoral college votes.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It's SYNTH and an overreliance on WP:PRIMARY sources that are not taking into account ongoing legal challenges. Like PA for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That lawsuit in PA was literally just filed. The new jersey lawsuit ended, Scott Salmon's case was defeated. Other than the PA lawsuit, the ballot access page actual does note where RFK, Jr.'s petitions have been challenged. Excluding PA, RFK, Jr. is at 274 electoral college vote access.XavierGreen (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be WP:SYNTH if we said “RFKJR has ballot access to a majority of Electoral Votes” in the article. However, if it is clear to us as editors that he has sufficient ballot access, we should at least consider including him in the infobox. Most of the readers probably don’t even know that ballot access is a criterion for the infobox. And we are not directly making that claim to the readers if we include him in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, states that RFK, Jr. has access to more than 270 electoral college votes. See the comment section of his post here [14]XavierGreen (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

❌Nay: As other editors have pointed out, the average of the five aggregators is under 5%. From The Keys to the White House: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been polling at between 2% and 12%. Lichtman's criteria is that a third party candidate is required to poll at an average of 10% or more consistently to turn the key false: as of August 5, 2024, Kennedy's polling aggregate average in a three candidate race is 4.2%.
Key 4 is turned false when a single third party candidate consistently polls at 10% or more, indicating they are likely to receive 5% or more of the national popular vote: third party candidates typically underperform their polling by around half, with Lichtman saying they tend to fade in the voting booth as voters focus on the major party candidates.
There's also the question: Do news sources treat him as a major candidate? No, his candidacy is no longer covered seriously. Articles about him now read like The Onion, e.g., a worm ate part of his brain, he buried a bear cub in Central Park. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The keys to the white house is absolutely not a criterion for inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is, but his point that third party candidates typically underperform their polling by around half is true and not being considered by users pushing this "5% rule." GhulamIslam (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The 5% rule was already adopted in the past RFC on this page, and site wide for all elections pages.XavierGreen (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The "5% rule" refers to votes, not polls. The polling 5% standard adopted at this page is explicitly NOT site wide, but only for this page. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

✅Aye, he is in the conversation in an impactful way that exceeds the typical situation for third-party candidates. BD2412 T 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No - He's not a major candidate & we shouldn't be pushing that he is. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You supported the ballot access and polling criteria at the RfC. Why the change of heart..? Many users feel like the goalposts are being moved. Prcc27 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They supported the BA, but did not comment on the polling. Which is part of the issue with trying to consider so many hypotheticals simultaneously; you don't even consider the guy polling at 18 is going to drop to 4. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not he is considered by you personally to be a "major candidate" is not relevant or NPOV. The prior RFC established a consensus that any candidate that has ballot access to 270 polls and is "generally" getting 5% in polling aggregators must be included in the page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And for the millionth time, he doesn't have ballot access to 270. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

❌Nay and whoever added him to the article mid-discussion should remove him themselves to prevent edit warring over this. He's dipped down to 3-4% in most aggregates, so this is an odd time to add him per the 5% threshold. Right now he's looking more like a 2016 Gary Johnson than a 1992 Ross Perot. That said, maybe after the election, if a significant number of outlets report that he had a substantial impact on the election, we can revisit the 5% threshold and maybe think of some exceptions to it. I'm of the belief that Ralph Nader should be on the 2000 election page in spite of his low vote percent because it's widely believed he had a substantial influence on the election, so some tweaking to our criteria could be warranted. But for now, no. The 5% threshold is what we use today, and RFK Jr is struggling to meet it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

also, as many others pointed out, the claim that enough states have put him on the ballot for him to have access to 270 ECVs is very questionable. The source appears to be a bunch of individual sources (some less reliable than others) about access in individual states all WP:SYNTH'd together to demonstrate that he's made it to 270, as opposed to any single reliable outlet reporting this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ballot Access News states he has exceeded 270 2600:1001:B121:9267:40FB:4D4D:2CF7:9184 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ballot Access News is a WordPress website with one or two writers. I personally would prefer a more notable source say it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Exclude, it’s unclear whether he meets the criteria of the last RFC. Even if he does, the difficulty we are having applying those criteria illustrates the problem with them. They should be abandoned, and we should treat this by assessing whether reliable sources consider him to be an important enough element of this race that we should include his face next to the other two people. —JFHutson (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

538 is now <5% as are all other 3-way aggregators and 3/5 overall. I think this conversation is moot? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

For now maybe. But polls can shift. Prcc27 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They can, but the trend so far seems to be that Kennedy is trending down in polling. I personally doubt he will trend back up in any meaningful capacity. Talthiel (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Knew this was gonna happen; mentioned it above earlier. I really don't see how he could be added now, as he unambiguously fails to meet the criteria. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost

5 way aggregators have him above 5% still. Buildershed (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Only 2 aggregators do 5-way aggregation, the majority do 3-way; there are more aggregators below 5% for him than above. The original RfC does not say "if one aggregator has the candidate above 5%", aggregators need to generally have him above the threshold. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Not anymore.. 538 has him at 5% again. If you average all 5 aggregates he is at 5.48%. As for ballot access? We currently have him at 333 Electoral Votes at the third party article. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

All 6 aggregators now have him below 5%. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: Kennedy has been barred from the New York ballot which could lead to further challenges in states where he used the same address. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rfk-jr-disqualified-from-new-york-ballot-used-sham-address-residency-judge-rules https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jlgyzzyz4o GhulamIslam (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Could, but Crystal until it happens. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Include or be consistent with the state pages. It's weird that he is included on the majority of individual state pages, but not the national page. Fryedk (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fryedk, which ones? I agree it should be consistent, meaning excluding him from individual state pages as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• This CBS News article[15] from Wednesday gives RFK Alaska, California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. The NYT[16] adds Hawai'i, Maine and New Jersey, and The Hill [17] adds Florida. That is reliable secondary confirmation of 279 votes with Delaware and Nevada to spare. I don't believe we have the 5%, though. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, Kennedy has now reached 270+ Electoral Votes, but there's a certain someone who continues to deny this. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu doesn't want to add Kennedy pre-election because he will not be there post-election, which is quite logical. However, consensus was clear that there should be some measure by which he can get in before. I advocated for a more "vibes" approach to this, which I think would serve us better now. RFK is limping towards the RFC standard when it's plain as day the bulk of his polling numbers are rounding errors and bad methodology. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Lostfan333 (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Moratorium until November 5

IMHO, we should have a moratorium in place concerning inclusion/exclusion in the top infobox, until November 5, 2024. These constant attempts to add Kennedy/Shanahan into the infobox, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay No. It would make sense to include major candidates in the infobox, and right now he should be treated as such. Jayson (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A moratorium is only viable is RFK is included. Collorizador (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur that a moratorium should only be imposed if RFK is included, because he clearly meets the inclusion criteria set forth by the last RFC.XavierGreen (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The moratorium GoodDay is referring to is a moratorium on this disruptive WP:IDHT push to include RFK in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What's disruptive is the constant anti-RFK POV-pushing. There is no sensible argument to keep RFK out of the infobox. Therefore, no moratorium should take places unless RFK is in the infobox. Collorizador (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sensible arguments: third party candidates always underperform their polling, he does not appear to be getting access to 270 EVs, and it's a two party system whether we like it or not. There you go. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter if third party candidates usually underperform polls. That is borderline WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, I argued for a 10% threshold, but the consensus was for 5%, so the time to argue 5% is too low is over. We are not “pushing” to include RFKJR. He met the RfC criteria, so now we add him to the infobox. We will survive having him in the infobox. FYI, in 2016 we had several third party candidates in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Attempting to enforce the results of the RFC that established the inclusion criteria is not disruptive. Attempting to keep RFK Jr. out of the infobox, when he meets the inclusion critera is disruptive.XavierGreen (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@XavierGreen Let the fool in the infobox and let him in now! ✅️Aye is final for me Jayson (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Not meant to be directed at you sry Jayson (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So if RFK Jr. drops below 5% in just one other polling aggregator, he should be kept? This moratorium is just an attempt to keep him in the infobox until the election, which makes no sense as he is not truly considered a major candidate anymore. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It makes no sense to add him at all. Unfriendnow (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the overwhelming consensus is to include Kennedy. Someone add him to the infobox. -Jayson (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no overwhelming consensus to do that. So, let's not add him. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Are we really going to drag our feet with this? He meets the polling criterion. As for the ballot access criterion.. it looks like he meets that as well. The reliable sources seem to be doing a terrible job updating their ballot access maps. If that is the reason we are excluding him, maybe the ballot access criterion was a bad idea after all. We already had an RfC and I don’t understand why we are moving the goalposts. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you!! Kennedy has now met the Criteria for inclusion. Trying to find excuses to keep him off for longer is wrong. Again, the Criteria has been met!! Massive Aye Lostfan333 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That whole RFC was a joke. You can't list 8 different options, have a combination of two of them get ~ 15% support and call it consensus. You are right about the ballot access in particular being a problem, but we also have the issue of what "generally" means. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the people supporting 5% were conflating polling with results, and made no comment recognizing that partial ballot access would reduce this number. He also does not appear to be getting access to 270 EVs. Adding him is ridiculous and unnecessary. Especially considering in the same time period, there have been 6 polls that show him below 5%.

He also is simply not a major candidate like the other two as many people and news organizations have pointed out. Unfriendnow (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I supported 10% for this exact reason. Partial ballot access makes it that much harder to get 5% post-election, and I did in fact make that argument at the RfC. Nevertheless, I was out-!voted, so we should stick with the consensus we came up with which is 5%+ polling average. RFKJR meets that threshold. Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Of the last 5 polls in a five-way matchup, 3 of them are below 5% and 1 of them is exactly at 5%. Other polls show him below 5%. Adding him now to the infobox when he hasn't been consistency above 5% is ridiculous. It would make sense to add him if he was above that number in general but he isn't, If polling aggregators tomorrow or the following week show him below 3% are we then going to have to take him out of the Infobox? are we going to have to check the polling aggregators every hour??? this all seems so unnecessary especially since his polling numbers are consistently going down ever since Kamala has became the Democratic Party's nominee.   Unfriendnow (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. We already agreed on using polling aggregates. Individual polls are useless. Prcc27 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ/The Hill as of August 9th has him at 3.4% (yesterday it was 3.8), Silver Bulletin as of August 9th has him at 4.1% (yesterday it was 4.5), and 538 has him barely above 5%. If they go below 5%, most aggregators will also fall below 5%, so adding him now will probably require removing him in a few days. In that scenario, there's really no reason to add him. Adding him to the infobox because only one polling says he is barely above 5% is simply illogical. Unfriendnow (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Silver Bulletin being a major aggregate is debateable. Prcc27 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Nate Silver basically created the industry. RCP doesn't even weight polls. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Point of order I don't believe the suggested moratorium would be remotely enforceable. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this is most likely unenforceable as it's essentially asking us to keep a status quo until election day, regardless of discussion and regardless of polling. Polling which, just as a reminder to all the people asking that he be included, absolutely does not support his inclusion right now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be consistent? Why is he on the Michigan page? It's not like he has some huge support of Michiganders, he's at 5% there. 66.181.65.62 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed previously, and the consensus supported adding to the state boxes when the candidate had ballot access and 5% in the aggregators for that state. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• In any case, it seems that he is planning to drop out and endorse Trump, which is likely to make all this moot. If that happens, do we go through and remove him from the various state-level pages where he's listed? --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Probably. Prcc27 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  If he drops out, then we remove him from any infoboxes that indicate actual candidates in the election, and drop a note on the respective pages about his failed candidacy and how he was polling in the respective states before his withdrawal. BD2412 T 20:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand it's done. At least that settles the infobox issues. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestions on improving and updating the article (23 August 2024)

1.) Move Robert Kennedy Jr. to the "Withdrawn candidates" section (adding reliable sources):

example (of article section look):
Withdrawn candidates
The following notable individual(s) announced and then suspended their campaigns before the election:

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr., environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist, previously Democratic primaries candidate launching an independent campaign (endoresed Trump)
• Kanye West, rapper, candidate for president in 2020

  ---

  
  

2.) Move the information about Cornel West's candidacy to the new section named "Independent candidates" , considering that the candidate does not have more significant ballot access than the other candidates listed in "Other Independent candidates" section.

example (of the new section look):
Independent candidates
The following notable individuals are running independently for president.

• Cornel West, academic, left-leaning and anti-war activist and public intellectual, previously Green Party primaries candidate launching an independent campaign
• Shiva Ayyadurai, entrepreneur, and anti-vaccine activist; candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in 2018 and 2020
• Johnny Buss, part-owner and vice president of strategic development of the Los Angeles Lakers
• Joseph "Afroman" Foreman, rapper
• Taylor Marshall, podcaster and author

  ---

  
  

3.) Restore the available photo under Green vice-presidential candidate Ware (available as: File:Dr. Dutch Bilal Ware wisdom (cropped).jpg) at the Green Party campaign information box. --Dav988, 20:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear whether that image is freely-licensed; see [18]. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

On Cornel West, there was a previous discussion on should his nominee table be removed (which would likely put him instead in the other independents list if the consensus was to removed his table) but no clear consensus came out of it Punker85 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

2 - I agree with your suggestion on Cornel West - if he is still short of 270, he should not get a box. That is WP:Undue weight for a candidate with a polling average of 0.6% Superb Owl (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

2 - West/Abdullah currently aren't able to win 270 EV. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that Cornel West nominee table should not be removed because I think he is notable enough of a candidate to have his own table, like many news organizations (The New York Times, NBC News, CNN, The Hill, The Guardian, Reuters) mention him in their list of presidential candidates, which I think is a sign of his notability Punker85 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

RfC: Trump infobox photo from August

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close. Per F4U, “please do not open new RFCs on the lede image while one is currently ongoing.” (non-admin closure) Prcc27 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Official Portrait October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06)

In March 2024, there was an agreement in the information box of this article not to use the official 2017 Trump presidential portrait (right). There are two reasons for this: 1) There is a history of the president using a new photo for elections when he ran for president. 2) Concerns about the president's age can be addressed by using a recent photo (e.g., the last 3-5 years).

• In addition, in July 2024, we asked for opinions on using the official 2017 Trump presidential portrait, but we did not reach consensus by a 50:50 agreement.

• In the meantime, through several RfCs, it was said that the current temporary photo (Option 1) could be seen as an arrogant expression, so we propose a photo that was taken within the last 3 years and is closest to the official 2017 Trump presidential portrait.

• These two photos can be balanced by giving voters a friendly look, like the photo of Harris, with her teeth showing and smiling friendly.
• Please kindly let us know your opinion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternative Options

• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 1)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 2)
• 
  October 10, 2023 (2023-10-10) (Option 3)

Goodtiming8871, your new RfC appears to be based on an involved closure I had to revert for now, until someone uninvolved finds the time to close the discussion. It may thus be reasonable to remove this RfC (and my reply here) for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree, let me message you to your talk page for the next RfC process Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 and 3 look absolutely insane. They invoke a body snatcher in a human suit making its first failed attempt to mimic human expression. Option 1 is fine, as is the official. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Trump photo part 2

Blocked sockpuppet ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Procedural close. Please do not open new RFCs on the lede image while one is currently ongoing. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Trump's current photo. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) My new proposed photo of Trump. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) Harris's current photo. March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) Excuse me, This is the latest photo of Trump that I proposed because when I saw the photo of Trump that I proposed previously, many people thought that the background of the photo was strange, the tie was yellow, and the face was arrogant because he was not smiling. Therefore, I propose this new photo of Trump which has an upright body and a straight head. In addition, the photo of Trump that I proposed has a smiling face and his teeth are visible which is very fitting when juxtaposed with the photo of Harris who is also smiling and her teeth are visible. Then the photo that I proposed also has a background that is not strange and uses a red tie. For the problem of Trump's face looking old, of course because Trump is currently 78 years old. So I hope that the photo of Trump that I proposed will be used in the Wikipedia article. Thank you. Teknologi Positif (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Support I agree with everything you said. I support the photo of Donald Trump that you suggested. Moreover, this photo also fits well when juxtaposed with the photo of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 114.10.45.169 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you for supporting my proposal. Teknologi Positif (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Support I think the photo you proposed fits all the criteria such as wearing a red tie, head held high, body straight, smiling face and showing teeth. So the photo of Trump you proposed is very good when juxtaposed with the photos of Kennedy Jr. and Harris. Besides that I also agree with everything you said. GBUDJT (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Support Thank you for supporting my proposal. Of course, the photo of Trump that I proposed has the main criteria such as wearing a red tie and a smiling face with visible teeth. And it is very good when juxtaposed with photos of other politicians such as Biden. Then one of the important factors is a straight head and a straight body. Teknologi Positif (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose - Procedural We now have three RfCs running concurrently to decide the image, two of them started by the same user. I don't care too much about what image ends up being used, but do care that we might end up with multiple conflicting closures due to excessive RfCs started after the main one. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Procedural oppose: and I suspect the three users above that support this may be sockpuppets. Prcc27 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Trump photo

Sockpuppet blocked. Prcc27 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. RfC created in bad faith by sockpuppet. There is already an active RfC on the matter above. (non-admin closure) Prcc27 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Trump's current photo. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) My proposed photo of Trump. June 6, 2024 (2024-06-06) Oliver's current photo. July 13, 2024 (2024-07-13) I want to ask, do you agree if Trump's current photo is replaced with the Trump photo that I proposed above? In my opinion, this Trump photo is better and straighter. In addition, in my opinion, this Trump photo is the best photo in 2024 so this is also a new photo. Regarding the photo that is not smiling, I think it doesn't matter because Chase Oliver also has a photo that is not smiling or showing teeth. In addition, what I like about this photo is that Trump looks fresher and more pleasing to the eye like Chase Oliver's photo. Do you agree if Trump's current photo is replaced with the photo I proposed? Teknologi Positif (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Support I think the photo you proposed is very good. In addition, there are many photos of former US presidents who are not smiling or showing their teeth. Not only Chase Oliver, Cornel West also has a photo that is not smiling and does not show his teeth. Then the photo of Trump that you proposed also looks fresher and straighter. 114.10.45.216 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Support I would like to add a comment that the photo I proposed has also been used for a long time by several other language Wikipedias. So I hope that English language Wikipedia will also use the photo I proposed. Thank you. Teknologi Positif (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Support - The Yellow Tie is a bit off-putting but other than that, it's a very well option, and his points do make sense, and it's league's better then the current image. InterDoesWiki (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Regarding the issue, I have opened RfC: Trump photo part 2. But unfortunately it was closed. I hope RfC: Trump photo part 2 will be reopened. Thank you. Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Support The photos you proposed are very nice. I 100% support your proposal. Because the photo you proposed looks straighter and more balanced. Regarding the tie color, I don't think it's too big of a problem because the photo of Tim Walz himself wearing a brown tie is still displayed in the article without any problems. 114.10.45.216 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Note: this is a redundant !vote. IP already !voted above. Prcc27 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC) True, actually I don't see why the picture proposed in this RFC Is just one of thr options in the Trump image RFC. InterDoesWiki (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Procedural concerns: we are already discussing Trump’s photo in another RfC. I don’t think another RfC on the matter is helping. Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Agreed. One RfC at a time, especially since it appears reverting the image to Trump's official portrait has some supporters above. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC) I just want to add that the background is very weird. If you look at the zoomed out version of the photo, it is an enlarged photo of Trump. Either way, this RfC is premature. Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Seconded Punker85 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Maybe you can give me a chance? I think the current photo of Trump shows a tilted head and a crooked body. Because I think it would be nice if a photo of a politician like Trump showed a straight head and a straight body. Teknologi Positif (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Slight Oppose I feel like the proposed photo looks less official and clean(?, mostly regarding his hair) than the current photo. Also, why aren't we just using his current image from his article? ✶Quxyz✶ 00:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC) In my opinion, Trump's current photo has a fairly dark face. It is not balanced when compared to Tim Walz's photo which has a bright face. Of course, Trump's current photo is affected by the lighting and lights at the event. So that's why I propose a photo of Trump that has a bright face like Joe Biden or Tim Walz. In addition, the photo I propose also has a straight head and a straight body which Trump's current photo does not have. Teknologi Positif (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Okay. But you should have made the proposal at this RfC instead of starting a completely new RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Support In my opinion, the photo of Trump that you proposed has better criteria than the current photo of Trump. The photo of Trump that you proposed has a bright face color, a straight body and not tilted, a straight head and not tilted. For the tie color issue, I think it doesn't matter because in Tim Walz's photo he also wears a brown tie and it doesn't cause any problems. So I strongly support if the current photo of Trump is replaced with the photo that you proposed. Because when compared to photos of other politicians who are running for president, the current photo of Donald Trump is a photo that has a dark face when compared to photos of other politicians who have bright faces. So I strongly support if the current photo of Trump is replaced with the photo of Trump that you proposed. GBUDJT (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose/close for reasons stated by others: there was a consensus to change from the official portrait (2017), but there will probably never be a consensus on what the new Trump photo should be. The photo right now is fine; let’s remember WP:DEADHORSE. Dingers5Days (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Comment/close Since many people disagree with this proposal, it is officially closed. Thank you to those who have commented. Teknologi Positif (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose ( Previous Support), After watching the photo several times, this photo is too serious looking face and impression of concerns (maybe to much unreasonable political attacks from U.S.A democratic Party)so it's unbalanced to other competitor's bright smiling face profile photos. - basic principle of photo: smiling and bright looking attract positive impression to the voters of U.S.A presidential election 5 November 2024.Tuesday. (Previous comments)< Among the photos that have been released so far, I also recommend the photo that you proposed along with option 6 above, next to the official portrait of Trump in 2017. The reason is that at least the face angle is correct and the expression is natural. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose. Besides the disruption caused by multiple RFCs about this photo, this is worse than the official photo. The argument people have given against the official photo is he is older now, but he doesn't look any older in this photo as far as I can tell. The tie color and background look strange. I searched in Google images and was not able to find an instance where he wore a tie that was not blue or red. --JFHutson (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC) He doesn't look any older so official photo can be used - that is the point !!!:) how the photo was taken; it can be the matter. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Close again, if given 12 options, consensus will never settle on one. We don't need to keep having this conversation. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Suggestion Hello Teknologi Positif Thank you for your RfC, I think that the current photos with strange and especially arrogant facial expressions should definitely be replaced. So I suggest that we try to replace the photos through this, but that we exclude from the votes the users who oppose the replacement of photos without any reasonable rational, without any reason. That is, it seems that the users who support the U.S. Democratic Party are not voting in good faith, but are trying to keep the strange or negative appearance of Donald Trump in the photo. I think that it is necessary to select the people who vote in good faith on Wikipedia.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC) This is absolutely uncalled for! Please remember to assume good faith and be WP:CIVIL. I am indeed a Democrat, but if you would actually read what I have said on this talk page, I have explicitly said I do not like the current photo and that we need a photo for Trump that is more presidential. Believe it or not, it isn’t hard to set aside one’s personal political beliefs and edit Wikipedia neutrally. Many users are opposed to the photo because we are literally already discussing which photo to use for Trump in another RfC. And by the way, the photo proposal in this RfC is actually worse than the current infobox photo. Look at the uncropped version of the photo; completely dreadful! Prcc27 (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC) thank you for your feedback, I assumed good faith but I would like to see the previous discussions about the photo. Let me know the link of the previous talks about profile photos. Kind regards. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC) I don’t want to violate WP:AGF or make any unfounded accusations of sockpuppets, but for some reason I am just a little bit suspicious of the fact that one of the supporters of the photo is an IP and another is a new user whose first and only edit was in this very RfC. But maybe my suspicions are illogical and I am overreacting..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC) You have every right to be suspicious. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you for reassuring me. I have asked an admin what they think is going on, and we will go from there. Prcc27 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your reply, I think this really has potentially a big impact on the election because Trump's photo becomes an important reference point and personal image. Even those who contribute using IP addresses can understand this if they mention a reasonable reason for supporting photo replacement. However, even if someone use a user account, it is uncomfortable mind if the users are told to just use an existing photo without a proper reason.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Comment Proposer has started a new RfC regarding a different image below, implying that this one is no longer supported by them. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Comment/close Since many people disagree with this proposal, it is officially closed. Thank you to those who have commented. Teknologi Positif (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC) I don't believe that the proposer of an RfC can withdraw it when there are comments supporting the proposal. Right now, you have InterDoesWiki, GBUDJT, Goodtiming8871, and an IP user all supporting your proposal. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Hello Thank you for your kind update. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC) STRONG OPPOSE due to EXTREMELY MAJOR concern. In the new proposed photo, Donald Trump is wearing a yellow tie, but he is NOT a member of the Libertarian Party. In Chase Oliver's photo, he has a yellow tie, because he is a member of the libertarian party; Trump is not. Here's more examples: joe biden's photo has him in a blue tie. obama's photo has him in a blue tie jd vance's photo has him in a red tie. Using that proposed photo will only serve to confuse readers and make them think he's a libertarian, when he failed to secure the libertarian party's nomination. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Regarding the issue, I have opened RfC: Trump photo part 2. But unfortunately it was closed. I hope RfC: Trump photo part 2 will be reopened. Thank you. Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC) CLOSE This Talk is divided on several options, and the numbers for and against are similar, so no consensus can be reached. Please end the voting and I will propose a new RfC with the three most voted photos. I would like to formally request an experienced Wikipedian or Admin to close this RfC content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Donald Trump photo

Hello new Wikipedians, If we need to open the new RFC for Trump election photo, from my understanding we need to wait ✋️ before existing RFC finalised. So if non of the users comment to the existing RFC (Automatic closure), or agrees on the RFC, it will be close or finalized. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear experienced Wikipedians, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in replacing the photo. @Talthiel: @Vrrajkum: @Maximus: @Prcc27: @Geffery2210: @JFHutson: @InterDoesWik: @LawNerd123: @Herostratus: @Nojus R: @Yeoutie: @Super Goku: @Calibrador: @TDKR Chicago 101: @Punker85: @Freedom4U: @Teknologi Positif: Can you advise me on whether we can close the previous and current duplicated RfC regarding the replacement proposal of the photo to the 2024 Trump presidential election? As things stand, there are too many options to reach a consensus and it seems like it will only delay things. There are currently several options, but since there are so many options}} it seems reasonable to consolidate them into 3 to 5 options based on the most votes and then re-post the RfC.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What does consensus mean on wikipedia? If 10 people vote and 6 agree, is that a consensus?

I checked the existing agreement, and if more than half of the voters agree, even if there are some who oppose, if a majority agrees on one opinion, it is considered an agreement. - Please let me know if this is a misunderstanding.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the proposed profile picture, I would suggest a picture that would be compatible with the opposing candidate's picture (i.e., if the opposing candidate is friendly to voters, then the picture should be friendly enough to be considered friendly).

it's not RfC , It is simply talk, this is to get your feedback in advance of a new RfC, as the existing RfC is pending Administration approval for close.

Alternative Options

• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  Official Portrait October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06)(Option 1)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 2)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 3)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  October 10, 2023 (2023-10-10) (Option 4)

All of those proposed photos (except the 2017 portrait) are terrible. Prcc27 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Getting confused by all of these RfCs and votes about images. Personally, all of this would have been avoided if we just stuck to the official portrait. The less candid, the better especially since we're using official portraits for JD and Kamala. Walz is an exception since he doesn't have an official portrait in the public domain. Hence, it's so out of place to use a candid pic of Trump when we have an official portrait ready to use. That's why always consider my vote for the official portrait. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback. The quality of the photo is such that you can see a big difference in quality between the official portrait and other photos of the presidential candidate. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree we should go with official portrait. While we should go with a contemporary portrait where possible, quality is more important. Our prior year US presidential election pages are full of portraits that are older than 7 years. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight into the past history. I learned from you that "our previous US presidential election Wikipedia webpage often used portraits that were more than 7 years old." - Good point, in terms of giving a fair chance to anyone running for US President. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Close Why is this still a discussion? There was consensus to change from the official portrait to the current photo, but there clearly won't be for any other changes. Keep the current photo. Dingers5Days (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus to change to the current photo. A consensus to change from the official portrait to something else should have started a conversation to determine what the something else should be while retaining the official photo rather than putting in an arbitrary photo. The current photo does not have a consensus. You can’t just say you don’t like something without saying what you want to happen. — JFHutson (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the actual facts about what the original March/2024 agreement contained. "The agreement to change from the official portrait to something else had to start a conversation to decide what the difference was while keeping the official portrait in place, not just putting in a random photo." In order to have a constructive conversation,

"You can't just say you don't like something without saying what you want." In other words, the temporary photo that's currently being posted is not the agreed upon photo, and you have to decide what other replacement photo to use while using the official portrait.

Temporary photo that were previously posted without an agreed upon procedure will be replaced back to the original official photo until a decision is made to change them from the official photo through RfC. :::::Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in replacing the photo. @Super Goku: @GhulamIslam: @Vrrajkum: @Maximus: @Geffery2210: @JFHutson: @InterDoesWik: @Prcc27:@LawNerd123: @Herostratus: @Nojus R: @Yeoutie: @Calibrador: @TDKR Chicago 101: @GreatCaesarsGhost:

If someone change the official photo back to a non-agreed temporary photo without following the change procedure according to the Wikipedia RfC, it will be reverted. We ask that you follow the Wikipedia RfC procedure to keep the official photo being used before a general agreement via RfC among users is reached. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Trump infobox photo

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to implement any changes, so the status quo remains. Editors are fairly divided on whether to use Trump's official portrait, with reasonable arguments presented on both sides. Ultimately, the decision comes down to personal preference, making it difficult to prioritize policy-based arguments.

However, I find that there is a rough consensus that a change might be warranted in the future. Despite this, editors have not been able to agree on a suitable alternative, resulting in the status quo being upheld by default. This is further evidenced by editors !supporting retaining the existing image only because no other agreeable options have been presented.

Therefore, the status quo will remain unchanged, but the discussion may be revisited if new developments or alternative proposals emerge that could shift the consensus. C F A 💬 14:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Official Portrait October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06)

In March, a consensus was established not to use Trump's official presidential portrait from 2017 (right) in the infobox for this article. However, since then, editors have been unable to decide on which photo to use as a replacement (alternative options below), and some editors have expressed support for using the 2017 portrait for at least one of the following reasons:

1. They never supported switching away from the 2017 portrait in the first place
2. They think that reverting to the 2017 portrait would resolve the ongoing disagreements about which photo to use as a replacement

Should Trump's official portrait from 2017 be used in the infobox of this article? Vrrajkum (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I believe that if you weigh the relevancy of his notability (the time he was president) vs the difference in appearance to a more modern one, we should just use the official portrait. I think he looks consisent throughout most of the alternative options, so let us just use what was prevalent when he was president.

MaximusEditor (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: The infobox photo needs to represent people as they are or were during the event. So Donald Trump should have a photo which accurately represents how he is during the 2024 Presidential Election period, not how he looked like almost a decade ago EarthDude (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternative Options

• 
  July 26, 2024 (2024-07-26) (Option 1)
• 
  July 26, 2024 (2024-07-26) (Option 2)
• 
  June 15, 2024 (2024-06-15) (Option 3)
• 
  June 6, 2024 (2024-06-06) (Option 4)
• 
  June 6, 2024 (2024-06-06) (Option 5)
• 
  October 10, 2023 (2023-10-10) (Option 6)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 7)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 8)

Support As I mentioned above, news media are using Trump's official portrait for this election, as did the June presidential debate on CNN. There is also nothing inherently wrong with or misrepresentative about Trump's 2017 photo; he still looks very similar to how he looked when the portrait was taken. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose A different portrait should be chosen. The problem is before no consensus was ever reached because discussions quickly petered out. I think a new discussion should be opened on a non POTUS portrait being used. Talthiel (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but the current infobox photo is terrible. Head tilted, weird facial expression, terrible background. I would prefer something newer than the 2017 portrait. But between the current infobox photo and the official portrait..? I say yes, use the official portrait. Prcc27 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You seemed to prefer File:Donald Trump (53067468124) (cropped).jpg from the same July 2023 event as the current image. I would rather that than the 7 year old OP. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support that image as well. Geffery2210 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support going with File:Donald Trump (53067468124) (cropped).jpg or something similar as a compromise. I do not support the current infobox photo though. Prcc27 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support is my !vote, at least until we can agree on a compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

SupportThe 2017 portrait should be used because it’s his official portrait and there are no valuable alternatives. Geffery2210 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: reliable sources are using it. He doesn’t look much different. An alternative has not been proposed. Generally, it is counterproductive to say that something else should be done without saying what exactly to do, so any “consensus” against this photo should be ignored. —JFHutson (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: Like what JF said, reliable sources are using The Offical 2017 Portrait instead of the current one. And like I said before, other candidates in infoboxes in previous U.S Presidential Article's have their pictures from years aside from the election year. ( InterDoesWiki (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I think a more recent picture should be used because it would be more representative of his current appearance, it would be closer in time to the election and he is not the incumbent president Punker85 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: As per reasons above, Trump is no longer President. Using a different picture of him solidifies that fact as the official portrait used in 2016 and 2020 implies otherwise. There is very little harm in using an updated portrait of his current appearance seeing as it's been nearly 8 years since the portrait was taken TheFellaVB (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtsey pings to those who commented on previous discussions @TheFellaVB: @IEditPolitics: @Punker85: @PizzaSliced: @Buildershed: @Goodtiming8871: @MaximusEditor: @Segagustin: @InterDoesWiki: @TDKR Chicago 101: @Herostratus: @Longestview: @Voorts: @Esolo5002: @Senorangel: @Tim O'Doherty: @GoodDay: @Some1: @Yeoutie: @LegalSmeagolian: @Fieari: @Thesavagenorwegian: @JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333: @MarioProtIV: @Nursultan Malik: @Ahecht: @SquidHomme: GhulamIslam (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Just because there hasn't been a clear consensus for which up-to-date portrait to use, doesn't mean we should revert to this old one. I think the one in use at the rn, File:Donald Trump 2023 (double cropped).jpg, is preferable. We can start the ball rolling again with another image choice RFC if y'all think it's time. I'm content at the moment though. Just to be clear though, I prefer just about any recent image to one from 2017. TheSavageNorwegian 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Infobox portraits should be representative of the candidate at the time of the election. More recent photos are more accurate in this respect. LV ^{✉ ✎} 22:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: - This is the most neutral portrait which can be used until a consensus on what to change the portrait to can be found. The status quo should be reverted to until something else to replace it is agreed upon. Not change it, argue about the changes, and keep changing over and over. Change and replace with a consensus, not change and replace with no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawNerd123 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 Aug 2024 (UTC)

• Support - at least as a placeholder, until a new one is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree use his official portrait till a new one is found. Geffery2210 (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I prefer a more recent image of Trump. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support We basically want to use photos that make our subject look good, within the context of being accurate. There really isn't any way to make this guy look very good, but the official portrait is about as good as any. It is accurate enough. Also, how he looks right now is not supposed to be the major point. We're not a news site. Someday this guy is going to be dead, what photo will we use then? We are not supposed to be having to update photos as our subjects age. There are a fair number of articles about performers who are 70 now, or dead, that show them in prime. His prime was when he was in office, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not for the photo to be used on Trump's article (to the point of the performers), which has been established in RfCs already to be his official portrait. This is for the photo to be used on the election page, where it is more important to have the person who's running now in my opinion, not who they were 7 years ago. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Unknown-Tree: Biden's official portrait from 2013 was used on the 2020 U.S. presidential election page while the election was ongoing, despite the portrait being 7 years old. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback. Using the official portrait seems fair and valid. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Every alternative option has at least one obvious downside (there's too busy a background, he's not quite looking forward, his facial expression is odd, etc.) that is not present in the official photo. If Trump got a huge makeover in the last seven years, it'd make sense, but he more-or-less looks the same. I really don't see a good reason to not use it. Nojus R (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support only as a placeholder until a more recent option is agreed upon. Yeoutie (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Too much time has passed. The Trump from 6 years ago is not running now. I STRONGLY believe a more recent picture should be used in articles about his current campaign. Fieari (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral: It has varied. 1988 uses a crop of George H. W. Bush's vice president photo. 1992 uses a crop of Bush's presidential photo instead. Also for 1992 and for 1996, we use a photo of Ross Perot from 1986 according to the file description. We don't have a consistent style so far as I can tell, outside of our preference for free use photos. Sometimes we even change the photo after the fact, as with the 2008 article using cropped photos of Obama and McCain taken the following year or 2016 using a crop of Trump's official portrait. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  One photo has never been used to represent three different candidacies though (see Nixon, FDR, Cleveland, Bryan, Jackson, Jefferson, & Clay). GhulamIslam (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose using his official portrait. It's been 7 years, and he looks substantially older now; a more recent image would probably be suitable. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support As the person who took many of these photos being considered, I believe the official White House portrait should still be used. As I've stated before, his appearance has not changed that much, and it's still very obviously recognizable as the person it's intending to show. Calibrador (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose using a photograph from 7 years ago; he looks very different today. A more recent image, perhaps one provided by his campaign, should be used instead. LK (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose using his official portrait; the current image is more recent and IMO better than the other (newer) suggested photos. Some1 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think we should use the 2017 portrait but we need to use a different one, the one being used now has a terrible angle, would be better to have a photo facing forward like the ones shown above. Geffery2210 (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support using portrait If we're not going to use his official portrait because it's 'outdated' then make up your mind about which portrait to use instead. I support using the official portrait until a preferable replacement reaches consensus. Plus, Trump's appearance hasn't changed that drastically since 2017 unlike Tammy Baldwin who has changed since her 2013 portrait but that's still being used on her infobox. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't Donald Trump's page, this is the election page. 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin uses a much newer picture of Baldwin. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  What are you talking about..? The Wisconsin article uses her 2013 portrait. That is a much older picture of Baldwin than Trump..Prcc27 (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like somebody changed her infobox photo to her 2013 portrait.. Prcc27 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support  : Three reasons support the use of the official portrait. 1) The existing photos of all US presidents, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter,Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, etc., are the ones that capture their best likeness. There is no need to replace these photos with awkward facial expressions simply because the president has aged. It makes sense to use the best available photo. 2. Until President Donald Trump designates another official portrait, it is advisable to use the existing official portrait that best represents the person. 3. The alternative photos have several disadvantages, such as complex backgrounds, the subject looking away, or awkward facial expressions. Unfortunately, there is no photo that can adequately replace the official award photo. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  On your first point, I have to repeat what Unknown-Tree said: we're talking about this article's infobox, the 2024 US presidential election, not the Donald Trump article.

  Until President Donald Trump designates another official portrait

  That would depend on him winning the election, and there's at least a 50% chance that won't happen. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose We should not use the same image for 3 elections over 8 years. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• I Strongly Oppose using a 7 years old outdated photograph. Trump is currently a much older man, and his portrait should preferably reflect that. David A (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• oppose - photo should be updated for this race, and should be as recent as possible (options 1-5). Trump's age is an issue in the campaign and the more more recent photos are more WP:precise Superb Owl (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support as the alternatives portray Trump as smug or psychopathic, which are criticisms that have been leveled against him. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose using old official portrait. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternative options?

@Talthiel: @Prcc27: @Geffery2210: @Punker85: @TheFellaVB: @TheSavageNorwegian: @Longestview: @LawNerd123: @GoodDay: @David O. Johnson: @Unknown-Tree: @Yeoutie: @Fieari: @Lawrencekhoo: @Some1: @TDKR Chicago 101: Those of you who oppose using the 7 year old OP, or would use it only as a placeholder until a more recent option is agreed upon, which of the 8 alternatives do you prefer? (or propose another) GhulamIslam (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 or 5 Since we're not using the official portrait (still a bit weird IMO), either 2 or 5 will do. As long as there's a good quality image of him facing forward like Kamala is in her portrait, that'll do fine. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 1, 4, or 5 work for me, I still opposing using the presidential portrait. Talthiel (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Approve options 2, 3, 6, and 8; and Oppose options 1, 4, 5, 7, and official portrait. LV ^{✉ ✎} 02:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I am open to options 1, 2, and 7, but would prefer something with a better background. Option 6 has a good background, but a weird facial expression, so I do not support that option. The presidential portrait is currently the best quality photo out of all the options (but I would prefer something more recent). None of the alternatives seem “presidential” enough for me. I want to reiterate my support for the presidential portrait, given I doubt we will get consensus for any other photo at this RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to start a separate RFC, but it would help if more people would notice and comment. I'd be fine with option 6: Harris, Stein, and Kennedy have similarly fulsome smiles in their photos. GhulamIslam (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 6, Option 3, and Option 8 seem to best encapsule Trump's character, but if we want something more neutral and up-to-date, Option 1 seems good as well. David A (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 6 I think is the best option out of the current options, because it gives a more natural look to the front compared to the other candidates. The reason is that It balances the angles and expressions of Harris, Stein, and Kennedy's current photos. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I still prefer the current image, which is Option 8. Just based on personal preference, really. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not mind using that image in terms of composition, but it is older than the others. David A (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, Option 8 is not suitable for election campaigning because it looks arrogant and dismissive. However, Option 6 is suitable for election campaigning because it looks friendly. An official portrait is the best, but this is the second best. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 5: I think it have a good neutral facial expression and good lighting and it is pretty recent Punker85 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 5 is better than option 8 Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 The two most recent images are overexposed; the 3rd has a better contrast between Trump and the background and he's wearing his characteristic red tie.

It's similar to Mitt Romney's image in 2012, coincidentally, his last official portrait is also 7 years too old for that election.

I would crop it to match with Harris'. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 6 seems like the best one, he is smiling, just like his official portrait and other candidates' portraits. He has a blue tie, which is typical for an official portrait like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and himself. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in replacing the photo. Hello, @Talthiel: @Vrrajkum: @Maximus: @Prcc27: @Geffery2210: @JFHutson: @InterDoesWik: @LawNerd123: @Herostratus: @Nojus R: @Yeoutie: @Super Goku: @Calibrador: @TDKR Chicago 101: @Punker85: Of the current photo options, option 5 and Option 6 seem suitable. However, President Trump head tilt and expression in other options are awkward. could we add an official portrait as a third option, then vote on the best replacement? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you count the votes, or are those just your favourites? Besides, people are still voting. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The 2017 presidential portrait is already an option (and a slight majority support that option actually). This section seems to be which photo do we want if we don’t choose the 2017 photo. Prcc27 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Still neutral. There was a point made in response to my comment that we have not reused the same image for three elections, so maybe the 2016 article needs to change. :p

In all seriousness, I don't have a preference to the image. I will say that we might end up changing the image anyways post-election. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You're joking, but I actually am in favor of changing to his first official portrait for 2016, given that it was published on his inauguration day. GhulamIslam (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of that as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm still option official portrait, Kamala and JD's are being used and pretty sure if Walz had one, he'd be in use too. It's just a bit awkward having Trump's candid pic, but JD has an official portrait (this is different than Harris and Walz because we have a Trump portrait whereas Walz's isn't in the public domain), however if we have to pic a replacement, option 2 would be my pick. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The official portrait option is the preferred option for many people. In particular, Kamala uses the official portrait, so I think it is fair to use the official portrait for Trump. However, since using the official portrait may require more support from many people, I think it is reasonable to use option 6, which has a similar head angle as the official portrait and is preferred by many people, for the time being.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala uses the official portrait of a smiling face, which is a natural facial expression, and this is the most similar natural smiling face expression and face angle to Trump's official portrait, and among those that are most similar to this, option 6 was chosen by many people, so I changed it to this for now.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree – the current image should be kept until a consensus has been created. Changing it to Option 6 "for the time being" is still changing it and Option 6 doesn't seem to have broad support DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I roughly counted the actual votes,In the first vote,

13 people chose to use the 2017 official portrait,

and the other 13 people wanted to use other options.

In the second vote,

(which is in the * Alternative options? section,)

The most popular choices were the 2017 official portrait and option 6, with 4 users supporting them,

and the second most popular choices were options 1, 2, 5, and 8, with 3 users choosing them.

The third most popular choice was option 3, with 2 users choosing it,

and the fourth most popular choice was photos 4 and 7, with 2 users choosing them.

The photos that received the most user choices were the 2017 official portrait and option 6, so I think it would be reasonable to use them. Is the voting period for choosing photos 1 week or 2 weeks? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Raw numbers don't determine decisions. Consensus has not been found here: only four users? DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to change the existing agreement to use the current photo with the weird expression. If multiple people agree to change it, can we change it? Can you tell me the previous RfC link that led to the current photo being selected? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

CLOSE This Talk is divided on several options, and the numbers for and against are similar, so no consensus can be reached. Please end the voting and I will propose a new RfC with the three most voted photos. I would like to formally request an experienced Wikipedian or Admin to close this RfC content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Support for the official portrait is about 50/50, with no consensus for any of the alternative photos. Prcc27 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The existing RfC requested closure from the Admin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closure_requests#RfC%3A_Trump_infobox_photo Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Photo taken on August 23, 2024.

Comment Still prefer the official portrait being used, but if another (newer) option is desired, here is one. Calibrador (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work in finding the photo - the photo you suggested is a stressed out look, not suitable for election purposes, and as you mentioned, a confident and bright official photo would be better.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice - If you have not yet participated in this RFC, please close it instead of giving your opinion. -- doing uninvolved close I have requested the administrator of the RFC linked below to close it. Since consensus is not possible in this RfC, other users have agreed to close it. I understand that users who have not given their opinion in this RfC can close it, so please close it. Or, if there is anything else needed to close it through the administrator, please give me your opinion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You already requested that it be closed at Closure requests. Please wait a bit of time to see what happens there. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 5 would be best, imho. 6-8 are right out. 3 looks a bit goofy. 4 is angled weirdly, and that white blotch in the background is not ideal. 1 isn't bad, but the expression on 2 is better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hello,

  From my understanding based on advice from other users, the temporary photo that's currently being posted is not the agreed upon photo, and you have to decide what other replacement photo to use while using the official portrait. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

North Carolina swing state?

Shouldn’t we list North Carolina as a swing state? Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No. The six states listed all went for Biden last time despite having a partisan lean towards Trump (relative to the nation). They are rated as "Toss-up" by at least half of the listed forecasters. North Carolina may be won by Harris, but only in a mini-landslide scenario. It is unlikely to be near the tipping point for victory. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of those forecast ratings are before Biden dropped, so not really relevant. NC seems to be in play now that Harris is the nominee; she is polling within the margin of error. What do the sources say, though? Being the tipping point ≠ swing state. Past performance in previous elections do not always have an effect on the next election. Prcc27 (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well sure, if you disregard all the evidence, your case gets a lot stronger! :) The forecasts are sources. They have said NC is not a key swing state; until they say something different, who are we do disagree? ~ Also, where do you want it added? We do already note NC as a "battleground state" in the Electoral Map section. The lede indicates the six as "key" swing states. The word key implies we do not intend to list every state that could swing. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Many of the forecasts are literally “frozen”/“suspended” (in the case of 538 and Decision Desk HQ) or have Biden’s name instead of Harris’s. So no, those sources are not useable. But I guess I am okay with waiting to see what happens when the forecasts are activated again. What should be the threshold for adding NC to the lead? Georgia had half of the forecasts lean R half tossup. Prcc27 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As you suggest, I would go with the sources. I did a search for key swing states, and there isn't a lot of commentary after the Harris switch period. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

North Carolina is more likely to go blue than Nevada Yavneh (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Support as North Carolina voted for Trump by less than 1.5% in 2020, has a Democratic governor, and is being seriously contested (i.e. both campaigns spending significant time & resources there). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You should note that North Carolina’s state assembly is veto-majority republican, and has only had three GOP governors in the last 100 years. So I oppose. Qutlooker (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully that has nothing to do with the presidential election

state and presidential elections are different John Bois (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Veto-proof majority due to extreme gerrymandering, not popular vote (I support) Superb Owl (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Support, I've found a few reliable sources that use the term "swing state" to describe NC.

• The 2024 Swing States: Why North Carolina Could Sway the Presidential Election, (U.S. News & World Report)
• Many voters in swing-state North Carolina are disengaged. Party activists hope to fire them up, (Associated Press)

Di (they-them) (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Most sources covering the election have referred to NC as a swing state. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Support New polls show that the state is definitely in play if not a tossup. Trump vs Harris North Carolina Polling Average (538/ABC News) --173.48.177.80 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Support per the points above John Bois (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

With 7 in support and 2 opposed, I added North Carolina Superb Owl (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment - a battleground state (which is on a per-election basis) is different from a swing state (one that reliably switches between parties). Since 1980, North Carolina has only voted Democratic once, so I don't think it could be classified as a swing state in the most technical of senses, but it is certinately a battleground. However since public opinion seems to be that swing state and battleground state are one and the same, I don't have a strong opinion either way DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Cornell West

Why does the West-Abdullah ticket, have an infobox? GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• There was an inconclusive discussion here and a current discussion is in progress here. Glancing at his page, he lacks (non-write-in) ballot access in 270 states, and most coverage doesn't mention him, so I don't think an infobox for him is due. At the same time, it is true that he has a bit more coverage than most of the candidates who currently lack an infobox; but all of this coverage is the "what impact will this have on the election between the credible candidates?" sort, none of this actually takes him seriously as a candidate or focuses on him as an individual, so it's probably not enough to support an infobox. (Though using ballot access as the threshold causes problems IMHO - if we're excluding West, why are we giving an infobox to Oliver, who, I think it's reasonably obvious, has even less coverage? Or Stein, whose coverage isn't really any more serious or common than West?) --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Not sure, but it has been there since at least the 17th. I will do some digging. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so this predates this year. To be brief, Esolo5002 created the original table for West back around the November 2023 elections during a period when this article was being heavily edited. David O. Johnson undid the table and following some discussion on the talk page, Prcc27 went on to restore West to the table.

The next major table change was on March 26th to add a running mate column by David O. Johnson, before a series of bold edits to Kennedy were made starting on March 27th which led to significant activity for days. These March 27th edits left West alone in a table without any column headers. Then DukeOfDelTaco's edit the next day removed West's table entirely while resorting Kennedy's placement in the article, which Prcc27 fixed on the same day, which was then undone by Lukt64 only for him to go back and restore the table, but this time under the Other independent candidates sub-section and more importantly with {{Nominee Table}}. After DukeOfDelTaco moved West up a sub-section on March 29th, this new infobox remained in the article with minimal issues after a brief disappearance in May until recently.

To go over recently, we had Kennedy dropped out on the 23rd, which triggered new edits in the Independents sub-section. WalterII's edit removed West's infobox and moved him to the Other independent candidates sub-section which got renamed to Independent candidates which Punker85 reverted two hours later. Sixteen or so hours later on the 24th, WalterII removes West infobox again and merges the sections into a new Third-party and independent candidates sub-section. Now XavierGreen reverts and then self reverts due to timing reasons. Punker85 then restores the infobox on the 25th. After a few days, WalterII removes West's infobox on the 29th, Punker85 restores on the 30th, and Superb Owl reverts the restore an hour later. And here we are. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

And with the history out of the way, the best answer to your question GoodDay seems to be that West was polling better last year when the primaries were months away, only to fade over time. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this - the current discussion is 3 in favor of removal and 1 against, so I removed the infobox (6 if everyone here is agreed that it is undue). I agree that none of the third-party candidates merit a box as the coverage, especially over the last couple months, has been focused on what impact collectively they will have on the major parties (which is why they are polled) not whether any candidate could be competitive in a state. According to RCP, Stein is now polling at 1%. West at 0.8%. Oliver at 0.7%. Superb Owl (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

West/Abdullah ticket shouldn't have an infobox. As for the Libertarian & Green tickets? They generally do have infoboxes, as they're now considered the 'third' & 'fourth' political parties of the USA. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This is discussion is the third attempt to remove West this month. The prior discussions tally was 4 keep (Lukt, Xavier,Punker 85, me) and 4 remove (Dav88, Superb Owl, Prcc27, KlayCax). Consensus can change, but we should not act on a suggestion like this after one hour. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 for remove. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

We now have 7 for remove and 1 keep (2 if you are still in favor @GreatCaesarsGhost) Superb Owl (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 vote for remove. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The WP:STATUSQUO's Infobox photo

The WP:STATUSQUO should consider the photo before the dispute occurred as WP:STATUSQUO by judging which photo was placed in the topic "2024 United States presidential election". In addition, among the 80 or so existing users who contributed to the text corresponding to the current topic, 6 agreed and 3 opposed, and only the photo replacement agreement was reached, but there was no agreement on which photo to use.

• In other words, considering that the temporary and random photo uploaded photo is still in dispute from the past to the present, considering that numerous users continue to oppose the photo on this Talk Page. For this content, WP:STATUSQUO should use the official photo before the dispute occurred.
• I am recording the evidence that the existing agreement was that 6 people agreed to change it and 3 people opposed it, and there was no RfC for selecting the photo to change.

* Originally, The WP:STATUSQUO image with the subject "2024 United States presidential election" Special:PermaLink/1212321039

• Previous talk: Biden and Trump pictures : Started by . TheFellaVB - 20:06, 6 March 2024 - Agree to change(1) Closed by - Punker85 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) - Agree to change (2) > User:PizzaSliced ​​- Agree to change (3) > user: Wikipedia1010121 - Agree to change (4) > user: Lostfan333 - Agree to change (5) > user : GhulamIslam - Agree to change (6) > user: OCNative - posted the official photo > user:GreatCaesarsGhost - oppose <1> > user:Memevietnam98 - - oppose <2> > user:68.189.2.14 - oppose <3> March and April discussion on the same page as the above conversation link: Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7

Users who opposed changing the official photo on the March and April talk pages on the same page as the conversation content that was said to have been agreed upon above;

• Subject Wikipedia usually uses official portraits for infoboxes. > user:WorldMappings - oppose <5> 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Subject: Donald Trump photo in infobox > user:WorldMappings - oppose <6> user:CY223 - 04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• > user:Sthubertliege - oppose <7> > user:TDKR Chicago 101 - oppose <8> Since then, there have been frequent instances of changing photos because there was no agreed upon replacement photo, and in August alone, > user:Vrrajkum changing photo of Trump to his official presidential portrait; 17:44, 10 August 2024 user:Goodtiming8871 - 12:39, 31 August 2024‎- (Temporary photo that were previously posted without an agreed upon procedure replaced back to the original official photo- Gain consensus in the talk page before changing this picture, if else the change will be reverted > User:GoodDay (talk | contribs) at 16:29, 31 August 2024 (changed to the status quo, image). Special:PermaLink/1243287211

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. There was an RfC that decidedly said not to use the official portrait, so I fail to see how it could possibly be a status quo image. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion about changing the official portrait, with some existing users participating and 6 agreeing and 3 disagreeing, but this does not mean that * the temporary and random photo can be used. * Until there is an agreed upon replacement photo, the official portrait should be the WP:STATUSQUO and a photo that has a majority consensus among the examples below should be confirmed. as user:Prcc27, user:TDKR Chicago 101, User:jfhutson suggested Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 should not be put in because Trump is 7 years older than he was in the photo, which is especially pertinant when a big portion of the election is focused around Trump's age and comptency to run. It's been historical precedent to use the best photo, not the official one. For example, FDR has had a different photo in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944 and rightly so – health concerns make it important to show that he had got older since 1932 so instead, more recent pictures are used.

I don't really like option 2 as it's at a tilted angle with his head slanted, and the camera facing upwards instead of head-on.

Option 3 is level with his face, but Trump's expression in the photo makes him look deranged, plus his body is tilted to the left instead of facing the camera.

Option 4 is perhaps the best in terms of having good camerawork (at eye level, face and body facing camera) and he is smiling like Kamala but there's just a quality I can't describe that makes him look unsetteling DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

President Grover Cleveland ran for President in 1884, 1888, and 1892. All 3 elections use the same portrait/picture of Cleveland. InterDoesWiki (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That was when photography was still much harder to accomplish, so there were less available photos DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Only commenting because my name was invoked. I do not think the closer meant that the 2017 portrait was the “status quo”. Prcc27 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

the previous conversation was talk and no consensus to the replacement photo; so status quo is before debate start. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The debate start was the RfC to replace the photo started several days ago, not a totally different RfC 6 months ago. DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my decision that the official portrait should be used. The current alternative options don’t look as good as the official portrait. If the portrait is good enough to use for Trumps infobox it should be good enough for this article as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. But let’s not kid ourselves; this is going against the RfC closure. Prcc27 (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in replacing the photo. About the WP:NPOV Concerns of the previous talk on March/2024, @Super Goku: @GhulamIslam: @Vrrajkum: @Maximus: @Geffery2210: @JFHutson: @InterDoesWik: @Prcc27:@LawNerd123: @Herostratus: @Nojus R: @Yeoutie: @Calibrador: @TDKR Chicago 101: @GreatCaesarsGhost: As noted in summary, 1) Regarding the previous talk on March/2024,- link attached below talk ref. The title omitted the word RfC and used the ambiguous word "Biden and Trump photo", which was overlooked as a minor topic by Wikipedia editors. 2) However, when some users agreed to the title without RfC, but several users disagree the change and the user user:OCNative previously directly uploaded an official Trump photo to express his preference of official photo, the votes should be counted 6 in favor: 4 against, but this was counted as 6 in favor: 1 against, which caused confusion among other users due to the incorrect tally. 3) If it was a photo change, the photo image should have been uploaded to make the TALK stand out, but regarding the TALK, which is the core of the photo change, the photo was omitted and replaced with TEXT several times, which made users think that the TALK was minor. 4) When the TALK was conducted with the title without RfC, and User participation was limited, TALK was quickly closed, and other users were encouraged to follow this by repeatedly stating that this was an RfC. However, other Wikipedians were asked to follow the previous RfC (???) that was just a discussion topic.

(Question) Why was it titled Missing keyword: RfC and thus had less user participation?, and did they list the pictures clearly so that other users could distinguish it as one of the most important topics in the 2024 election? 5) Even if we follow Wikipedia's advice and view the above situation as well-intentioned, too many mistakes were made at the same time, and this seems to create the concerns to the core value of WP:NPOV. I would like to get feedback from other users. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns of WP:NPOV, The actual target of the change is the official photo of Donald uploaded on the main article, but I think the excuse that it was difficult to obtain the photo is an unreasonable. If the previous user had tried to change the most important official photo of the infobox, which is the target of the change, and had tried to see it with good intentions, and had accidentally omitted the RFC with proper heading, but if the previous user attached the official photo with heading of RFC: official Trump photo changes, at least 3-5 times more users would have participated in the related discussion, and there would have been a considerable number of opposing opinions, as can be seen from the numerous opposing opinions so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtiming8871 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• I continue to support official vs. the long-standing "smug" image. However, I think the March discussion (not sure why people are calling it an RFC, but it was not) was fairly handled and the consensus properly read. I do not see the 4 votes against noted by others. The IP user 68.189.2.14 for example was FOR the change, and is noted in this discussion as being against. The STATUSQUO argument here is bad faith attempt to over throw consensus after failure to do so through MANY discussions. Also, if you want to change the photo, open a discussion with ONE alternate to the existing. Offering multiples splits the votes and encourages people to say "I like #4 the best but 3 and 6 are also good" and how the hell do you read consensus with 20 comments like that? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Seeing the multiple arguments/RfC’s for a new Trump portrait in the info box. I believe a RCV based runoff should be used to determine which photo is the best from the users. Qutlooker (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• I think there are a lot of confusing malformed RFCs, official or not, formed by all sorts of users (including sockpuppets), that makes it impossible to really gain any consensus. I do think the status quo is the more recent photo, not the official 7 year old White House photo. In order to get a more codified answer to whether people prefer that image or not, I think the only clear way to do it is an RFC which only has two choices - the old photo, and SOME newer one, TBD later. Another option would be a ranked choice method of determining the photo to use, but I believe that is what resulted in the status quo photo, more or less. The current discussions feel like WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:TENDITIOUS at the very least. There have been at least 3 near-identical RFCs all with the goal of undoing the previously established consensus; when one does not succeed, it seems another is created. Tduk (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  When we start RfC, I think the option below official vs. the long-standing "smug" image and other two of the images below would be reasonable. I would like to suggest the format below opposing candidate - for comparision.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no need to include the other two images, and it obfuscates the issue in my opinion. There is no need to even include the other image, the goal is to disprove the previous consensus that people did not want the 7 year old image. To include any other goal would be a distraction and possibly alter the results. Tduk (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. To respect the preferences of other users, I believe it’s reasonable to include the most-voted photos so far. Ultimately, the decision rests with the Wikipedia community. If a new, better image emerges, we can consider it during a future RFC process. Please suggest us better images of both candidates. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO -1 and Alternative Options.

• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  Official Portrait October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06); 7 years ago (Option 1)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 2)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 3)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  October 10, 2023 (2023-10-10) (Option 4)

In the Kennedy section, mention that he remains on the ballot in some states

I would edit the main article if I could, but I can't, so I'll make the suggestion here - I suggest editing the Kennedy paragraph under withdrawn candidates to mention that he remains on the ballot in a handful of states, despite withdrawing. Fryedk (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added it. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Vance photo

Should JD Vance's photo be changed to a cropped version in the republican nominee infobox? Given Trump and Harris both have cropped versions of their respective portraits? Jostlinggav (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I went ahead and changed the picture to a cropped version of his official portrait. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

"If elected, he would be the first marine and first Iraq War veteran to serve as vice president. Trump had survived an assassination attempt days earlier with a gunshot wound to the ear."

Request to remove.

The comment on the assassination seems like a non-sequitur. Especially after talking about how Vance is the candidate before just suddenly swapping to that. Plus there's a section on the assassination attempt already. SomeoneOK (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done, seems like a very solid change, particularly the writing style part. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done - @SomeoneOK and Kingsmasher678: So, to clear up what happened: The second sentence was added on July 15th and the first sentence on August 8th, which caused the issue. The latter edit was trying to expand on the initial Vance sentence about Trump announcing him as his VP.

As for the fix, I instead just moved the later sentence to a new paragraph above the RNC paragraph with some small tweaks to the text and sourcing. While there is a brief sub-section on the assassination attempt in the Background section, as far as I can tell the party sections are intended to summarize how their nominee got to be the nominee and what happened en-route to the election. As an example of this, the end of the first paragraph mentions Trump's civil proceedings, despite there already being such sub-section in the Background section about the proceedings. Along these line, should a sub-section about Biden's withdraw be created, we would still keep the line in the Democratic Party section that he withdrew from the race in July.

If this isn't satisfactory for either of you, then feel free to let me know. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, works fine for me! I'm just trying to work through the edit request backlog, so if it's closed, I'm happy.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

All works for me, thank you very much! SomeoneOK (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Russian President officially supports Kamala Harris

WP:UNNECESSARY. Qutlooker (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As of today(7th of September), Russian President officially supports Kamilla Harris. The reason is that President Trump imposed too strong and excessive economic sanctions on Russia, which was not good for Russia. I hope this will be added to the text. Ref from BBC: Personal opinion:. Because Russia has experienced how Camilla Harris conducts foreign policy for more than 3 years, so they clearly know who is good for Russia. It does make sense for Russia as they are influenced by U.S.A quite a lot. They really needed U.S.A President who can be beneficial for them. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC) They really needed U.S.A President who can be beneficial for them. Yeah, that's Trump. Russia's RT seeking to push US voters toward Trump, US intelligence official says What they do is more useful than what they say. WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Thank you for sharing the views from another source. It's greatly beneficial for us to see multiple sources about the current event. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC) References Your personal analysis is of no interest, please stop doing that. Reliable sources take a much different view of Putin's motivations. And it's Kamala. You're actually trying to edit articles and you're doing that? Competency is required. I remind you that contentious topic sanctions exist for American politics, your consistent soapboxing is becoming tiresome. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Comment: Hello, via talk page, you can ask other users opinions about the reliability of sources and your opinions. Get to know the necessary information and balanced views. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC) No, talkpages are for specific, sourced suggestions for article improvement, not misspelled hand-waving and soapboxing. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Comments: No: As you see my reply comments above about WP:MANDY and reply to the user Muboshgu, I am trying to have well balanced view with other users. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for the length of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris policies for each item

Voters will compare the policies of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to elect who will be the US president. According to WP:NPOV, I think that the policies of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris should be similar in length so that they are not too much on one side, and that they can be compared with each other. However, when looking at foreign policy, Kamala Harris's policy comes first and even has photos attached, and the length is about three times that of Donald Trump. In other words, if we look at this objectively, I think it is easy to misunderstand that Kamala Harris is better prepared for foreign policy than Donald Trump by looking at articles in the public domain. Therefore, in the case of foreign policy, I suggest that the content on Donald Trump's foreign policy should be at least twice as much as it is now, and that photos of Donald Trump's successful foreign policy should be included. n addition to foreign policy, there are other areas where Donald Trump's policies are allocated too little compared to his rival Kamala Harris's policies, so I suggest that the content be supplemented so that WP:NPOV can be implemented in this article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Can you please refrain from adding staggered indentation to your posts? This is how we indicate that a different editor is responding on a talk page, so it's use for stylistic purposes makes it difficult to tell what subsequent comments are replying to. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. That makes sense. I followed the different format(staggered indentation) because it was easy to read, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind and follow for future reference.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Add article Election interference by illegal immigrants

WP:DNFTT Qutlooker (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can you please add this part with the source? "Former President Donald Trump has urged Republicans to use the deadline to force the inclusion of the SAVE Act, which prevents illegal immigrants from voting in elections and which Democrats strongly oppose. " ref: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-advance-act-solution-search-problem-rcna161316 from CNN: Democrats seeking to add undocumented immigrants to the voter rolls. “Non citizen Illegal Migrants are getting the right to vote, being pushed Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Did you read the source? It's an opinion blog, and the article makes clear that there's no such thing as non-citizens voting in a federal election. As the article says, this is a solution in search of a problem, and is of no significance as other than a misleading talking point to try to convince the credulous that non-citizens are voting in presidential elections. Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Comments: YES :there are also other sources like CNN so we can find more details and I just wanted to share the proposed subject to be added and more work required for finding additional sources. CNN:Democrats seeking to add undocumented immigrants to the voter rolls. “Non citizen Illegal Migrants are getting the right to vote. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC) I don't see a CNN article. Noncitizens don't vote. WP:NYPOST is unreliable; anyone can "get" a voter registration form, that doesn't mean they fill them out and submit them, let alone get added to the voter rolls. The SAVE Act is a solution looking for a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Your personal opinion regarding the SAVE Act does not mean that it is not a notable issue that has been raised in the election, it certainly has garnered enough attention to be mentioned within the article. Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that "non-citizens do not vote". Non-citizens do actually have the right to vote in some American local elections see here [19].XavierGreen (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Comment: Thank you for sharing the practical and actual fact that Non-citizens can interfere U. S. Presidential election. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Perhaps we should have an article on the "illegal immigrants voting conspiracy theory" or "illegal immigrants voting hoax", given how well-documented the hoax is. BD2412 T 00:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC) References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2024

If Trump wins, he will be the second president in American history to win a second non-consecutive term since Grover Cleveland in 1893. SuperRedSpace (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is acknowledged in section 2024 United States presidential election#Republican Party. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

that is a good point. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2024 (2)

2 edit requests add current event template and tag under {{db-g4}} 2603:8001:6940:2100:3231:35E2:C35B:EC74 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 18:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that specific examples could be necessary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Would be WP:UNNECESSARY. Qutlooker (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Butch Ware Photo

Why is there no photo for the Butch Ware in the Green party info box when there one available on Wikimedia Commons File:Dr. Dutch Bilal Ware wisdom (cropped).jpg. Aojrocks (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a pending deletion discussion regarding the file. Best not to consider to use until that has resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The deletion request has been very inactive and if true, the photo is under a wiki compatible license. Qutlooker (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding a history fact into the lead

Kamala Harris is the first candidate since 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries to stand as a Presidential candidate despite not standing in the primaries OR the first candidate since 1952 Republican Party presidential primaries to become the chosen candidate despite not launching a primary campaign.

All three are important facts and one of them needs a mention in the lead. They are just as important as the fact Biden is not standing as an incumbent since 1968 or Trump standing again. RevolutionizeSeven (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like WP:UNDUE trivia to me. Prcc27 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally not a big collection of random trivia per our policy of WP:NOTTRIVIA against it. Raladic (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Reversions on Trump Photo

Following the conclusion of the RfC, there was no consensus as to whether to change the photo to the official photo, keep it as is, or use an alternative photo. The conclusion of the RfC states There is no consensus to implement any changes, so the status quo remains. Editors are fairly divided on whether to use Trump's official portrait, with reasonable arguments presented on both sides. and concludes Therefore, the status quo will remain unchanged. However several editors seem to have interpreted this as being the official portrait so several reversions have taken place on the article.

Brought to the talk page to prevent further reversions: I believe "status quo" means the image that was there previously, not the official portrait from 7 years ago. DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the aforementioned RFC, “In March, a consensus was established not to use Trump's official presidential portrait from 2017 (right) in the infobox for this article. However, since then, editors have been unable to decide on which photo to use as a replacement.” If this is correct, then there was never a consensus to switch to the current photo. The status quo should have been kept until a consensus on what to do was established. A consensus to not use one photo is not a consensus to use whatever photo an individual editor selects. — JFHutson (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You'll never get people to agree, just saying. Calibrador (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't about what should have happened – the current image is, by definition, the status quo. That's why I believe reverting to the official portrait is the incorrect choice until consensus is established DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s about what should happen now, which is to reflect the status quo before the stalled BRD. Right now the article does not reflect consensus. The status quo changes with consensus, not a single editor’s whim. The WP:STATUSQUO is the version before the discussion started. As is evident in the quote above, the discussion has not resulted in a new consensus that can be labeled a “status quo.” — JFHutson (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the wikipedia policy - The WP:STATUSQUO is the version before the discussion started. So we should start RfC based on status of quo before the previous discussion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Or… We could just ask the closer of the RfC what they meant by status quo? @CFA DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

He wasn’t really being asked what the status quo was but what the consensus of the RFC was. He rightly judged there was no consensus. I’m saying regardless of that that the status quo was the official portrait. — JFHutson (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant the official portrait. Jfhutson is right. There is no consensus to change away from the "status quo". As you can see in the RfC above, the official potrait had almost 50% support among editors — the plurality by a fairly large margin. Yes, there is around the same amount of support for not the official portrait, but there is no agreement as to what picture to use instead. So the official portrait remains. As I mentioned in my closing statement, I think it is likely that consensus for another picture could be established in the future (evidenced by people supporting the official portrait only because there are no suitable alternatives), but right now the official portrait generally has the broadest support among editors. No other picture mentioned has enough support. C F A 💬 02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

We’ve had two major RfCs, I believe: one in March in which the conclusion was to not use the official portrait, and one with no conclusion. So I ask: how is it possible for the status quo portrait to be the official portrait? DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

A conclusion to not do something is not a conclusion to do anything in particular. If I gained a consensus that this article sucks and should be rewritten, it would probably result in nothing. It would not mean there is a consensus to replace it with something even worse. — JFHutson (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t particularly like the current portrait. But I keep it because there was a consensus to replace it, and this version won out over all the other ones and WP:SILENCE is consensus. Therefore we should not use the official portrait, which leaves this one DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the record in this talk page reflects SILENCE. — JFHutson (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not, but this is the photo that survived after all other ones. DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

, A few users didn't follow the WP;Status Quo but it doesn't mean that justification of the random temporary photo; To be fair; the record of this talk page are the clear evidence, WP:SILENCE can't be applied but WP:Status Quo of the original and official photo is reasonably to be applied. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It really can’t. The RfC in March definitely decided that the official portrait should NOT BE USED, and after failing to reach a consensus to re-add the official portrait, some users add it back in anyway DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

we should have started the new RfC for replacing the official photo by keeping original photo and followingWP:Status Quo. Not following Wikipedia policy cannot be used for justification of the temporary random photo. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed to not use official photo -> swap it out with a photo that is good enough -> months go by -> no consensus to add back in official photo that is

Somehow it’s the status quo? No. DimensionalFusion (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Will all of you stop with the Trump photo? We have three discussions about it, and we don’t need more. Yavneh (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree photo should be changed clearly this broke the RfC John Bois (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This continuing dispute over which image to use, grows tiresome. Use whichever one yas' want. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree DimensionalFusion (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:Status Quo should be started when this main article was created and how long the original photo was placed.

clearly no consensus of the the temporary and random photo mean that we should follow the process now by keeping the original photo before arrival to the consensus and starting the new RfC for replacement.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:Status Quo should be started when the RfC to change the current photo was started, not 6 months after the previous RfC DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This is unfortunately correct. There actually was unanimous consensus following the removal of "official" to go with "self-assured schmuck" (albeit quickly decided and with limited input). Folks need to learn how to compose an RfC so its comments can actually be read as consensus. 8 options, with people offering varying levels of support for multiples is anarchy. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is the rock solid consensus for the schmuck photo? My memory is not months of happiness about the photo, but constant and unproductive discussion. You recognize it was quickly decided and with limited input, and that type of consensus shouldn’t be used to enforce a widely disliked image on such a contentious and widely viewed topic. — JFHutson (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to use the official photo as a WP:STATUSQUO before there is a consensus on the photo to be changed and a photo that is agreed upon by a majority. We should create a separate Talk Page for WP:STATUSQUO to check. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It is factually impossible for the official portrait to be a status quo image as it was decided by an RfC that the official portrait should not be used. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's here. There was a discussion to change the photo, multiple users agreed, the discussion was left open for an appropriate time, then the change was made. It was a fully appropriate read of consensus. That then became the status quo. All subsequent discussion failed to achieve consensus, and thus "schmuck" remains. Before you criticize me for this read, please note that I was the only one in the discussion advocating to keep the official photo. I still prefer it. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Suggestion: In section named "Electoral College forecast" please add a column with the time zone of the U.S. state, and please make the column sortable.

Reason: During election night, projections of the results from U.S. states will be coming on every full hour, depending on the time zone of the state. The new sortable column in said section would be useful to a reader if they want to follow the results live, so they can see possible routes to the 270 electoral votes at a glance. Hristodulo (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Will possibly be done when the time comes in November. Qutlooker (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, November is a good time. May I do it before, in Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election, as a precursor? I won't mind if I may not. Hristodulo (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Including 270towin in projections

Should 270ToWin projections be included along with other projections? They have all major races, and are notable enough for their own article. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, as 270ToWin is not offering their own projection, but rather averaging the projections of the other sources we are already listing. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Results section?

Hi,

Is it too early to add a Results section that would link to each state's election article?

The election is only a couple of months away. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What would we put in a Results section at this time? There are currently no results to cover. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The actual results would be blank, but it would list the election results for each state, like this:

2020 United States presidential election#Results for each state. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be way too early to add into the article at this time. Once it comes like November time we should add this per se the monday before the election. Qutlooker (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

100% agreed. Wait until November. What's the rush? A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed. It would be reasonable for us to add the additional infobox on 5th of November,2024(Tuesday) or after. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong with this, but some states begin early voting in mid-October such as Georgia. I know that doesn't mean we'll have results in mid-October (obviously), but I feel that I've seen some election articles in which results are preliminary/being counted and there's still an empty results section. Maybe mid-October is when we could add a results section? Totally agree for election day/election day eve too. Just a thought though. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not see the benefit of an empty results section. I oppose adding until we actually have election results on Election Day onwards. Prcc27 (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need anything until election eve. Bkatcher (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It would be really helpful to us and others to add more summaries of the policies of the two leading candidates for the 47th President of the United States, the most powerful country in the world that actually affects us and the world, so that people can compare them. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Extraneous states in Electoral College forecasts

@Windorrum Per the note above the table of Electoral College forecasts, 538 and the Economist use "Likely" very loosely, and thus states rated Safe/Solid by all other forecasts should not be included in table; I thus ask that you revert your edit(s) adding them to the table. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This whole section is pointless. Nine different sources telling us what we already know about the partisan lean of the states. The only variation is not due to some clever insight or calculation, but a site revealing its own bias and idiocy (RCP rating VA a tossup) or cowardice (538 giving WA and MN the same rating). I would advocate that we remove it entirely, or failing that, change the default sorting to PVI or 2020 margin to reveal how utterly unremarkable these "forecasts" are. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Spoiler campaign"

Incredibly POV to include this as a suggested article below "Third Party Candidates". I suggest it's removed. Amatama (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a section of the page that notes (accurately) that both major parties this year have been strategically supporting or fighting third party campaigns for deliberate spoiler effect. I've updated the link to go to this section. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the movement of both major parties. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

A polling article with no polling?

Just wanted to bring this to everyone’s attention: Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election currently does not have any polling data in the article. Prcc27 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Less Evil

Pope Francis criticized both Trump and Harris' policies, and said that American voters should choose the lesser evil of the two. Considering the fact that about 70% of American citizens are Christians, Pope Francis's remarks were almost all published in reliable sources such as CNN, BBC,The New York Times,CBS News and Forbes, and were directly related, so I wrote about them according to WP:NPOV. Among the two election issues, immigration and abortion, since the Pope criticized Trump first, I wrote about the immigration policy. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Just as in the talk page discussion above, just because something can be well sourced, doesn’t mean it is WP:DUE to be included in an article. Raladic (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Raladic. Per Wikipedia policy, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of Wikipedia's reliable sources can be documented relevant content. And it can be considered content that improves the fairness of the article. However, I would like to hear other Wikipedia users' opinions on whether it is appropriate to include this commentary by one of the most prominent figures in the religious community regarding the US election. In order to hear other users' opinions, I have included the content with reliable sources below. The proposal is as follows. ==> Pope Francis has criticized both US presidential candidate Trump's anti-immigration policies and Harris's abortion policies. He said both are against life and encouraged people of conscience to choose the lesser of two evils. <== it is the proposed contents. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of such statements. Pope Francis is the head of state of Vatican City, not an American citizen or resident, and such comments are best put on his own article. We rarely put statements by foreign leaders on presidential election articles. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see your feedback. In my veiw, we can have international reaction so we can add it to this section with so many reliable sources? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

70% of Americans are Christians, but they are not all Catholics. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

References

WP:NPOV of the presidential debate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I would like to ask for the opinions of users who are interested in this debate regarding the content below.

1. If the content is supplemented to correct WP:NPOV regarding the presidential debate, it would be better to correct the biased content that favors Harris. 2. In other words, the content that says "the moderator fact-checked Trump but did not fact-check Harris" is recorded to be more specific, stating that Trump was fact-checked more than 5 times, and Harris was not fact-checked at all. However, another user reverted the current content, saying, "It's as if Trump only checked the facts once, and it's edited biasedly to create a negative image as if he said it was unfair, deleting the fair actual content. 3. The reason why it's necessary to summarize the actual content fairly is that Harris also lied twice, but ABC did not fact-check this, and the ABC host also admitted in a later interview that he had biased himself during the ABC presidential debate. > I think we should record these actual facts so that WP:NPOV can be guaranteed in the WP content. > Please give your opinion so that the WP content can be edited fairly. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

When did Harris lie? We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• The above Talk was closed immediately after I opened it and before I could answer another user's question, without a chance to explain the content. I would like to provide additional explanations for the above content. In the relevant NEWS content, I looked at the fact-check of BBC and found that Harris made two false claims. Since there were cases in which the media interpreted false claims as "lies" in fact-checking, I understood that making claims that were not true could be interpreted as lies. However, to avoid further misunderstanding, I clearly stated the above content as Harris also made two false claims in the presidential debate and included the content in the related discussion that was created first above. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't change thee fact that we already have a section on this exact issue, which you were participating in. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No photo for Green Party VP Candidate Butch Ware?

For as much yapping as this talk page has been doing over Trump's pictures, Butch Ware does not even have a picture on this page, whereas every other VP and Presidential pick of the four specifically outlined parties on the page does. I find it even more ridiculous considering the fact that Jill Stein, both Libertarian Party candidates, as well as Harris, Walz, Trump, and Vance all have the exact same pictures as their respective pages show.

Why does Ware not have a picture? Butch Ware already has a picture on his own Wikipedia page and it wasn't carried over.

I wouldn't be making a fuss since it's an easy fix usually, but the page is edit-locked. If someone is able to fix this as soon as possible that'd be great, as it's awkward just seeing a blank space next to Stein, and frankly paints the party in a bad light. Cedaria00 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

ge doesn’t have enough electoral votes and polling to have a picture on this page John Bois (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

We need a free/CC licensed photo to post. The one on Ware's page was pulled from his UCSB faculty page[20], and does not appear to have been made explicitly free of copyright. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Would this photo that Ware uploaded to Twitter himself suffice? [21] Cedaria00 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If not this one, I've grabbed a picture of Ware from an interview he was participating in, along with Jill Stein, not too long ago. [22] Cedaria00 (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I don't see how either of those waive copyright. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion already occurred, but it seems like it got archived quickly due to the photo RfCs. To quote myself, There is a pending deletion discussion regarding the file. Best not to consider to use until that has resolved. In any case, it looks like Cedaria00 might have found one that we might be able to use on the article. Hopefully it is usable so we can conclude this. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to go out, take, and upload, a CC image (or if there's an image out there with a compatible licence), we can't put an image in. Wanting to put an image in an article just because "otherwise there's a blank space" wouldn't satisfy Fair use requirements DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her) 19:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

As per the conversation on the Democratic Party Section topic of this talk page, I suggest we add this in the Democratic Party Section of this article after the sentence that says, "Representative Dean Phillips joined the race on October 26, 2023":

On March 6, 2024, Phillips suspended his campaign and endorsed Biden. Phillips received the second-highest number of delegates of any candidate in the Democratic primaries (four delegates gained). Smobes (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus to only include a state's projected electoral votes in the infobox once all major media networks unanimously make a projection. C F A 💬 21:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

---

There are two questions:

1. When should we add a state’s projected electoral votes to the infobox on Election Night?
   1. When a majority of major media networks make a projection.
   2. When all major media networks unanimously make a projection.
   3. When one major media makes a projection.
   4. Other?
2. Which major media source(s) should we use for the projected electoral vote tally?

Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Option 2: A state’s electoral votes should only be added to the infobox based on unanimously projected Electoral Votes. Unanimous projections for the infobox tally is the compromise we more or less settled on in 2020. But for the map, I think we should use light red/light blue shades for states where a majority, but not all major media sources have made a projection; and save the darker shades for when the major outlets unanimously agree. Some users got impatient waiting several days for all news outlets to call Georgia. I feel like if we would have shaded GA light blue (like this), users would have been more patient waiting to add Georgia’s electoral college votes to the infobox. Per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no rush to add a state’s EVs to the infobox tally, if the state still has not been called by all major networks. Adding a state to the infobox based on only 1 or 2 media projections would be WP:UNDUE and problematic, especially in light of the AP/FOX Arizona projection controversy.

2. ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC are the sources we should use. These media organizations, (along with FOX, which we already agreed not to use), are usually considered the “major networks” when it comes to election projections (see National Election Pool and AP VoteCast). Last election, we used over a dozen news organizations, which made things very confusing and hard to keep track of. Narrowing the list of sources we use down to just five major sources will make editing drastically easier/simple, and would give due weight to the most prominent outlets and avoid giving undue weight to organizations that are less prestigious. Prcc27 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur All of this looks good to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Concur. You make a good case for Option 2. Vsst (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Best to be certain. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Since what Prcc27 has described. However, we should make sure to state that on the top of the talk page. Qutlooker (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We should probably start an FAQ. I’m surprised we still do not have one. Prcc27 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Concur with Prcc27, including the use of a lighter color to indicate that the majority of sources have called a state. LK (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Prcc27, literally agree with everything there. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Something like option 1 but this whole RFC is unnecessary and misguided. Existing Wikipedia policy is sufficient for content disputes. At this time, there is no content dispute to decide. WP:UNDUE says we reflect the prominence of views in reliable sources. If a few reliable sources disagree with a broad consensus, we should show the broad consensus and use a footnote. We need to stop treating this page like it’s special and that normal Wikipedia policy for content disputes don’t apply. —JFHutson (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC is absolutely necessary. In 2020, we were split on when to add a state, and we ended up not updating the map on Election night because consensus was still divided; it was blank. We did not have an RfC in 2020, so I am hoping an RfC this year could avoid some of the issues we had last time. Requiring projections from only some/most of the sources only, rather than unanimous projections from the sources has WP:SYNTH issues. For example, in 2016 when we combined sources to call states, the race for Trump was called by Wikipedia several minutes before any major media organization had declared Trump the President-Elect. This was an extreme violation of WP:SYNTH that occurred because some outlets called WI for Trump, while others called PA for Trump (both states together putting him over 270 on our map); but no organization had called both states so every media organization still had him under 270. I also created plausible scenarios on my sandbox which show that Wikipedia could be the first to declare a nationwide winner (before any news organization names a President-Elect) again in 2024, if we jump the gun and add states where a majority (but not all) of the sources have made a projection. WP:DUE is met with the light blue/light red shades on the map. If we use option 1 or 3 for the infobox, we could end up violating WP:SYNTH and declaring a national winner before the media. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  The SYNTH issue is in updating the number of votes with our own calculation. We should wait until the broad consensus is that a candidate has x votes before updating that. It’s probably best to leave the projected vote count blank until that time. But if reliable sources agree that a candidate has won a state, we need to say that even if there are holdout sources. —JFHutson (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  But we would be saying a candidate has won the state on the map (light blue/light red), and maybe even in the body of the article as well. We would just be more cautious on the infobox tally. We are allowed to make our own calculations per WP:CALC, as long as it is an accurate reflection of the sources. Obviously, having a candidate above 270 in our infobox tally when no major media organizations agrees, would not be in the spirit of WP:CALC. I do not think many users would agree with leaving the infobox tally blank. Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I take back the comment that we should leave the total blank. If there really was a general consensus at some point that Trump was projected to win enough states to win the election, then putting that in the infobox would have been a Dewey beats Truman kind of thing, but the media’s problem, not ours. I don’t think that was the case. In your scenarios, we’re just reporting what the reliable sources are saying. Though I don’t think we use a simple majority. It would be more like if one outlet is holding out, we shouldn’t let that keep is from showing the “consensus” view. — JFHutson (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 as it doesn't violate WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or WP:CRYSTALBALL if all major news networks unanimously agree on it DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - It follows WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia does not need to be updated to the very second. Take the time for all major outlets to make a call for a state. In terms of out lets I would suggest ABC, AP, CBS, CNN and FOX. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  We should use NBC as a source as well, especially since I would argue they are more mainstream than CBS. As for Fox News? Unfortunately, I am having a hard time trusting their Decision Desk. In 2020, the network pressured their Decision Desk to hold off on projecting Nevada for Biden. Decision desks should operate entirely independent, with no influence from network executives. Fox News has failed to demonstrate they would do this. Prcc27 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I did not know about the Nevada incident. If I remember correctly they also called Arizona like hours before anyone else did in 2020. I would then suggest we switch CBS to NBC and remove FOX due to @Prcc27 comments. Therefore it would be ABC, AP, CNN, and NBC. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 per the fact that there wouldn’t be a constant back and forth between edits. Qutlooker (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: it was benefical for me to learn from the other user's insight. Please correct if the summary below is incorrect: WP:UNDUE says we reflect the prominence of views in reliable sources. Neutrality in Wikipedia articles requires a fair representation of all significant viewpoints from reliable sources. The prominence of each viewpoint should be reflected in the article's coverage. Minorities might have their views mentioned in a "see also" section, but they shouldn't be given undue weight in the main article. For instance, the Earth article doesn't mention the flat Earth theory because it's a very minority view.WP:SYNTH *Synthesis of published material: when synthesizing published material, it is important to avoid combining information from multiple sources to draw a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in any of the individual sources. Additionally, combining different parts of a single source to infer a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in the source is also discouraged.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JD Vance Healthcare interview

@Spiffy sperry: JD Vance stated in an interview: Think about it: a young American doesn’t have the same health care needs as a 65-year-old American. And a 65-year-old American in good health has much different health care needs than a 65-year-old American with a chronic condition. We want to make sure everybody is covered, but the best way to do that is to actually promote more choice in our health-care system and not have a one-size-fits all approach that puts a lot of the same people into the same insurance pools, into the same risk pools, that actually makes it harder for people to make the right choices for their families.

This is Vance advocating for private insurance in which young people or people without health conditions can pay less for health insurance, which means people with conditions would pay more, likewise throughout the interview he gives his support to private healthcare. This is also what the source states: "Vance is correct that young people have different needs than old people, and healthy people have different needs than sick people, and putting them all in the same risk pool means charging young people more than they would otherwise pay. (Again, insurers can currently charge old customers up to three times the rate they charge the young — Vance thinks they should be able to charge the old even more.) What he doesn’t tell the audience is that allowing insurers to give cheaper plans to the young and healthy means letting them charge more"

This is Vance's statement throughout the interview relating to healthcare. Thoughts? Des Vallee (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how this related to improving our article, especially since we focus primarily on the presidential candidates’ viewpoint rather than that of their running mates. Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27: To a certain extent I agree with you, it should primarily focus on the main candidates. JD Vance is however still running with Donald Trump, and he is still important in relationship to Donald Trump. He is part of the Donald Trump campaign in fact he is the second most important person other than Trump in the Trump campaign. So including the statements of Vance epically when he is referencing Trump gives the article more depth, and vice presidents should be mentioned in general. Des Vallee (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not convincing. It's along the lines of "Vance stated X. Person A thinks this really means Y, which is awful." In this instance, we cannot say in Wikivoice that Vance stated Y; he clearly did not.--Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Spiffy sperry: It's absolutely not that, Vance in the interview publicly calls for individualized private healthcare based off income, or ability. There is no misrepresentation of anything present, and is descriptive as mentioned by @Prcc27: it is in reference to the vice president. Alternatively you can take his own words and not use the description given by the sources which all describe the same thing. Think about it: a young American doesn’t have the same health care needs as a 65-year-old American. And a 65-year-old American in good health has much different health care needs than a 65-year-old American with a chronic condition. We want to make sure everybody is covered, but the best way to do that is to actually promote more choice in our health-care system and not have a one-size-fits all approach that puts a lot of the same people into the same insurance pools, into the same risk pools, that actually makes it harder for people to make the right choices for their families. can be turned directly to his words to Vance has called for individualized private healthcare depending on age, ability and pre-existing conditions. Des Vallee (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)