Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

(RFC) Lead section of 2024 United States presidential election

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.

Redundant; Opposed by majority. Edits qualify to be WP:LISTEN from the user. (Non-Admin close) Qutlooker (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

---

In the Lead section of this article, there is no mention of Harris among the two major US presidential candidates, and more than 10 criticisms are listed only against Trump.

I would like to ask other user's feedback via RFC to improve the lead part by including at least one strength or one weakness of Harris from three or more reliable sources such as BBC, NYTimes, the Atlantic, vox.com, and politico.com.

• The current content and the proposed content with examples are recorded below. I have included photos of the two candidates to make it easier to predict how the actual content will look. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC) * RFC Period: Since this RFC is about 2 weeks before the election, I suggest that it be held for up to 1 week.

Lead page

• 
  Kamala Harris
• 
  Donald Trump

Suggested five options about new additional lead parts

---

option 1: Since there is no information about Harris, we will add only the strengths about Harris.

---

#1

In the case of Kamala Harris, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, The United States experienced the fastest job growth ever, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

---

option 2: Since there is no information about Harris, only add the weaknesses of Harris.

---

#2

In the case of Kamala Harris, there is controversy over her ability to formulate and implement specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigration, in her performance as Vice President.

---

option 3: Since there is no information about Harris, we will add additional strengths and weaknesses about Harris.

---

#3

the case of Kamala Harris, In the case of Kamala Harris, there is controversy over her ability to formulate and implement specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigration, in her performance as Vice President. However, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, The United States experienced the fastest job growth ever, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

---

option 4: List the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates indirectly, summarizing the content from the sources.

---

#4

Meanwhile, looking at the performance of the US economy during the four years of Trump's presidency, as of February 2020, it showed the lowest unemployment rate in the past 50 years at 3.5%.

In the case of Kamala Harris, she showed difficulty in establishing and implementing specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigrants in her performance as Vice President. However, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, The United States experienced the fastest job growth ever, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

---

option 5: List the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates in direct tone, summarizing the content from the sources.

---

#5

Meanwhile, looking at the performance of the US economy during the four years of Trump's presidency, as of February 2020, it showed the lowest unemployment rate in the past 50 years at 3.5%.

In the case of Kamala Harris, there is controversy over her ability to formulate and implement specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigration, in her performance as Vice President. However, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, The United States experienced the fastest job growth ever, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

---

list of backup reliable refences:

References

• Option 1: Write down one strength and one weakness of Harris from a reliable source. And Trump has only one strength in addition to many weaknesses and criticisms. (Since the criticism of Trump has been summarized for 4 years since 2020, the one about Harris is summarized from one of the many contents recorded in reliable sources since 2020.)

• Suggestion for option 1: is written in green text below.* Option 2: Even if it is from 3 or more reliable sources, do not mention the content about Harris, whether it is good or bad, and maintain the current allocation of more than 10 criticisms of Trump, which is more than 70% of the total lead main contents.

Current lead part - Contents Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump, a member of the Republican Party, is running for re-election for a second, non-consecutive term, after losing to Biden in 2020.[8] Other than Trump, Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of South Carolina, received significant support during the Republican Party's primaries. Trump was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Ohio senator JD Vance. The Trump campaign has made many false and misleading statements,[9][10][11] engaged in racist[12][13] anti-immigrant fearmongering,[b] and promoted conspiracy theories.[14][15] Trump has continued to repeat his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, which prompted the January 6 Capitol attack.[16] Trump's embrace of far-right extremism[14][15] and increasingly violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric[c] against his political opponents has been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist,[d] unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in U.S. history,[17][18][19] and a continued breaking of political norms.[20] The Republican Party has made efforts to disrupt the 2024 presidential election as part of a larger election denial movement among U.S. conservatives. In May 2024, Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, becoming the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime.[21] In 2023 and 2024, he was also found liable in civil proceedings for sexual abuse, defamation, and financial fraud. Trump remains under multiple indictments for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and role in the January 6 attack, his racketeering prosecution to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia, and his hoarding of classified documents.Suggested new additional lead part Contents Meanwhile, looking at the performance of the US economy during the four years of Trump's presidency, as of February 2020, it showed the lowest unemployment rate in the past 50 years at 3.5%. the case of Kamala Harris, she showed difficulty in establishing and implementing specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigrants. However, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, the country experienced the fastest job growth, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

References

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

@Prcc27, Personisinsterest, GoodDay, Rhododendrites, Czello, BootsED, Aquillion, Super Goku V, Andrevan, Yavneh, HiLo48, Ca, WWWHHHHYYYYYY, Cleebadee, Benga502, and JohnAdams1800:

Comments Section

• Comment: From my understanding of the media source below, Many media in the list of reliable sources on Wikipedia are left-leaning. link = 1. That is why you can easily find articles criticizing Trump in many major media, and on the contrary, content about Harris is mentioned relatively less. Therefore, we may consider this factor. e.g. there's difference of amount of sources between two major parties candidates.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose all proposed changes; this is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. We are not permitted to put our thumb on the scale, as is requested here, and demand that sections contain X things that favor each side; we cover things in accordance with the weight, tone, and focus in reliable sources. Giving WP:UNDUE weight to some aspects is not balance; balance is covering the aspects that have the most coverage in the lead, while giving aspects that have less coverage less focus (and sometimes none at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose close and consider a topic ban for the OP for consistent bad-faith editing on this page. This is so profoundly wrong from soup-to-nuts that it barely requires discussion. Trump has been found guilty/liable for numerous crimes and awaits trial on many others. That Harris "showed difficulty in establishing and implementing specific policies" (which is a ludicrous statement on several grounds) would be mentioned in the same section is a joke. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I think this RfC is poorly worded, but to answer your question, we should only include significant well-sourced controversies in the lead. I am not aware of any applying to Harris, but if there are any, I would certainly support including them. As for Trump, I am open to removing the part about his misleading/false statements. Yes, he lies significantly more than most politicians, but a politician being a liar is not really unheard of. Also, let me just clear up what Goodtiming8871 said about me. I am not currently actively “involved” in U.S. federal elections– only local elections. So the only clear COI I have is with local political figures and elections. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The RFC is too complex (at least for me) to understand. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for your feedback, To make it clear to understand, I have clarified RFC and made it more understandable by clarification of five options. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871, You very dramatically edited the text of your RfC and sample text after people had already started responding. I'll AGF that you're unaware of the Talk page guidelines about this; you should read them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear user:FactOrOpinion, I will read the talk page guidelines carefully. I was writing until 3 AM local time, so the content was unclear. I received additional user feedback in the morning and made the content more understandable and clear. Thanks again for the guidelines. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the text to the version that people responded to so that there's no context confusion. As was pointed out to you already, please do not edit text that people have responded to. Raladic (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - @Aquillion, GoodDay, GreatCaesarsGhost, and Prcc27: In my view, the RfC has changed enough since your comments and replies that you should be notified. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Kill this NOW! It's a disruptive and disrupted RFC with a primary goal of having negative things written bout one candidate to achieve some arbitrary concept of "balance". That's not how Wikipedia works. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think that voters in the United States have a right to know who would do a good job as president of the two leading candidates. Since there is only one candidate and no summary of the other, I don't see any issue in writing about the appropriate content based on many reliable sources. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a voter guide or newspaper. Users can go to at the articles for Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to see their records and political positions.

Also, the lead for these articles is mainly about the results and events related to the election itself before and after. Voting is ongoing, and in two weeks we'll be covering the results. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have posted an RFC inquiry because I think controversies that are of interest to voters in the actual election in the United States are important. I have seen comments here that say that the campaign events themselves are also important. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, as JohnAdams1800 noted, Wikipedia is not a voter guide. In the future, you should post RFCs because they are of interest to our goal of building a better encyclopedia, not because they are of interest to voters or any other group. We are WP:here to build an encyclopedia. Are you perhaps here for another reason? Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This is very textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. I think your continued pushing on this page in favor of right-wing talking points, whether on this topic or how the presidential debates were received are approaching WP:ADVOCACY. Also, just because a source is left-leaning doesn't mean it has more weight, and right-leaning sources have less weight. Weight isn't determined by whether or not a source "leans" one way or the other, but on whether it is WP:DUE and is WP:RS. BootsED (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose as written. The RFC proposer is clearly trying to achieve a sort of WP:FALSEBALANCE, as other commenters above have already pointed out. Without even getting into that, however, their proposed edits are poorly worded, unencyclopedic in tone, and lack cohesion and relevance. In particular, the proposer seems to not have noticed or not care that all of the negative reporting about Trump in this section begins with the phrase The Trump campaign. That is, the lead is summarizing controversies about one side's election campaign, which is topical and appropriate. The article lead is not, however, the place for randomly listing any pros and cons about any and every candidate. So, for example, the inclusion of the bit about economic performance under the Trump administration is simply not material to the lead of this article, which is about the 2024 election. It's similarly questionable what relevance there is to the election that under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, the country experienced the fastest job growth; even if economic growth was something the vice president singlehandedly architected, it would have little a priori relevance to her election campaign. The proposer simply included this bit to try and achieve a false balance, while failing to consider if such a comment is even topical.

All that said, I am, in principle, if they can be reliably sourced, totally for listing more controversies surrounding the Harris campaign—not controversies surrounding her vice presidency, the Biden Presidency, the Democratic Party at large, etc. but specifically about her campaign. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Are the proposed changes covered in the main body of the article? Dimadick (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That is really good point, if we agrees on any options above, we can also update the main body of the article as there are enough reliable sources.

@GoodDay: Thanks for giving me advice for clarification requirement of RfC

@FactOrOpinion: Thanks for providing me with WP:TPG

@Super Goku V: Thanks for reminding me of the requirements of Courtesy pings to the users who commented previously,

@Aquillion, GoodDay, GreatCaesarsGhost, and Prcc27: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48, JohnAdams1800, BootsED, Brusquedandelion, and Dimadick: I noticed the feedback from users that the existing content was unclear, so I updated the RFC content to make it easier to understand, and preserved the existing content while marking it with previous contents I apologize for any inconvenience caused by making additional revisions rather than clarifying the content from the beginning Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I never said the suggested edits were unclear, I said they were poorly worded, unencyclopedic in tone, and lack cohesion and relevance. While, debatably, there is some improvement on the first 2 points, there is no improvement on the question of cohesion and relevance, which was the focus of my comment. Points of disagreement between the candidates are not (inherently) "controversies". The section in the lead you are trying to rework does not currently enumerate every element of Trump's platform that Kamala Harris has criticized. It specifically lists aspects of the Trump campaign that have attracted controversy, as well as some facts about Trump that reliable sources have pointed to as being especially notable.

I would suggest looking at some other US presidential election articles from before 2016 to get an idea for how true neutrality can be achieved in an actually relevant manner. For example, the 2004 United States presidential election article notes Kerry criticized Bush's conduct of the Iraq War, despite having voted for it himself. What you will see in such articles is that such balance appears in sections that have to do with actual policy disagreements. You will note that rather than, for example, making statements in WP:WIKIVOICE about the economy during Kamala Harris's vice presidency, as you do, these articles always make statements to the effect of "[the incumbent] pointed to the economic growth that happened under their Presidency". Now, the equivalent passage in this article to such discussions in previous election articles is the second to last sentence (Leading campaign issues are ...), but it is necessarily short because the lead is long enough as it is. Part of the reason the lead is too long to get into those actual policy disagreements is because this election is historic inter alia in that one candidate is a felon who has survived two assassination attempts and has also contested the legitimacy of a previous election they lost. That's not me saying that by the way; personally I think the media has inflated just how historic this election is, but at Wikipedia we have to go off of what the WP:RS's say, for better or worse.

If you had concrete suggestions for reducing the size of the lead so that it could discuss policy disagreements with slightly greater detail, that might actually be helpful in introducing some of the same points your suggested edits contain, but in a coherent and relevant fashion. However, I suspect much effort has already been made to try and reduce the size of lead, so you'd certainly have your work cut out for you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I weighed in above, but I would like to make a further note here: the requester asked that the RFC be held for up to 1 week because it was posted about 2 weeks before the election. However, at Wikipedia there is no deadline and we are here to build an encyclopedia, not compile a voter guide. Thus, there is no particular reason why this RFC should close earlier simply because of the date of the election. This and other comments strongly suggest the RFC proposer is WP:NOTHERE, but I will do my best to assume good faith—perhaps the poster can clarify why they feel there is such a rush? Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply: As other users have commented, I suggested a time frame for the RFC because neutrality is important for this article. Since the topic article is election-related, I think it would be better to address concerns about neutrality before the election. Of course, I understand that this is a process that requires the agreement of multiple participating users. I removed the time frame because I recognized that this was a concern.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this RfC should be closed per WP:SNOW. There is a clear consensus that this RfC has strong opposition and appears to conflict with Wikipedia policies. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this RFC should be reopened so that users who want to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia articles can voice their opinions.

In particular, as far as i understand, Wikipedia rules require that RFCs be maintained for at least one month. I think it is Unconstructive Action to hastily close the RFC less than two days after starting it, when comments came in saying that the article was biased in the Lead Section and that neutrality should be improved.

• RFC History Summary,

1) RFC started at 16:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC) RFC #ID assigned [[3]]

2) Goodtiming8871 clarified the content of this RFC at 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC) [[4]]

3) User:Raladic removed RFC unique number and RFC title - Reason: RFC content was no indication of revision. 01:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[[5]]

4) Goodtiming8871 clarified the RfC content according to PerWP:TPG and WP:TALK#REVISE- [[6]]

5) Other Users' opinions that they support the RFC are coming in Started

[[7]]

[[8]]

6) User: Qutlook hastily closed RFc after a day of SUPPORT opinions -The reason is that there were many opposing opinions in the past. However, there were also too many opinions that the neutrality of the article should be improved. - 19:52, 23 October 2024 [[9]]

From my understanding, In Wikipedia's rules, RFCs are required to be maintained for at least one month. Many users have raised neutrality issues. Closing an RFC requires sufficient discussion with participating users. However, when {tq| opinions in favor of the RFC proposal came in, it was hastily closed.}} This RfC should be restored so that users can express their opinions.

A few of the many cases where various users have raised the neutrality issues in the Lead section of the document. Examples :: [[10]]

[[11]]

[[12]]

[[13]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This topic was not resolved even after asking for third-party opinions through DRN. For reference, RfC usually lasts for 30 days, but in cases where users agreed, there were cases where RFC results were derived within 15 days, so RFC was started. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I've no problems with attempts by anyone, to bring neutrality to this article. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NPOV. ~ HAL333 (VOTE!) 15:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Russia, Iran and China step up influence efforts to US elections

Russia, Iran, and China are influencing the US elections. Do you think it is necessary to include this in the text as one of the factors influencing the US election campaign? [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We already have a whole section on that. I don't think we need more text about it as people can go to the relevant articles for more detail. BootsED (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we update the information to the latest News? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The current language implies the interference is ongoing and would not necessarily required refreshing. Is there something specific that is not there that you would like to see added? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The existing content is over a month old and interference is intensifying, so I suggest updating the content with more recent evidence to the relevant section.[[17]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We must always consider brevity and use forks as appropriate to keep the article to a manageable length. So I would oppose any addition per se; those can be added to the forked articles. If the aged content no longer reflect the current state, we should modify it, but again I think the phrasing we have now seems inclusive enough that constant updates are not required. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Next week, our job will be akin to Run Boy Run (song), waiting for state calls and a winner to be declared.

The

banner is going up on Sunday, 3 November 2024. The warning to not call states or a winner before the 5 networks do has been added.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmc21V-zBq0 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll let ya'll figure that out. I'll be too busy watching the returns. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The election is not on Sunday. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Does that matter? It's two days after, having the banner up is important to make sure people aren't jumping the gun on edits TheFellaVB (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing will be “changing rapidly” on Sunday. I have edited presidential articles in the past, and it’s actually relatively slow until Election Day hits. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to keep posting these? It’s a community project, you are not in charge. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The next one of these kind of sections should be archived. I also oppose the banner until Election Day. Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll stop posting these, and I agree I am not in charge. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Map of the 2024 Presidential primaries

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.

---

We should include a map of this under Democratic, Green, and Libertarian parties as the Republican section has this map too. It would allow readers to quickly see the results of the primaries and lead them onto their respective pages.

Since this may come up: this is entirely a neutral edit suggestion. Burned Toast (talk) Burned Toast (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that the results of the primaries for the Green and Libertarian parties are particularly relevant for the general election page, given their extremely low voter participation and, in the case of the Libertarians, the minimal effect on their nomination process. LV ^{✉ ✎} 22:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

270ToWin

So, I'm back (Was 101.119/range) and I'm now complaining about another pollster. Reason isn't bias, though. They do seem to be Republican leaning but that isn't the problem. The problem is that their polls have an overflow in %, and aren't averaged properly. Me and @Super Goku V have agreed that it's not a good idea to use them while their polls are still faulty, and we've removed their poll in the Harris V Trump V RFK and Co for the moment. I do want a discussion on this one because it's a fairly important topic. The two options I see go as follows: the first is to remove them until they fix it; the second is to re-add them, but manually calculate their averages. Both have problems. The first is that it prevents polling diversity, the second is that it has a small amount of WP:OR. Please tell me what you think below Maximalistic Editor (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

For a bit of context, see this discussion at the talk page of Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election. Just to note, this article uses tables from that article in the Opinion polling and forecasts section. (As for that I agreed not to use them, I think I did a bad job with my words in the other discussion. I was suggesting that me might need to not use 270ToWin, but I think it caused a misunderstanding. Sorry, Maximalistic Editor.)

Still, it might be an issue that we have a set of numbers that equals above 100%. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Italics in the subsection "With partial ballot access"?

Greetings and felicitations. In the subsection "With partial ballot access" the names of the minor political parties are italicized. Where in MOS:ITALICS does that usage fall? (I'm dubious that it is correct, but wanted consensus before I made the change.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No clue. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you were the only one to reply (thank you), I removed them. DocWatson42 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: the editor you replied to is a sock of User:I would be bias if it was allowed. CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Does that make my edit invalid? And do you know a reason that the parties' names were italicized? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It should not be italicized. I was notifying you because the editor you were engaging with was a sock. I wanted to let you know as a courtesy. CountyCountry (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramussen Reports

While I would put this on the talk page of the nationwide polling one, it's far less active than here

I wanted to remove RR because they're quite unreliable, and I want all opinions involved. Currently, there's a hell of a lot going against them, and yet we still have them listed in our polling. If we keep them there, can we put in a ref to say that they're not reliable as well? Maximalistic Editor (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I support either removing them or adding a footnote that they are a Republican pollster. There are also Democratic-leaning pollsters (i.e. I'm not sure about a Big Village 52-45% poll for Harris-Trump, which had loaded language questions). I prefer only including nonpartisan pollsters when adding individual polls to Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose' you have cited to no sources stating they are unreliable, and polling aggregators include them in their counts. They are thus notable enough to be included.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Support RR has been removed by 538 for being unreliable and pushing conspiracy theories. As the Washington Post describes, "For years, Rasmussen’s results have been more favorable for Republican candidates and issues. During the Trump administration, though, the site’s public presence became more overtly partisan, with tracking polls sponsored by conservative authors and causes and a social media presence that embraced false claims that spread widely on the right. At times, Rasmussen’s polls actively promoted those debunked claims, including ones centered on voter fraud."

Rasmussen allegedly works with the Trump campaign and shows its polling numbers before releasing them to the public. They are also not included in Split Ticket due to their known bias. BootsED (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ping a bunch of editors relevant to this discussion

@CountyCountry

@Super Goku V

@GoodDay

@JohnAdams1800

@Prcc27 Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, as I said above. I added the nonpartisan and widely respected Cook Political Report's poll aggregator in place of Real Clear Polling (RCP) and Race to the WH in the nationwide opinion polling article. RCP includes almost any pollster, even if partisan, while Race to the WH didn't appear to be updating its averages for weeks. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No opinion: I am not familiar enough with Ramussen to have an opinion on if they are reliable or not, and thus not familiar enough on if we should include or exclude them. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If up to me. I'd delete all polls from this page, while the campaign is ongoing. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

VP Debate rewording

October 1 vice presidential debate: Vance vs. Walz

Further information: 2024 United States presidential debates § October 1: Vice presidential debate (CBS, New York City)

Vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz participated in a debate hosted by CBS News on October 1 at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City. Topics discussed during the debate included immigration, abortion, and the economy. Fact checking was primarily done online only, with Vance making more false and misleading claims than Walz.

Forty-three million viewers watched the debate. Many debate watchers viewed the debate as "positive" and "civil". According to polling, both candidates polled about even among viewers who were asked who won the debate, while Vance was considered the winner by a majority of columnists.

could we change this to

October 1 vice presidential debate: Vance vs. Walz

Further information: 2024 United States presidential debates § October 1: Vice presidential debate (CBS, New York City)

Vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz participated in a debate hosted by CBS News on October 1 at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City. Topics discussed during the debate included immigration, abortion, and the economy. Fact checking was primarily done online, with Vance making more false and misleading claims than Walz.

Forty-three million viewers watched the debate. Many debate watchers viewed the debate as "positive" and "civil". According to polling, both candidates polled about even among viewers who were asked who won the debate, while Vance was considered the winner by a majority of prominent columnists.

the rewording makes two significant changes; A: there are hundreds of thousands of columnists in the world, therefore we can't say a majority total, B: 'online only' some parts of it were done live, like the Robert Reich livestream Maximalistic Editor (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like that text was mainly written by myself two weeks ago. As the edit summary mentions, it uses some text and sources from 2024 United States presidential debates. For the fact checking part, that comes from an edit I had made after the debate where CBS has said days before the debate that they would do online fact-checking only during the debate and some fact-check on-air following the debate. (It seems though that I never ensured that the reference made it into this article, so I am going to go fix that at the least.) So, I condensed my words down to "Fact checking was primarily done online," as it was referring to CBS' fact-checking. If I want to be nit-picky, the sentence needs a rework anyways because reading it now doesn't imply that there was on-air fact checking post-debate, but instead the fact-check during the debate.

Regarding the columnists part, it is based off of these two sentences at the debate article: Vance's delivery was praised by pundits, and he was declared the winner of the debate by columnists from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Financial Times, and Politico. A columnist from MSNBC declared Walz the winner of the debate. I believe that was why I went with "a majority of columnists" rather than naming each news organization.

I am open to adjusting the columnists text with your version, but am a bit more cautious about the fact checking text in your version as I don't understand the connection between Robert Reich and CBS. Is he someone I should know? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Use of the Word "racist"

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.

---

In the section Campaign issues under Border security and immigration one reads the following sentence apart of a much greater paragraph:

Trump's racist, anti-immigrant nativist tone has grown harsher from his previous time as president,and has used fearmongering, racial stereotypes, and more dehumanizing rhetoric when referring to illegal immigrants.

While not discerning the actual contents of this sentence, which are well sourced and generally accurate, there is particular concern with the word "racist" being used here because the 2 sources given, articles from Politico and The New York Times, are generally left-leaning media outlets, and beyond that, the sources themselves make a claim that Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric using racist language when looking at the speeches themselves, even from the perspective of the articles mentioned they make no mention of racial language. Are they offensive and demeaning? certainly; but maybe not racist. The closest thing I could find is a comment about |bad genes which, in context, Trump was talking about how he feels people with an instinct to murder have it because, he thinks, they are genetically disposed to. He made this comment about all murderers albeit while talking about immigration issues as a whole.

What should be done is reword the sentence to say something like:

Trump's anti-immigrant, nativist tone, which many regard as racist,...

I feel this way there's not a definite, accusatory word being leveled against somebody who has, generally, been weary of racist remarks, especially during election years. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Racist

I don't care if we keep or delete "racist" from the bit about a campaign rally. But please, stop edit warring over it. @Esterau16: you've made 'three' edits/reverts in the last two or so days, concerning this topic. Be mindful that this page falls under contentious topics. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also Keeper of Albion reverted this twice in 14 hours, violating WP:1RR.[18] I too don't care one way of another, but it is well established in reliable sources (which are cited!) that Trump has engaged in racist rhetoric. BLP does not require us to conceal unpleasant truths. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The source cited by user:Esterau16 does not state what he asserts.XavierGreen (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You accusation is false, user:KeeperOfAlbion's two reverts were separated by more than 24 hours.XavierGreen (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

22:03, October 28, 2024 and 10:07, October 29, 2024. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Did not see that earlier one, though you were referring to his most recent edit. XavierGreen (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Projected Electoral College field

Hello everyone. The college_voted parameter isn’t working properly, so a user helped to find out another way to display “projected electoral vote” on Election Night. Instead of the normal “electoral_vote” field, we should use a blank data field (“1data”). I just want to make sure everyone is okay with this, and to give you all a heads up that the electoral vote might be in the 1data field for the time being. Please see my sandbox for how this would look. Prcc27 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Tech billionaires are taking a number of risks in supporting two major political candidates

This controversial topic about several major tech companies endorsing a presidential candidate, risking alienating its employees and customer base, so there are several reliable sources. - from two months to this months, This article is about a campaign, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on supplementing it to the main article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a significant issue in this election. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, this is one of few times where I'll agree with him. I think it's worthwhile to note that a much larger portion of Trump donations are large, singular ones as opposed to small, mass donations like how the working class supports Harris. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What you're suggesting sounds different than what the OP suggested. We can note average size of donations and which billionaires are supporting which candidate. But getting into risks of alienating clients and employees is beyond our scope. Also keep in mind that the Forbes reference provided is WP:FORBESCON, not WP:FORBES. It is not RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I also do not believe this is due to include on this page. This happens every year with every election, and can be said for any company. BootsED (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC) BootsED (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

[[19]] [[20]]

Wording in lead

Hello! I'm trying to translate the lead section for the Basque Wikipedia, and this sentence seems very complex, because the subject of each of the statements is not clear:

Trump's embrace of far-right extremism and increasingly violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric against his political opponents has been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist, unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in U.S. history, and a continued breaking of political norms, while calls for his assassination and comparing him to the worst dictators by his opponents and calling his voters garbage are in contrast very democratic and acceptable.

Should it be divided in two sentences, like this?

Trump's embrace of far-right extremism and increasingly violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric against his political opponents has been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist, unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in U.S. history, and a continued breaking of political norms. Meanwhile, his opponents have called for his assassination and compared him to the worst dictators, while calling his voters garbage.

Is this interpretation of the sentence right? And, could it be rephrased this way so it is more clear? Theklan (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The version you're looking at was added an hour ago and is a blatantly WP:POINTY addition of a point of view to the lead. I've reverted it back to what it was before. For the purpose of your translation;

Trump's embrace of far-right extremism and increasingly violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric against his political opponents has been described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist, unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in U.S. history, and a continued breaking of political norms.

ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That makes more sense. In fact, that is the only section I have translated, because the other one was strange (and I can't access the NYT to verify if that sentence was added there). Thanks! Theklan (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In "Electoral College forecast" table, please add a sortable column with the expected time of result projection for each U.S. state

During election night projections of the results from U.S. states will be coming every full hour depending on the time zone of the state. The new sortable column would be useful to a reader if they want to follow the results live, so they can see possible outcomes at a glance. I did edit the same table in Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election. Please see, and if you like it, please include it in this page. I would do it myself, alas, it is protected :( Hristodulo (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll add the link to when polls close: https://www.270towin.com/news/2024/10/27/2024-general-election-poll-closing-times_1673.html

Also, it may take hours or days to call the results in the swing states or potentially other states as well. Wikipedia is not an electoral projection website, news organization, or website to provide information as fast as possible. We're not coloring in states or calling a winner until 5 major news organizations do so. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

sorry for writing confusingly, i meant only expected time of result projection, nothing else, just one edit ever, unchangeable after, please see the other wikipedia article i edited Hristodulo (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We don’t know when each state will be projected..? Only when each state’s polls close. It’s also not up to use to predict when this will happen per WP:CRYSTAL. Prcc27 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

well, i think we know, at least networks know, because they're organising it. those times are in two ref cites. i see your point and WP:CRYSTAL, that's why i am call it "expected" from the start Hristodulo (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• two ref cites from the other page's table

Hristodulo (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am personally open to a table with projections from each network for each state. But like JohnAdams1800 said, it isn’t necessarily needed since we are an encyclopedia. Whatever we do, we need to make sure we don’t violate WP:SYNTH; we should not have an electoral vote tally based on a combination of sources that causes us to call a winner before the media does. If we do add a table, we most keep each total section separate. Prcc27 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I read this wrong. I think closing times could be useful information either in a table or on a map. BTW, I was planning on coloring states dark gray on the infobox map once all polls are closed in a state. Prcc27 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll probably have time on the evening of Election Day, until around 10PM ET, to work on shading in safe states and monitor poll closing times. Even in 2020 during the pandemic, networks were able to quickly call safe states. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The poll closing times would not be at all meaningful retroactively (in one weeks time). There are plenty of other sites to track events updating by the hour. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the information is useful right now though. It would help our readers to know when their polls close. Prcc27 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well then why don't we list their polling locations, and what form of IDs might be needed? Again, we are an encyclopedia. There are all sorts of different sources of helpful information that are nevertheless not encyclopedias. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I support including when polls close in each state. If anyone wants to make a table of this, go for it.

I don't support including a list of polling locations, if IDs are required, etc. I don't think it's feasible for Wikipedia to provide a list or map of every polling location, or various regulations and laws related to voting in each state. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to make a table of the earliest expected result projection times, but I can't edit, it's protected.

In fact I already made it here. It would be easy to copy it here, please add my username to the list of user who can edit this page.

Earliest expected result projection time coresponds to the time when *most* of the state's polls have closed, according to the media organising the exit polls, as one of the ref cite there says.

That's why I think it's more precise to label the "earliest expected result projection time" than "time when polls close in each state"...

But also because that's the whole point of it, to turn the telly on at specific times, and not watch non stop :) Hristodulo (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's the point, then it is incorrect. These are not the times when we should expect projections of competitive states; they are the times when the news orgs lift their embargo on projecting obvious states that we already know will go red or blue. Any state that is remotely competitive will not be called at these times. Only one of the seven swing states was called within 17 hours of the polls closing in 2020. Most were called on Saturday or later![21] - - Also, we cannot give you access to edit; it is automatic after you have made 500 edits. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible they could be projected when polls close. But as you pointed out, very, very, very unlikely. Maybe if pigs fly? As far as projections are concerned the time may not be that significant, but it is significant with regards to the latest a voter can go to a poll in that state, and it is also relevant regarding the earliest possible time we could see precincts reporting preliminary vote tallies. Prcc27 (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, let's call the column "Earliest possible projection time" or "Most polls closing time". Hristodulo (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Order of Issue Paragraphs - The Economy

I made a Wiki:Bold edit to change the order of the issues section and references to same in the lead to list economic issues first. Every single issue poll this year has shown that the economy/inflation is the top issue among voters. Wiki:Due would warrant it being listed first. Other presidential campaign pages have listed the most noteworthy issues first. BootsED, reverted my change stating "Different sources state different issues are the #1 issue", this is an unsourced and baseless assertion as the article itself notes that the economy is consistently the top issue for voters this election.XavierGreen (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Yup, and you got a warning on your talk page not to do that. Don't do another bold edit without consensus or I'll request a partial block for this talk & main article until after the election Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC) There is no warning is on my page, and none would be appropriate. There is nothing in the rules that says I can't make such an edit. The issues as stated in the lead don't even match up in alphabetical order under the current version BootsEd reverted to in direct contrast to what is stated in his own edit notes.XavierGreen (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC) I copied this directly from your page. 1RR violation at 2024 United States presidential election [ edit source ] Hi, Please be aware that the article 2024 United States presidential election is subject to WP:1RR per active Arbitration enforcement and you violated it by making more than one reversion in the time period. Raladic (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] I did not violate 1RR. If you look through the edit log, you will see that I reverted two entirely different sections of the article.XavierGreen (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] You removed two different sections, but not due to one of the permissable exemptions, as you made one saying it was undue and the other because you disagree with the consensus, which means both reversions were content related so this means both reversions count and thus you fell afoul of 1RR. You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Raladic (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] User:Raladic There is no consensus on the page for the change I reverted. However, I've read through the policy again and now see what you are saying. In the 3RR section it states that reversions of multiple different edits count. It does not state that clearly in the 1RR policy that the hatnote links to though. I would suggest clarifying that in the 1RR section of the relevant Wiki:policy page. Another editor already changed back one of my edits. I will not make any more edits to the article for the next 24 hours.XavierGreen (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] The exemptions are shared for 3RR and 1RR as they use the same link as you can see at the top of Talk:2024 United States presidential election in the Arbitration Enforcement Action warning. So yes, basically, just keep it in mind for next time to be cautious on articles that do have active AE enforcements as even two separate reversions, if they are not clearly covered by the exemptions, do count as a technical 1RR violation. Raladic (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] You cited one paragraph as undue to justify removal of three paragraphs, an entire section encompassing much more than what you specifically cited. I find this improper. soibangla (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] I will not make any more edits to the article for the next 24 hours after you improperly removed a section and it will remain removed to avoid an edit war. You are not making it easy for me to AGF. soibangla (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Maximalistic Editor (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC) That has nothing to do with these edits, I did not violate 1RR. The edits i'm talking about here did not revert anything. Learn the rules before you threaten people with them.XavierGreen (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Xavier, so my full response to your edit was "Different sources state different issues are the #1 issue. The issues should ideally be listed in alphabetical order." After your edit I fixed the mention of the campaign issues in the lead to be in alphabetical order, as they already are in the campaign issues section. When you moved the economy issue to the top, the alphabetical order in the section was broken. By having all the issues in alphabetical order, we avoid the issue of people saying that this poll or that poll shows that their issue is actually the #1 issue. Different polls have shown the economy, immigration, abortion, and democracy as the leading issues of the election, with the exact ordering changing depending on the poll. BootsED (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they don't. Every issue poll this year has shown the economy or inflation (combined in this article with the economy) to be the leading issue. I challenge you to post sources showing any poll showing anything but the economy to be the leading issue. The article as it stands right now literally states that the economy is the most frequently stated leading issue in polls. To not list the economy first violated Wiki:DUE and creates an NPOV issue. Abortion, climate change and even the border are all far behind in every poll behind the economy as the leading issue.XavierGreen (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they do. Please stop pushing your agenda on to this page. Everyone who has responded to you has said no, and if you continue this, I will request a partial block Maximalistic Editor (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Who is "everyone"? Only one editor responded, BootsED, who provided no sources. Unsourced naked assertions violate Wiki:Synth.XavierGreen (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure a while back we agreed on alphabetical order in the lead. The same should apply for the order of the sections. I think that is the best/most organized option. Otherwise, our readers are going to not understand why the order is the way it is. Prcc27 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal source, "Why Immigration Is Now the No. 1 Issue for Voters". Also a New York Times source, "More Voters, Especially Women, Now Say Abortion Is Their Top Issue". Different issues are the top issue for voters depending on the poll and methodology. BootsED (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Not true. The sources you provided literally confirm that the economy is the #1 issue, the NYT article you cited literally states "Although the economy remains the No. 1 issue for voters..." the WSJ article is behind a paywall and is not legible. Even if you find one or two polls that say the immigration is high polled, the overwhelming majority taken this year have said that the economy is the top concern amongst all voters. I said in my original edit notes that immigration was second. All you have proven is that under Wiki:Due that the economy should be listed first, with immigration second.XavierGreen (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Mate, we're requesting a consensus here, not a goddamned autocracy. Please get multiple opinions before forcing them onto someone else Maximalistic Editor (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Asking for someone to provide sources that back up their assertions and asking that the rules of the site be followed is not "autocracy".XavierGreen (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

WSJ doesn't say the economy is the #1 issue for voters. Just leave it as it is.

@Super Goku V

@Prcc27

@Goodtiming8871

all of you, opinions? Maximalistic Editor (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There are several areas in the current article that need improvement, so I'll take the time to look at the content and respond to your suggestions. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My view is we can move it to the top, but the main purpose of this article is the election results. This discussion will largely be moot in 2 weeks. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• We structure articles based on coverage, not on polling - on what secondary sources say and how they balance their attention. I don't think that the economy has been the main focus in coverage. And the reason for that (which also matters) is likely because the economy has not been unusually prominent in voters' minds in this election - it is the #1 issue to voters; but it is always the #1 issue, in every election going back for quite a long time. This means that it isn't particularly noteworthy or significant, which in turn means that it doesn't have as much coverage, which means that our coverage has to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I added a (citation needed) template because I didn't see anything to support the claim that the economy is the #1 issue. If it is the case, it shouldn't be hard to find a source for it. Also, that paragraph mentions the economy twice, which it shouldn't do. However, the second instance does cite a source, so I didn't want to cut it entirely. I couldn't verify that the source said the economy was the #1 issue because it was paywalled. If I could, I would have just moved the citation to the first mention of the economy and deleted the second. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Update: XavierGreen provided such a citation, and I removed the second mention and merged its citation with the first. I'm satisfied with how it is now, personally. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Bias in lead (and overall)

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.

---

Come on, the third paragraph is just "trump sucks he's so hateful and racist and wrong and makes conspiracy theories" to the point it might actually genuinely influence the election. I would shorten the third paragraph and also simply state that they are generally considered as wrong and not just directly saying it, maybe move that stuff to later in the article. Nothing criticizing the democrats aside from the first debate and Biden, and even that's a stretch. AT LEAST add {{political POV}}. It's not the writing that's the problem, it's the fact that it's in a "neutral" encyclopedia that's the problem. I would edit if the article wasn't extended confirmed protected. Billionten (talk) 04:18, 1 November 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.

CBS was sued for $10bn for airing Kamala Harris' 'misleading' interview.

Is it worth including this article, which is also about campaigning, as it is unprecedented for a broadcaster to be sued for a significant amount of money for a delusive interview? [[22]] [[23]], [[24]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No. The lawsuit has no cause of action and was only filed so people would talk about it in the days leading up to the election. It is also far too tangential to the subject of the article, even were its "accusation" completely true. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I asked about it because the accusation came from multiple reliable sources. It will take until after the election to verify and confirm whether the accusation is actually based on valid grounds.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Remember that our purpose is WP:NOTNEWS; we can wait a few weeks to see if this has WP:SUSTAINED coverage, which seems unlikely at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, We will see the results in a few weeks. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed user protection on swing state pages

No doubt this election will be a close one and will be followed by lawsuits I suggest we add extended confirmed protection to all swing state pages like Presidential election in Pennsylvania John Bois (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support this, because there is already widespread misinformation. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support this as well; is this the right venue for this to be discussed? Tduk (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not a extended confirmed user but I think this could easily achieve consensus if you could please request it on all the pages John Bois (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The right venue would be WP:RFPP. I'd also support it on the pages for PA WI MI NV AZ GA and NC, as those are the states that have a decent chance of being the tipping point (and will likely have the most attention and highest likelihood for disruption/misinfo). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as an adminstrator, we do not preemptively protect pages in the expectation of disruptive editing. Semi-protection is the first step when disruption starts to get out of hand, and extended confirmed protection is only appropriate when there has been ongoing disruption by multiple autoconfirmed accounts. Individual disruptive accounts can be blocked or pageblocked. All that being said, I expect to be editing frequently in the aftermath of the election. Please feel free to ping me if disruption develops. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah; I didn't protect those pages myself as I'm not comfortable doing preemptive protections like that unilaterally (especially not at ECP). However I do think it would be a good idea. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages are not preemptively protected and that's part of the Protection policy. I think it's fair to say there will a lot of eyes on various noticeboards for the next several days so any requests filed at WP:RFPP should be handled fairly quickly. If you see a significant disruption on any articles that cannot be handled better by other means (e.g., reporting vandals to WP:AIV), please feel free to submit a request at that time, but please wait until it happens. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Cheney

BootsED, was it your intent to remove Cheney from the article entirely? I would oppose that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1255059415 soibangla (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Soibangla, yes, I did remove that one mention as the section already states that "Trump has espoused dehumanizing, combative, and violent rhetoric and promised retribution against his political enemies" and has a large cite bundle with numerous sources describing such. I think this comment can go into the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign#Violent and dehumanizing statements as another example, but I don't think it needs to be specifically mentioned on this broader page about the 2024 election. BootsED (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Harris addresses first-time - Biden’s ‘Garbage’ Comment with Campaign after Puerto Rico Remarks

As it is several Campaign issues for both presidential candidates, we can add it to the article.

related reliable sources: apnews.comWhite House altered record of Biden’s ‘garbage’ remarks despite stenographer concerns [[25]] Aljazeera [[26]]

[[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Potentially. Can you propose a suggested sentence first? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am currently busy with my current tasks so I wanted to get feedback or other user's suggestion, however, when I have time, I can update it to the article and post it here. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I updated the content:

AfterTony Hinchcliffe called Puerto Rico "garbage," Biden criticized Trump supporters for being garbage, calling Tony's comments "un-American." Biden later clarified that the controversial comment was directed at Tony, the comedian who made the comment, calling the Latino community garbage, and not at Americans as a whole. Harris said she "strongly opposes any criticism of voters" in the US presidential election. The White House has since been embroiled in controversy over editing and deleting Biden's previous comments.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition reverted. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, pick your favorite reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I reread the relevant part to make your suggestion clearer. I understand that it is up to the users to interpret various suggestions on Wikipedia to some extent. For this reason, when I post content before the US presidential election in the future, I will ask for more specific opinions on this Talk page and then post them in the actual text.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Where are we putting this? We don't even mention the MSG rally which the Biden comment was connected to. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Biden isn’t even the nominee, and I don’t think this is going to be anywhere near as controversial as the 2016 basket of deplorables remark that Clinton made. We can’t add every little piece of trivia to our article. Prcc27 (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think that for something like this, we'd have to wait and see if it gets WP:SUSTAINED coverage - we don't cover every individual comment in a campaign that has this much coverage overall. If you compare it to comments we focus on in the article, they're only stuff that is part of long-running focuses in coverage, not one-offs. Like - where would you put it, and what would you say? --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we really have to use the 2017 Trump photo?

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.

---

It's nearly eight years old and Donald looks different. He's lost weight (Ozempic?) and is visibly older. And, in many instances, more orange. You know how, after you hear a word a bunch in a short amount of time, it doesn't sound like a real word anymore? That's me with that 2017 picture. It's straight up not a real photo anymore.

It's not the end of the world if it stays. But I'm sure we can do better. God Emperor Skidmore has some photos that are actually pretty good.

• 
  Here's one option.
• 
  And another.
• 
  And another.
• 
  One more.
• 
  Okay, last one, I swear.

Born Isopod (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

We already had like 7 rfc's on it. The latest one also stated we should avoid more of them. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:58, 3 November 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.

Early vote section

Can somebody add the early vote numbers on this page?.Muaza Husni (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If you mean early voting results, then no. Early votes generally are not counted until after polls close on election day. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about like this. In Georgia for an example, on 28 October 2024, 40.1% of registered voters have already cast their votes, thats 2,916,979 votes. Something like that. Muaza Husni (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are more sources about the early vote. Muaza Husni (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Economic Issues Chart Axis Not Labeled

In the "Economic issues" section, there's a chart of inflation that doesn't have either axis labeled. I guess it's helpful to have it show the difference but the difference on what scale? And how is inflation measured on this graph? Thanks Titan(moon)003 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request for 3 November 2024

On the top of the page, is it possible to add a hatnote template for the ongoing event? Just saying since it'll be starting soon. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Election Day is on Tuesday. Per the documentation on Template:Current, the template is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. It is to note that the article is undergoing significant edits and may be out of date. That is not the case on this page today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Firing squad

@Jessintime Regarding this revert. The main issue was the poor sourcing. Of course that is what he meant, but also his campaign tried to say it had to do with her calling for war when she would never have to fight in said war. Also per WP:DAILYBEAST, the source used sucked. PackMecEng (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Then find a different source instead of outright deleting it. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats not how you deal with poorly sourced stuff in a BLP. Plus you have taken responsibility for it at this point and I cannot revert. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed the cite to Reuters. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did we mention "firing squad" at all? The context was about war and politicians who send troops to die but never fight themselves. I added an NBC source that quotes Trump's campaign spokeperson who said, "President Trump was clearly explaining that warmongers like Liz Cheney are very quick to start wars and send other Americans to fight them, rather than go into combat themselves." If there is an alternative perspective that is widespread enough for inclusion, it should be easy to find a source that uses the words "firing squad." Catboy69 (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Because they don't care about the truth. The entire site has practically become a leftist mouthpiece. Many of the edits on this article (as well as many others here on Wikipedia) should be rightly be construed as election interference. Truly shameful.... Earl of Arundel (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the sourcing of such comments? HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You tell me! Shouldn't we be adhering to "neutral point-of-view" standards? (Especially considering the delicate nature of political debate.) Lately Wikipedia as a whole seems to be drifting away from such ideals and frankly just goes to show that its status as a non-profit should be carefully reconsidered. Wikipedia should NOT be enabling this kind of political manipulation. Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to read the FAQ at the top of this talk page, if you are still confused why so much emphasis is on Trump’s controversies. Prcc27 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I just might do that. Pray tell, does the FAQ perchance cover election-interference issues? Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty left-wing but still care about facts.. Catboy69 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I do worry about WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS with regards to these comments. Perhaps this information is premature and we should wait to see if it has an impact on the election? Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, I don't think the FAQ has yet to address Wikipedia and election interference. I think this issue should be addressed even after the election. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues listed in lead

Is there a reason that the economy is the fifth issue listed as most important in the lead? There are virtually no polls that don't show it being the #1 issue, so it's a little confusing that it's fifth in line there. Perhaps there's another reason of which I'm unaware, just wanted to bring it here to inquire. Wasn't going to make any changes, this isn't an area in which I'll make changes without bringing to talk first. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what polls you are looking at, but the economy has been consistently the number one issue cited in polls in every election for some time, and not even by a close margin. Here's Pew's numbers for 2024,[34] 2020,[35] and 2016.[36]. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's my point, GreatCaesarsGhost, in the lead, the economy was listed fifth. I know it's not really "ranking" them, but the economy should be the first issue listed. Just an observation, but it's a little odd. I think you read my comment wrong, but I admittedly didn't word it well.) SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 13:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, apologies! GreatCaesarsGhost 20:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur that it should be listed first. The lead can say, "The economy has consistently been cited by voters in polls as being the most important issue in the election. Other important issues cited by voters are..."XavierGreen (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be a good way to put it, XavierGreen. It just seems a little bit... misleading to bury the economy as the fifth listed issue when it's the top issue by a wide margin. Not saying that was the intent here, but it should be emphasized given the gap between it and the others. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 14:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If we start ranking them by which issues are “most important”, there may be a lot of disagreement on which issue should be listed 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. Plus, do you really think our readers would know that that is how the issues are organized? It makes more sense to order by alphabetical order; seems more organized and neutral. Please note that there is already a similar discussion regarding how to order the sections. Prcc27 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Its not ranking them by importance, its giving due weight to the importance of the economy as an issue to voters. The article's body has already stated for months that the economy has consistently been polled as the most important issue for voters. The rest of the issues pale in comparison pursuant to the sources cited.XavierGreen (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is not WP:UNDUE. I am open to adding “Voters consistently cite the economy as their top issue in the 2024 election” to the lead though. Prcc27 (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

They way it is written now makes perfect sense. To be totally fair, though, in the version before XavierGreen made the change, it wasn't quite in alphabetical order since immigration was the second issue listed. Thanks all for discussing. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 19:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, there are more parts in the lead to be updated. However, the economy should be the top priority as it is interest of voters Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I oppose XavierGreen’s edit. Abortion, democracy, immigration, etc. should not be called “other campaign issues”, these are leading issues full stop. Also, the sentence about the economy being the most important issue should come after the sentence about what the leading campaign issues are. This is my preference. Prcc27 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this proposed edit.

I have previously voiced my opinion on this in the prior section "Order of Issue Paragraphs - The Economy" and am surprised to see a new section has been created discussing the exact same issue after a few days. Per WP:MULTI please keep the discussion in the same section in the future.

I will repeat myself and state what I stated prior: "By having all the issues in alphabetical order, we avoid the issue of people saying that this poll or that poll shows that their issue is actually the #1 issue. Different polls have shown the economy, immigration, abortion, and democracy as the leading issues of the election, with the exact ordering changing depending on the poll." BootsED (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support: updating the priority of the economy: the economy should be the first issue and it should be upgraded from 5th issue. as it affects people directly and broadly. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Why? The lead already says the economy is the most important issue. Prcc27 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, other users seem to prioritize the economy section over other topics, for example, putting the economy section at the top and pushing other topics (democracy, immigration, etc.) down. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Shorten auto-archiving period?

To be somewhat brief: This talk page was above 100k bytes on 26 out of 31 days in October and was last below it for a full day on the 24th. Given the election is now 3 days out, I am proposing that the auto-archiving be dropped to 1 day, 2 days, or 3 days so that discussions that have gotten stale can be archived sooner and helping to reduce the size of this talk page. This would help to prevent what happened in 2020 when the election talk page for that year was hitting over 300k a week after the election. I would change the value myself, but the election is already a contentious topic and I would rather avoid the parameter potentially changing multiple times due to possible disagreement. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Should be sped up to 3/4 days based on current talk page size atm imo. Then it can go to 1/2 days nearer the time/afterwards if required. Usually 3 days works with some exceptions like current events, but don't think archiving should be sped up/slowed down based on the anticipations/expectations of of X, Z, and Z. It should be based on current business of talk page. CNC (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, 100k is a manageable value at the moment, so I think it would be appropriate to keep the existing setting. However, looking at the case of the 2020 election discussion page's capacity exploding after the election, it is expected that the content will increase immediately after the election, so it would be reasonable to reduce the automatic retention period to reflect the increase in discussion page capacity, such as 3, 4, or 5 days, starting from Wednesday, November 6, the day after the election. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I would say that is fair. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

So I see the change to 3 day archived very little, this page could probably benefit from 2 day based on increasing business. WP:1CA is otherwise your friend in these situations, for example when the page is getting cluttered by edit requests that have already been answered, or closed discussions. There is the 75KB problem for technical reasons, but also per accessibility having too many topics when many are useless is another - this is how you end up with multiple open topics that are the same, because editors aren't checking them before opening new topics. Otherwise if all hell breaks loose on 1/2 day archiving then closing resolved discussions to speed up archiving is well recommended. I haven't tried to it before but otherwise I think a temporary 12hr archiving using the minthreadsleft parameter with a value of around 10 should be an emergency option if needed, this would flush out dying topics but help retain active discussions. @Super Goku V I realise you didn't ask for this extra info, but your question reminds me of Trump assassination talk page that involved a few of us closing discussions and ICA as auto-archiving wasn't doing enough. In these scenarios the main issue is usually no. of topics as opposed to bytes though, with only a handful to a dozen discussions occurring at any time. CNC (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't believe that I understood that OneClickArchiving was just a script until today. Regarding the ping, the main reason for the question was due to another talk page article with the actual article being partly under CT restrictions through ARBPIA. There were a number of discussions involving the CT and at one point a prominent editor of the article edited the archive config settings, which caused an archiving error. Fixing it caused a similar edit from that editor that led into a discussion that got split into a helpful discussion elsewhere, but also into a RfC that led to a report at ANI. That discussion was on the back of my mind and so I decided a boring and potentially unneeded discussion was better than that mess occurring again. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a good argument for not editing the config unless you know what you're doing. I'd also like to think there is more to the the config than "speed up, slow down", so I approve of the discussion :) CNC (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I archived some resolved, closed, and sock-puppet discussions, seems better now. Edit: So it was 130K at 7 day, then 87 KB at 3 day, now it's 81KB so have sped up to 2 day archiving which should bring it under 75KB per WP:TALKCOND. CNC (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Tidy up polling section

Could someone please remove Oregon from the Electoral College forecast table? It’s classed as „Solid D“ by all forecasters listed in the disclaimer and as such shouldn’t be in the table. Storm0005 (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Early Voting for General

Is there a good spot to add in a quick thing about early voting? The NYT is reporting that over 75 million ballots have been cast already. That puts turnout at 50% of 2020 ALREADY. It is quite possible it has a similar turnout rate to 2020 even if slightly lower. We might do well to include that info. Here is a gift article for NYT that we could cite. SDudley (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

We can talk about it in terms of turnout generally, once all the numbers are in. I don't think there is much to be said about it now, because while it might speak to enthusiasm, it definitely reflects a cultural switch to early voting becoming a normal thing. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Totally fair. Still think it’s good to document here for the retrospect. Once elections are over we are more likely to miss some of the preceding signs. SDudley (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Article shows signs of democratic bias

I'm not an enthusiast or even curious about the issue, yet an alien reader to issue would probably see the article is edited by a democratic partisans. Why are there two nonfactual graphics against Trump? but not about Harris? "rigged election statistics" and "classified document" graphics are definitely misleading. Kafkasmurat (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the picture or graph part you mentioned,

I thought that the "rigged election statistics" and "classified document" graphics were related to the relevant content in the text, so I thought they were relevant to the main body. However, could you explain a little more about why these are not the proper information delivered picture or graphics? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Statistically, higher educational attainment has a very strong correlation with higher support for the Democratic Party. Would you like a graphic for that? Perhaps Wikipedia editors are just better educated. Don't blame us for writing the lead in NPOV. According to a UNU-Merit study, the educational attainment of Wikipedia editors is as follows: Primary: 9%; Secondary: 30%; Undergraduate: 35%; Masters: 18%; PhD: 8%. If you read my user page, you can find out which category I'm in.

Side-note: I wrote most of the content for the educational composition in the Demographics sections for the Republican Party and Democratic Party articles.

Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/10/10/the-harris-trump-matchup/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your feedback but I am unsure why Wikipedia editors's educational background was related to "rigged election statistics" and "classified document" graphics . can you please let me know a bit more for this? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

there are many other sections for expressing this Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think the article needs heavy rewriting. The stuff that Trump has done bad is spelled out clearly while Kamalas is barly mentioned. Im not huge into politicts not wikipedia but this comes off so biased id argue its kinda unreliable.

But the real question is will anything be done? It kinda seems like whoever runs these wikipages doesnt like Trump, even when someone has a good source to balance it out with an anti kamala fact. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

For example, I can think of many reputable sources that criticize how Kamala was kinda just handed the democratic nomination but that isnt even mentioned in the lead; meanwhile that is super important to how the election progressed. If it wasnt for that, Joe would be running. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

At least in a way where it isnt whitewashed for Kamala DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Please share those sources then. I genuinely do want to see them as there is a lot of stuff to criticize her for. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree, this article is clearly biased to the left like most articles about the topic and U.S. politics in general. There are multiple paragraphs dedicated to how Trump is "Violent, dehumanizing, authoritarian, fascist, blah blah blah...." and its written with so much confidence and modality, it's almost as if this article has clear conflict of interest. This defamation of not just Trump, but the Republican Party as a whole is evident prejudice and should immediately be removed. Ztimes3 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

most of wikipedia is biased for the democrats at this point there are so many editors that just dump democratic propaganda from what they call 'reliable' sources that are known to be liberal networks or lean left Shooboo23 (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"there are many other sections for expressing this"

It is difficult to understand exactly what this content mean"s. What does it mean specifically? Is this content relevant? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As in, we have to

Bias in lead once again

Trump vs. Harris details in the lead

and multiple other places where these comments could have been inserted, most of which are now archived. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I can understand your opinion now. I think the reason is that the users who actually participate in Wikipedia have different views on what is biased. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:Turtletennisfogwheat, User:DuneEnjoyer333,

To answer your suggestion, there are a lot of reliable sources where stated the long list the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates.

Here is the previous suggestion which was supported by other users: GoodDay, HAL333

• summarized the content from the Wikipedia reliable sources. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that the complaining editors are new. DuneEnjoyer333 has less than 50 edits. Not surprising they don't understand our policies. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

this is a logical fallacy as your attacking me instead of my argument DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

---

In the case of Kamala Harris, there is controversy over her ability to formulate and implement specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigration, in her performance as Vice President. However, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, The United States experienced the fastest job growth ever, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

Meanwhile, looking at the performance of the US economy during the four years of Trump's presidency, as of February 2020, it showed the lowest unemployment rate in the past 50 years at 3.5%.

References

Incorrect rendering; accessibility issue

On Sunday, the following template is scheduled to go up. On Safari on iPhone, some text is invisible because it doesn't fit in the box, even with the system font setting as small as possible. Would someone be willing to fix the template?

McYeee (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If someone adds it on Sunday, I will remove it. Should not go up until Tuesday. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to fix the technical issues. Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support waiting until Tuesday, and will probably add it before 8 AM ET. I deleted my earlier ill-advised post, though I still like the song. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, what text is invisible? Can you post the text that is visible? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

With my phone's font size set as small as possible, it reads "This article documents a current election. Information may change rapidly as the election progresses until". If I set the font size to the largest size that doesn't require opening accessibility settings, it reads "This article documents a current election. Information may change". I can highlight more text than that, but it's invisible. McYeee (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I just took another look on my Mac and noticed that the bolding is also missing on iOS and so is the image of the ballot box. McYeee (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Good news, this bug does not happen in article space. It's still an issue in talk space. McYeee (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@McYeee: Now that things have calmed down, here is my advice about this. I would suggest mentioning this at Template talk:Current, even if the bug is apparently talk page only as it could just have been a fluke that it was working. As far as I understand, there should be no different between the talk namespace and the article namespace for this template. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the implementation and it's an Template:Ambox. The documentation of that Template says it's being overridden, so I followed a couple of links and mentioned it at https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Reading/Web. Should I still bring this up on that talk page? McYeee (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence wording discussion

I have proposed that the lead sentences of the articles about US presidential elections be reworded. The discussion is here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the changes and it is better than now. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Results page?

Should we make a results page for detailed results (similar to Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives), Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election, etc)? Schestos (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOLD? I don't see how creation of that page would be opposed unless you're making it now (WP:TOOSOON). We should probably have that page when the complete results are out. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The 2020 United States presidential election is probably way too long, but the results subpage is probably not long enough to split into a new page. Unless you plan to go into much farther detail per state. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we should make the results page once the 2024 US election starts or after the election is over is when I think is a suitable time to create an article on the results. If it is now, please bear in mind WP:TOOSOON. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created Draft:Results of the 2024 United States presidential election. I would advise against moving it to the mainspace without some sort of consensus Esolo5002 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Schestos (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Requesting immediate removal of mention of Putin's endorsement of Harris in Russian interference section

The mention is grossly WP:UNDUE, and fails WP:PROPORTION and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do not mention endorsements of candidates by individuals on this page. Mentioning this "endorsement" and the discussion over whether or not it is "trolling" creates a false impression that it is somehow reputable, and that there is "debate" over whether or not it was sincere. There is no such debate among reliable sources. They overwhelmingly state that the endorsement was made in jest. The Kremlin confirmed that the endorsement was a joke as per this article. We should not mention a "debate" over this endorsement, as that is WP:OR. There is no debate. Mentioning this endorsement is WP:UNDUE.

There is a consensus AGAINST including this endorsement as discussed on this talk page. I am at my 1RR and am requesting that another user immediately revert this edit. BootsED (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention, the placement of this section with the editorializing "however" right after RS state that Russia prefers Trump over Harris, which is widely reported on by intelligence agencies and reliable sources, casts doubt on the conclusion of the prior reliable sources, which is wholly original research not stated by the provided sources at hand. BootsED (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Manual undone per WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Likely would have qualified under point 8 of the WP:3RRNO as exception to your limit. Raladic (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

May we wait to put up the current elections banner?

I know we all want to add it now, but can we wait until it’s midnight on the East Coast? Qutlooker (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We do not all want to add it now. The banner is for a page undergoing major changes, which will not be the case on this page until results come in. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the special edit-notice about not calling election results fall under point 7 of the WP:3RRNO exemptions

I'm just predicting that some editors may miss the Template:Editnotices/Page/2024_United_States_presidential_election edit notice not to call the election and it may require rapid reversions, that could leave editors using their reversion and since the page is under a strict WP:1RR I figured it might be worth asking the question now preemptively before someone accidentally makes a second reversion and then gets dragged to ANI over it? So would reversion of this fall under point 7 of the WP:3RRNO exceptions (Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.)? Raladic (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If someone adds a state that isn’t unanimously projected, and that puts a candidate over 270 even if no media source projected the national winner yet, that would clearly fall under “unsourced” and “contentious”. Unfortunately, I am not sure if other cases of premature adding would be a 1RR exemption. Prcc27 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If it is just an occasional problem, then an editor who would cross 1RR can bring it up in a discussion here and attempt to have the other editor self-revert or another editor could revert it themselves.

If it becomes a significant problem, then the article might end up needing full protection since it is already at extended confirmed. Hopefully, editors read the edit notice and we don't have to go to RFPP. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do both candidates already have 3 electoral votes?

In the infobox both Harris and Trump are shown to have already won 3 electoral votes. Where does this come from? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Because the Associated Press is reporting 3 votes each in NH and we report those in the infobox. They were added by @Prcc27 in this edit here. Raladic (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might be better to wait until 7pm Eastern Time to start reporting on votes for both candidates, but maybe this will be the only hiccup regarding it. As an aside, it might be best to create a footnote to clarify that the votes are from Dixville Township. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

For such an important source, it probably shouldn't be a Bare URL. I don't have Extended confirmation myself. Tolozen (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done diff. Raladic (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's popular vote, not electoral college vote. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The three votes were at Dixville Notch. See CNN coverage here: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/05/politics/dixville-notch-new-hampshire-2024-results/index.html ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone changed the tallies to 0 without explanation. I hope the user will self-revert or that it will be re-added by another user. Prcc27 (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the popular vote figure. As I explained in the exit summary, I think it is more confusing than it is useful to include it, as for many users it will not be apparent why each candidate has 3 votes unless they know about New Hampshire midnight voting. In my view the national popular vote should be shown, at earliest, once the first polling places close. I.e. 23:00 UTC for Indiana and Kentucky. Gust Justice (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not just add a footnote explaining that the results are midnight voting results? Prcc27 (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this for what Proc27 said above, if the information is valid and true, why remove it? A footnote would be fine if you're removing confusion Chewsterchew (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to see them back in. Technically, the current vote total is 3-3, and I think it's worthwhile to indicate that (with a note). -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I support removal. The results of this clown show are trivial and don't deserve such prominent promotion. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you check the 2020 United States presidential election article, you'll see that Dixville Notch is not mentioned in the article. I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion in this article either. Those Dixville Notch votes will be added to the vote totals of the candidates when New Hampshire as a whole officially reports its results. Until then, let's leave the popular vote totals as TBD. JasonMacker (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Initial votes being released is a clown show..? Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Tens of millions of votes have been cast; publicly announcing 6 of them is not the release of initial votes. It's performance art. It's something irrelevant to look at rather than what is actually happening. Like...a clown show. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I support inclusion, these are already listed by AP on its own election results page. There is no reason not to include popular vote totals as the day progresses Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

AP is reporting it as part of the popular vote in New Hampshire, but as far as I can tell, it is not yet reporting the national popular vote. So I don't see how it is the basis for including that data. Gust Justice (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

i agree i dont think popular vote should be updated until Indiana/Kentucky's polls close Alkazar9999 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

NBC is reporting it as 3 votes to 3 votes in the national popular vote tally. Either way, adding those votes is allowed per WP:CALC. Prcc27 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Axios has their national tally at 0-0 but also reporting the 6 votes cast in NH in their interactive map. Same with CNN. At this point, I'm fine with either choice (keeping the national tally at 0-0 or making it 3-3). This really only matters for the next 6 hours or so. JasonMacker (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gust Justice I agree with waiting for polls to close atleast, it's not like Wikipedia is supposed to be giving live news coverage anyway. Would help avoid unnecessary errors or changes after misreporting. Dasein (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s reported by AP and kinda cool. I say include. Leave a note saying it’s from NH R. G. Checkers ^talk 20:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

nbc has called vermont for harris Realpala (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, this section is about the votes in New Hampshire, not Vermont. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

oops Realpala (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:2024 United States presidential election B addition

Shjunpei created this section to talk about this diff, which was illegible as a section heading. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I created a template for the info box so it can be used on other pages where necessary. It was removed because it was unprotected. Can someone request this to be protected? thanks. - shJunpei :3 13:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I've requested protection, and it's been given protection. Probably should update the template to have parity with the current state of the infobox though (and maybe make a new discussion section here seeking some consensus if you want the article to use that template as the infobox?) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be a bit cumbersome to have to edit the template and the page to match counts once the results are coming in as its then effectively two edits instead of one, so I'm not entirely convinced on the benefit of it. Raladic (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No need to update the clock if no actual data has changed

Hey @BarntToust - there's no need to update ([37],[38]...) the last_updated clock every few minutes if there hasn't actually been any counting updates - the clock is there for when reporting numbers changed. That being said, someone should please revert this change by @HistorianL as the counting will continue into the next few days, so we do need the date back in there. (I've used a revert in the last 24hrs, so can't do it myself). Raladic (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly pissed with myself that I missed 4:20... well, ashes to ashes. I'll add back the little system to append the clock count with the date. BarntToust 21:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that I have hidden the reporting and last update parameters since users are only editing it without any actual reporting data despite the hidden text to update the time "when making updates to the reporting numbers." It is a bit silly to be just making edits to the clock to keep it on the current hour when we don't have any voting results outside of six votes from a single NH township. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

(I will add here that I plan to remove my edit at Midnight UTC when the polls close in at least one area.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@BarntToust and 52Timer: BarntToust, you were asked above to not update the clock until the reporting numbers changed. Since it was still being changed by multiple editors, I hid it with the hidden parameters. Since even that has not stopped the edits, I have removed it. Please do not restore the parameters until after the first reporting numbers come in. That is my request to you both. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, you would do very well to observe I was told me changing the clock was tedious and that I was frankly wasting my time updating it, not that this action was contested or disallowed. It was a "you know you have better things to do than sit around twiddling your thumb, BarntToust" since the simple changing hurts nothing, nor does it disrupt editing. I don't ever want to see you take a warning tone with anybody, much less me, unless it comes behind an actual pressing concern about the integrity of the project, not "me just being tedious for no reason". But since my changing it was indeed pointless beyond a personal OCD satisfaction, on the merit that you've seriously asked me not to, I'm going to quit doing that.

On another note... Yeah, other people will probably continue to do that same thing. It's been changed by others before, and I think it's smart to just hide it. But how do you know your removal won't be reverted before 8 tonight? I mean, you'll remove the parameter, but who's to say it won't just be added back unless something formal discussion comes on? For less than two hours? Not happening. Starting a contention discussion about removing the clock? that would be as tedious as me changing it constantly! lol

Honestly though, thanks for working to help the project, it's peeps like you that make wiki work how it does. BarntToust 23:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if it was still going to be there without poll turn-ins, I was going to be editing it, since its existence was about as meaningful as me changing it to update constantly. I was honestly confused why it was there, and just why it had a manual value beside the hidden clock template. So it's gone until like 8:00, that's good. BarntToust 23:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

While such an edit does visually change the article, without any actual reporting numbers coming in it is effectively useless to adjust. I would say it is a borderline unconstructive edit as there is little to no usefulness in the edit. But how do you know your removal won't be reverted before 8 tonight? I don't, hence why I made a request. If it had been reverted, I would have just waited to see what would happen. Also, Midnight UTC is 7pm Eastern Time, not 8pm Eastern Time so I am about to revert myself unless it has already been restored since some states have ended voting. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead is not serious

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.

---

A third of the lead, a mega paragraph, is just a Trump bad rant. This is unencyclopedic, and also not particularly consistent with MOS:LEAD. Reads like a propaganda piece by Democrat partisans. Stuff like this really erodes the credibility of the project. At least try to remain semi-neutral. JDiala (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a factual summary of the events of the past few years and completely encyclopedic and fully sourced. "Facts don't care about your feelings".  Nixinova   T   C   23:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well said, and well sourced. To not include factual information erodes the credibility of the project. Metokpema (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see the section called #Bias in lead once again. This section appears to be a duplicate of that. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:10, 6 November 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.

As the FAQ says, the following need a consensus before the article displays a projection of a winner for a state: ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC

But, it doesn't have links to their results, and I didn't see them on the talkpage. I thought I'd list them here for convenience:

ABC AP CBS CNN NBC

As of right now, all 5 of them are projecting Trump as the winner of Kentucky and Indiana, and Harris as the winner of Vermont. JasonMacker (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe this refers to the related map File:ElectoralCollege2024.svg. If so, then I will mention here that any issues can also be discussed at File talk:ElectoralCollege2024.svg. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But it also refers to bolding the winner in the state election articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I failed to consider that. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

All 5 have now called it for Trump. Jacket2018 (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What does the light blue mean?

What does the light blue mean? It should be added in the key. CavDan24 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Light blue where? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

shown in Connecticut and Washington, DC. CavDan24 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Wanted to make sure you were not referring to the table in the middle of the article for some reason. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@CavDan24: It's in the note: light blue for states where only a majority of these sources have projected a win. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. CavDan24 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maine and Nebraska

Is there a reason for Maine and Nebraska not showing their congressional district special voting? Is the reason just because they’re undeclared so far? LittlePenguinHaveFun (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Consult the table in the talk section above you, it simply hasn't been called by the sources deemed reliable by wikipedia. Scuba 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

DC

Harris is the projected winner. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 03:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not nationwide, specifically DC. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 03:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been in the map and the infobox for a while.... Scuba 06:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump has won

Trump has won against Harris according to multiple sources. - shJunpei :3 07:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as of now, DDHQ and Fox have declared Trump the winner, and CNN and MSNBC have Trump only a few EVs away.Atrix20 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Just now, NBC news declared Trump won Pennsylvania. Hence, the election is over. M.Karelin (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump, according to NBC news, has 266 without Alaska. M.Karelin (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's basically over. This is genuinely quite shocking though. According to the Washington Post, the majority of all counties in the country had a rightward shift EarthDude (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the FAQ at the top of this page, this article only relies on ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC for projections.

NBC still has Trump at 266 EVs. So NBC has not projected that Trump has won the presidency quite yet (but at this point it does seem inevitable), JasonMacker (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

266 without Alaska !! M.Karelin (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, but unfortunately for Trump, even with Alaska's 3 electoral votes, that would only bring him up to 269, just shy of being able to allow NBC to project a president. JasonMacker (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It should be 266, not 267 for Trump as it currently says TWM03 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. M.Karelin (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Its stilll a bit early to say for certain as sites like the AP haven't called it yet. It's an inevitability but we still have to wait.  Nixinova   T   C   08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Trump is the projected President-Elect, even if you ignore Fox News (thanks to DecisionDeskHQ). But per WP:NOTNEWS, we should wait for unanimous projections from the major 5 sources before declaring him the winner in wikivoice. Wikipedia is in no rush to get ahead of the vast majority of our sources. Prcc27 (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

CNN, NBC, ABC, AP, and CBS just called the election for Trump. VBLby9 (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this should be reflected in the article Jacket2018 (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And it is. Is there some other change we need? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

trump seems to only have won 279 by ap, the others are saying 276 Realpala (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Right... The reason this got locked down in the first place. Fixing. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Or I could wait one more minute for someone to adjust it instead. Which is a good thing as I now recall doing a fix already before the full protection went through, so I cannot revert again for another 16 hours or so. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

266

Both ABC and NBC say Trump has 266. Plz correct it. M.Karelin (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why 265 ?? What's the source ?? M.Karelin (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

CBS says Trump is currently at 265, so we'll have to wait. I think that electoral vote's from Maine? Not completely sure. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

ABC and NBC say 266. M.Karelin (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe one of Nebraska's votes? I see one source that says NE-3 has 0% reporting TWM03 (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually CBS is now saying Trump has 266, so it should be changed to 266. TWM03 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the Associated Press he won 2 + 1 + 1 votes from Nebraska. ABC News seems to concur (click on Nebraska to see the numbers). Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Fully protected for 3 hours

This article is fully protected for 3 hours; I assume that's about the length of time it will take for the 5 reliable sources to call the election. I will be available for the next hour or so to make updates to the tallies, and will try to line up another admin to monitor and ensure that EC protection is reinstated following that time. Please make edit requests below. Risker (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Risker: Could you change Harris' number back to 194? That's what we're able to confirm at the moment per the table above. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Risker (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Risker: Minnesota has been called by CNN for Harris (all five sources now concur on this). Could you please update the number to 204? Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Risker (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Risker: New Jersey has been called for Harris by all five sources now. Her number is currently at 218. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done although at the rate the article page is saving, you'll see this before it's done. Risker (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Ah, figured out why it's taking so long. Enormous page, too many readers. There were 1.2 million page views on November 5 (UTC times) and that was before the results started coming in. We've probably had twice that many in the last 12 hours. Risker (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that there's a bot, Protection Helper Bot, that will restore the previous protection when the temporary protection expires. SilverLocust 💬 08:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you apply that? There was no editorial activity justifying full protection. Tvx1 08:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See the #Infobox tally is wrong discussion, particularly in the last hour. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, SilverLocust. Nonetheless, this is an important article that is getting a lot of views, and it's best that someone is actively watching it to make sure the bot does the right thing at the right time. Let's hope things work out the way they're supposed to.

For the information of other administrators, not only is this a contentious topic, there was an ongoing edit war with the infobox happening, that directly relates to whether or not the election is called. Risker (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked the edit history again and I really think you are overstating the edit war. There were a number of edits, but there was no heat nor bad emotions. The discussion also develop in a positive colleborative atmosphere. Full protection is an overreaction. Tvx1 09:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be heat to be an edit war. The same content was being changed repeatedly by a wide range of users over a short period. Given the article is on 1RR, it doesn't take a lot to push it into edit war territory. Risker (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Risker The major news outlets just called Wisconsin and the election for Trump. Article needs updating. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Should the Donald Trump page be given a similar 3 hour full protection? It might be a bit of a hassle if the extended confirmed protection has to be reapplied manually, but it may be worth it. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm only one person and I'm planning to log off before the protection ends here. If that article is having similar issues (I really don't know, I haven't looked), the place to go is requests for page protection. Risker (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

all sources have called the race, so the protection could probably be rescinded. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I second this. Shouldn’t be any controversial edit wars regarding who won. BastianMAT (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that I have lifted full protection and restored to the previous EC protection. Thanks to everyone for your hard work on this article, which has been viewed by around 3 million people in the last 36 hours. Risker (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Volodymyr Zelenskyy congratulates Trump on his victory

https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1854073411904938032 VBLby9 (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Swedish Pm Ulf Kristersson and Israeli PM Nethanyahu has congratulated Trump too; I would add it but the page is fully protected for 3 hours so we will have to wait BastianMAT (talk)

There's nothing to stop people from starting to draft the paragraph on this topic right here on the talk page, so it is ready to go once the election is called or the full protection expires. Probably also want to draft a paragraph about Trump's media appearance that is probably still happening as I write. Risker (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the paragraph on international reactions indicates that the congratulatory messages came before the election had been called. This should be edited to indicate that the congratulatory messages came after one news agency called the election for Trump. Fox called the election after projecting that Trump won Wisconsin, while other news agencies have not projected a winner for Wisconsin. The coverage from news agencies that haven't officially called the election (e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS) acknowledge that Harris' path to victory is very slim. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

So you see my point. Now is the time to start drafting the paragraphs that will replace what's there. Sources, links, etc. Drafting before editing is a good thing for contentious topics and high-view articles. Risker (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I oppose using wikivoice at this stage to say Trump won. Fox News is not reliable according to Wikipedia, and DecisionDeskHQ is not one of our 5 major sources, even though I do think they are reliable and we can give some WP:WEIGHT to them. We can say leaders perceive he won, but the media sources right now have not officially called it. Prcc27 (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Change "The first politicians to congratulate Donald Trump before the election had been called from abroad was"... to "The first politicians from abroad to congratulate Donald Trump before the election had been called, but after the Fox News projecction, from abroad was"... The Fox News projection is mentioned prior to this paragraph, so I don't believe any further clarification is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiffy sperry (talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but Fox News was not the first media outlet to call the race, DecisionDeskHQ was; so that paragraph is wrong. I am neutral about mentioning the Fox projection in the body. Prcc27 (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Can't use Reply due to the unsigned message, but I did get a source that could work with a rewrite of the above per Prcc27; LA Times: But NewsNation, which used data from Decision Desk HQ, called the race for Trump at 1:22 a.m. Eastern after giving the Republican 19 electoral votes from Pennsylvania and three from Alaska. Fox News followed at 1:47 a.m. Eastern after awarding Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes to Trump. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Reuters, which is viewed as a highly reliable source per WP:RS puts more weight on FoxNews projection than DecisionDeskHQ,[39] I believe we should go from what reliable sources says in this matter. Using this article from Reuters I believe we can add in more congratulatory leaders. Draft: "Congratulatory messages were shortly after sent from all over the world to Trump, including President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of India,Narenda Modi, President of France, Emmanuel Macron, President of Turkey,Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, President of the Phillipines, Bongbong Marcos, former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Dick Schoof, Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, Chancellor of Austria, Karl Nehammer, Prime Minister of Czech Republic, Petr Fiala, Prime Minister of Romania, Marcel Ciolacu, Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre, and President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen." [40] BastianMAT (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we really going to list all congratulatory messages? It holds little long-term value and presumably no one is going to read it (in particular because it is all blue text). Dajasj (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The results section

The results section seems to be left uncompleted after the page got fully protected, an admin should probably fix that. Xoocit (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What results do you want to include? You can start drafting it here. Risker (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

State map error

What happened to the big “i” dot, and the feature where you could click on a state, and it would direct you to a state’s article? Prcc27 (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably disappeared when full protection was enabled. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking into it. The infobox parameter looks incorrect. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Found the edit, but it looks like we are good. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Y Fixed. SilverLocust 💬 09:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

President-elect

Donald Trump is now considered to be the winner per ABC, AP, CBS, NBC, and CNN (the five sources listed above). Please update his number to 276 per the tally above. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Am also lifting the full protection and returning to EC protection. And then going to bed, so if further admin assistance is required, please post at the appropriate page. Thanks to everyone for your hard work on this article. Risker (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And thank you for helping. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Outdated results

From what I can tell, the electoral votes have changed from those listed in the infobox of this article, according to all the sources used in determining what the count is. Hence, this article should be updated. ButterCashier (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell it was announced within the last 15 minutes by all five major sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

RCP

Some editors did unjustice to RCP, obviously. Governor Sheng (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on my review of the prior discussion, I think it still is fair to remove. RCP is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as 'should be avoided' and has a no consensus on reliability. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump has 277 electoral votes just say that he won.

Trump has 277 electoral votes just say that he won. Alexysun (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

(First paragraph of lede) Most major news outlets have called the election for Donald Trump. Republican former president Donald Trump and Ohio senator JD Vance defeated the incumbent Democratic vice president Kamala Harris, and Minnesota governor Tim Walz.

(Fourth paragraph of lede) Donald Trump and JD Vance were projected by major media outlets as the next 47th president and 50th vice president of the United States, respectively. Trump received congratulatory messages from politicians all over the world. They are scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2025.

(Infobox) Trump is on the left side, with text bolded and with 276 EVs.

Not sure what I am missing. What are you seeing that indicates otherwise? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, because I changed the First paragraph of lede to that. Alexysun (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but the current lede does not say that. See Grammar error in lede, below Metokpema (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If it was true when I said it, then it was factual at the time. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Grammar error in 1st paragraph lede

"Most major news outlets projected that Republican former president Donald Trump and Ohio senator JD Vance [add] would defeat [delete -ed] the incumbent Democratic vice president Kamala Harris..." Metokpema (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They are projecting a definite article. They project that something has already happened. I mean, it has happened. They are giving the best guess about what has happened.

I know it sounds like a cat poster, but it's true. BarntToust 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That might be the intended meaning, but the grammar still needs correcting. Past tense (projected) with a conditional future tense (would defeat). And, it's a unnecessary point to place in the 1st paragraph lede since the election has now been called. Another editor above in Talk seems to think the 1st paragraph lede says something completely different. Metokpema (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

But it shouldn't be future tense, because the defeat (if it occurred) took place yesterday. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the defeat takes place when the votes are finalized. "Most major news outlets projected that Republican former president Donald Trump and Ohio senator JD Vance would defeat" means that the news outlets were saying that after all of the votes had been counted, it would show that Trump had won. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Get rid of the excessive international congrats text

Its a huge blob of text no one will read in depth and it looks stupid. I propose “Trump was congratulated by international leaders from Asia, Europe and Africa” Proffet123 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree Dajasj (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And Proffet123 and Dajasj, it's blatantly incorrect.

It claims the PPV is the largest party in the Netherlands but, as per its page here, the PVV is a nationalist and right-wing populist political party in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders is the founder, party leader, and sole member of the party.

Which confirmed editor wrote that blatantly incorrect text?

When can it be deleted? Metokpema (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Metokpema ?? What specifically is incorrect? Dajasj (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Dajasj I can't speak for others, but I presume it's a comment on the PPV not being the "largest party in the Netherlands" if its official membership is only its founder. That's a very specific interpretation of largest party, especially as membership is mainly hot air in western Europe nowadays; the PPV is the largest party in the Dutch House of Representatives. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Unknown Temptation, thanks for your reply. I understand that might be a misunderstanding then. Dajasj (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The list is aweful, it's just a list of notable individuals doing the usual congratulatory routine, serves no value without any relevant commentary etc. I recommend International relations starts again from scratch. CNC (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This might be split similar to what happened in the 2016 election: International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election. I'm sure this will be changed in the next couple of days, but they should still delete this section for now because it looks bad. Coolheights23 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Second this. If 2016 got an international reactions article, this can too. Anyone who opposes international reactions sections in principle can then nominate both for deletion. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Another tense error in 2nd paragraph lede

"Biden withdrew... and endorsed..." [not and endorsing] Metokpema (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done - reworded accordingly. BarntToust 15:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Michigan Natural Law Party Omitted

I don't have permission to edit this article so I hope someone else fixes this. The Natural Law Party should be under "parties with partial ballot access." Robert F. Kennedy is their top of ticket candidate and he got votes in Michigan where the NLP remains on the ballot. Under Michigan law RFK could not have his name removed once submitted. 23mason (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I added this in Special:Diff/1255836723. In the future, you can use {{Edit protected}} in your talk page message, which will make it easier for other editors to see your request. Thank you! — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 22:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Trudeau congratulated

I am not extended confirmed, but could someone add Trudeau to the list of international leaders who congratulated trump? Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-congratulates-donald-trump-on-presidential-victory-1.7100126 Kronifer (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Verification needed

I don't see any numbers for the popular vote given in the source cited. Seananony (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

...which is currently https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/. Seananony (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. Currently at 66,894,178 votes (47.5%) for Harris & 71,775,100 votes (51.0%) for Trump. Seananony (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS

I cleaned up/am cleaning up some MOS stuff on the article. Please let me know if I made a mistake or accidentally violated a talk page consensus on how something should be written. Thanks. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 18:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion began regarding the election map

A talk page related to the article (regarding a template in the infobox, to be exact) began. Would be nice if stuff was clarified. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 19:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath - Election Night - Request for edit

In Aftermath - Election Night, change "Harris delivered his conceding speech in Howard University on November 6, 2024.", to "Harris delivered her concession speech at Howard University on November 6, 2024.".

- Correction for Gender

- use in for specific buildings, at for a school

- typically concession is used over conceding in the context of a candidate, I.E Dewey conceded the election to Truman vs Dewey delivered a concession speech.

PS: I'm not sure how to correctly request an edit, is this how I do it? Rcfische2 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the edit by @Jlvshistory containing this was reverted for lacking a source. In that case, I'd like to propose adding their text with my edits, along with a citation to https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-election-loss-speech-howard-university/ Rcfische2 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the article says the following: On November 6, 2024, a day after the election night, Harris delivered her concession speech at Howard University. Is that good enough to consider this resolved? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Results Table

When do we start setting up a results table for readers here? Even if not every state is done yet, I think we can built it piece by piece as they make official certification. JoshRamirez29 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that would work for states that have finished the counting. The others will have to wait. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yea thats what I meant. I was wondering, we put up the empty table now, then fill it in as we get official state certifications so readers don't have to for click on every state individually JoshRamirez29 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Results of the 2024 United States presidential election has been started Esolo5002 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is it in presidential primary format? I just meant the standard state total percentage style table. JoshRamirez29 (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we change the projected electoral vote from 292 - 226 to 295 - 226? Gjhfoi (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a different topic, but to be quick, please see #Table for tallying. As it is filled out, then the infobox will be updated. If you see any data missing that can be filled in due to a recent call by a source, then please consider adding it in. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Map Coloring

Why are Maine and Alaska colored lightly blue and red respectively? Shouldn't there coloring be the same as other states? Am I missing something or is this an error? EarthDude (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Those states aren't yet "called" by all the main news media. (There is a note next to the map saying that, but that note is easy to miss.) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC).

Oh alr got it. Thanks EarthDude (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump's picture

Someone plz move Trump's picture to the left - he has won, and it is a fact now. M.Karelin (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

At least he is leading, why Kamala is on the left side ?? M.Karelin (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't switch based on lead. The candidate on the left is of the incumbent party. Until all 5 news sources have unanimously declared a winner, we won't and thus also don't flip flop sides. Raladic (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, but I think that the picture of Trump should be right, whereas the picture of Harris should be left – It literally represents the political leaning of each candidate (left-wing/right-wing), which Wikipedia always has been stuck to in Info-boxes on articles of political parties/personas ever since.

So the argument of the side of the picture being sided based off 'of the incumbent party' not only really looks mighty far-fetched and pretty arbitrary, it even supports Harris picture being actually to the left, since the U.S.' Democratic Party is still holding the presidential office at this moment until January 2025! Also, the picture of Harris being on the left makes more sense, since as of now, the Democratic Party is holding office, and the Republican Party is following. Smartcom5 ^(Talk ?) 05:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Update Map

recent reporting from AP shows as that Alaska is won by Trump and Maine by Harris Also update reporting Insane miner (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As said in the infobox, This tally only reflects projections made unanimously by ABC, Associated Press, CBS, CNN, and NBC. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Record the facts of the claim that Trump is the first president in modern American history who has not started a War

Record the facts of the claim that Trump is the first president in modern American history who has not started a war I would like to ask for your opinion on recording the Israel-Hamas war views section of Foreign policy below.

• Proposal: Trump claims that he can immediately end the ongoing wars between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Iran, etc. if he is elected as the 47th president of the United States, and claims that he is the first president in modern American history who has not started a war. However, in fact, since Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, Trump is the first person to not expand new military operations, so Trump's claim is false.

• The above content can be summarized even more.
• Summary of the basis and research analyzed by Reuters Fact Check:
• It is difficult to make a black-and-white judgment on whether Trump is the first president in modern American history who has not started a war, as the definitions of war and military operations are different. Since World War II, among the 13 presidents who served between 1945 and 2020, Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States, and Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, have not expanded the war, as they have started the Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars. For verification, the results of USA Today and Newsweek were additionally verified.

• According to Reuters Fact Check,
• Because the definitions of war and military operations are different, it is impossible to tell in black and white whether Trump is the first president in modern American history who has not started a war.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Here's the link to Reuters.[41] Doug Weller talk 15:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that is correct link. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

What war did Biden start..? Prcc27 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

What does Trump not starting a war have to do with the idea that he could immediately stop foreign wars? The proposed text, given that it is fixed, might be relevant on Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign or Presidency of Donald Trump, but it seems tangential here

How about writing a general outline of Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign and summarizing it in a sentence or two here?Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree including that fact feels out of place, best to not include it. In other pages about Trump it would feel right but not on the election page. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Grammar

"Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump" paragraph 5 - "Taking affect" should be "Taking effect". Richferrara (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed it.

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

When should we create the article for the 2028 election?

I have checked this article's creation date, which was in 2015. I believe creating it that early was extreme, but there is not yet any article for a 2028 election, despite the presence of some news coverage on the topic throughout this year. Is there a bright line rule to create an article on the next election after the upcoming election results are counted and a winner is declared? Mr. Holup (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A good bet would be no earlier than tomorrow, based on the current protection settings put in place by @JPxG in August. Raladic (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI: There is a draft article for the 2028 election which will likely be moved to the mainspace very soon. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Generally the next election's articles can be created when, well, it's the next election. So tomorrow, assuming there are any useful sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait until there are actual candidates declared for 2028 would be my opinion. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

2028 isn't coming any faster... no need to rush Qutlooker (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose WP:TOOSOON is relevant, but I'm sure it will come into the mainspace soon Lazesusdasiru (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb: is there anything material to say? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait for almost a year after polls. This will help upcoming candidates to declare. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It is created now due to the election being completed and reliable sources like the Associate Press verifying the President-elect. TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

lower precision (rounded down) for votes until numbers are finalized

per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, since a few states/counties aren't done counting and the number is subject to change DarmaniLink (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

More reliable sources needed

The section on the countries we are told to hate (Russia, China, Iran) apparently interfering in the election, most of the sources are the NYT, the outlet that brought us a year of Hamas rape stories that turned out to be totally false. I'm going to remove these claims unless we can have some actual proper verified stories. The sources in these articles are either "government sources" or shadowy think-tanks with far-right funding. ¬¬¬¬ Apeholder (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The NYT is "generally reliable", per the perennial sources list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources David O. Johnson (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Electoral map

Captions mention the 'blue' & 'red' shadings. But the map is all gray. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the electoral college hasn't voted yet? But I am not sure Catboy69 (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You either have to clear your cache or view in an incognito tab. I also only see all gray unless I view in incognito tab, or click the blue “i” button. I miss the Wikipedia feature where you could purge the page, that used to do the trick. Prcc27 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Condense indictments into one brief statement?

To assist in shortening the lead I propose instead of listing all the things he has indictments for just link to the article and have a statement like “Trump is facing multiple indictments” and maybe add that they’re all related to the 2020 election and surrounding events. Other thoughts? Eg224 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the entire lead should just be rewritten, 90% of it could be generalized into single sentences.

A lot of it has nothing to do with the election at all. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead has a lot of superfluous matter in it that had nothing to do with the outcome of the election.  Those who continue to go on and on about Trump being indicted need to lay off the sauce. An indictment is not proof of a crime.  In any case, it apparently didn’t matter to the voters who elected him to the presidency.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of bomb threats in the Russian interference section?

Feels like there should be mention of the bomb threats called in to polling locations. Not sure whether it should be under threats of political violence or Russian interference—the FBI said many of them "appear to originate from Russian email domains." ThePurrletariat (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this should be included.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fake-bomb-threats-linked-russia-briefly-close-georgia-polling-locations-2024-11-05/

Reuters is a fairly reputable source, as is the FBI. Kai robert (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the edit history to do work on this page, could someone else add it in? I also assume it would go under Russian interference rather than "threats of political violence" right?

Additionally, hoax bomb threats originating from Russian email domains were called in at polling sites in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in an apparent effort to suppress Democratic turnout.

Somethings like that, not sure whether to attribute to the FBI in text or not (or whether to specify that it was on election day) ThePurrletariat (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Premature PA call (Senate)

I think AP prematurely called the PA Senate race, and the Senate map needs to be fixed. Please join discussion here. Prcc27 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Black on black map edge numbers

On my (dark mode browser) screen, the numbers for the small states are in black, upon a black Atlantic ocean. Jidanni (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Factors of Trump's victory in the lead

I think we should begin to put in the reasons why Trump won so decisively. The most cited right now are inflation and greater Trump support among the working class and people of color.[42][43][44][45] Personisinsterest (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What else are the factors to be included? Phoe6 (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's the rise of populism in the US, and an electorate increasingly intolerant to candidates who aren't populist. The people want big disruptive change and the democrats simply didn't deliver. No one expected Trump to go as far as winning the popular vote. According to the Washington Post, nearly every single country in the country aside from some in Utah and California, had a rightward shift EarthDude (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you wish inclusion for this point as a factor, please give us something to cite it with.

If its just your general thoughts, WP:NOTFORUM, this is already bloated enough with non-article discussions DarmaniLink (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

what are the other countries in this country you are referring to? Eg224 (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eg224: I believe he meant to write "county", not "country". So, its just a typing error. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump home state

Trump's home state is New York FilipVag (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's no longer true; he's been a resident of Florida for years.

[46] David O. Johnson (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Politico link for election analysis

I don't have the time to summarize the shifts across the country for various states, but this is a Politico link analyzing shifts in many states. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/08/donald-trump-win-electoral-map-00187135 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

edit request

article currently says "former vice president Dick Cheney and her daughter former Representative Liz Cheney" please change to HIS daughter Ploffy (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Results table borked the page

At least on Android mobile, the Results section is the last section shown. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. BarntToust 19:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox tally is wrong

The inbox tally is wrong. Should be 80 Trump to 24 Harris if we use EVs projected only unanimously by ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC. Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That ain't recentism, though. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a discuss tag. The tally is against consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The tally should be 95-24. Users are going against consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Oudomo who has been updating the tally - please note that you should NOT update the tally only from AP, only when all 5 networks and outlined in the big bold edit notice have unanimously called a state should it be updated.

Please stop updating just from AP as it's violating page policies. Raladic (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, ill just focus on poll closings. Oudomo (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Now pinging @BaseballFanatic1 - same as above. Please cease updating only based on AP, we need consensus between ALL 5 networks. Raladic (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Fajarpa7 due to their edits to the infobox. Similar to the above, plus the election has not been called so could you re-flip the candidates? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fajarpa7 and @Scribetastic - Please do not report wrong numbers, we only report once we have consensus from all 5 sources per the bold edit notice on the page, please see below table for consensus updates. Raladic (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And another @Scu ba - please self-revert, the AP have not called Georgia, please see the bold edit notice and table below. Raladic (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And another - @Ahri Boy - please see above. Raladic (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@EarthDude - please see above and below table. We only update on consensus of all 5. Please self-revert. Raladic (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, my bad, imma revert then EarthDude (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Next one, pinging @JoshRamirez29 - please don't update numbers just from AP - see below table for consensus numbers instead only after all 5 sources have unanimously reported. Raladic (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone is actually going to listen unless banhammer. I highly doubt that most of the English Wikipedia who didn't participate in the WP:DRAMABOARD discussion will actually care.

Sorry to be the messenger, but it is what it is. Unless history-searching for who is doing it and blocks are implemented, these talk-page complaints do jack. having said that, a few admins need to be working extra tonight/today because of this.

Hindsight bias or not, everyone saw this coming. BarntToust 01:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If disruption is an issue, then WP:RFPP would be better. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

27 is a step on the right direction, but should be 24 since AP has not projected DC AFAIK? Or maybe I missed it. MO has not been projected by AP either. Prcc27 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that you are correct. I will revise. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone already reverted it to 70+, so I will take this a different path. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I knew people weren’t going to respect consensus. I need to take a break and a breather. Anyone else want to update the map in my absence? I just can’t. Prcc27 (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27, it literally doesn't matter. the means will sort themselves out into the ends soon. Ultimately, the results will out by tomorrow minus some mail-ins. Seriously, we live in clown world, there's nothing to be taken serious about any of this. relax. learning to just say "whatever" helps a lot. BarntToust 01:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

...clown world? Really? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU, notice "skibidi toilet", "hawk tuah", and all the other stupid brainrot crap that dominates the media nowadays? Obviously everything is a silly joke and in observation of this, life should be conducted as carefree as possible. In short, everything is brainrot, nothing needs to be taken seriously. Including flagrantly unaware editors disregarding consensus. BarntToust 02:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Just block 'em. No catastrophising. that's my conclusion. to stop caring, and just lay the banhammer down. BarntToust 02:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

but to do that we need some admins! BarntToust 02:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, skibidi sigma in Ohio is nonsense. But "clown world" is a far-right thing. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU, while it's terrible regarding most of their policies about people who aren't gender-conformist and heterosexual, the far-right have got it down about the confusing, stupid state our world is in. Now, the nitty-gritty details are subjective, but the concept of everything simply being a dumb joke is (alt-)right on.

which is really why Wikipedia editors need to just stop caring so much about stuff like this. Truth will out in a day or so. Editors doing stuff against the grain just aren't worth the migraine/panic attack/existentialist breakdown. BarntToust 02:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The far-right hasn't got anything down. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU it looks like they have the popular vote and the electoral college down, for some bizarre reason. And while I personally dislike their ideology, the thinking that everything is just a silly joke is largely right.

They think we live in clown world for one reason, I think we live in clown world because of the Acute Stupidity Disorder (ASD) that the media is infected with. And I mean, Trump pretty much won. that's clown world enough lol.

Okay, I've been trying to twist this into any way that constitutes discussion of this election in the context of Wikipedia, but I can't. time to get back to business! BarntToust 11:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Noting here: Admin watching this page, due to alert from RFPP. I really don't want to have to fully protect a page that is reasonably expected to change minute-by-minute, BUT... It's essentially impossible, without links to the calls by the media organizations, to figure out which states have and have not met the criteria for "being called". Maybe make up a chart here on the talk page with media organization horizontally, state vertically, and insert links to each organization as they publish their call for the state? Risker (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  That would be a good idea. Also opposed to full protection. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Look, AP might say 17 for Harris, 95 for Trump, but CBS will say 86 for Harris, 45 for Trump, so what do we do? Find the lowest total count for each? this damn "consensus" always fails to account for the dozens of ways the situation can be interpreted. Don't full protect this page, oh no. BarntToust 02:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for posting this here as I was about to mention what you suggested. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Added a table below, if people can help fill it in, then we get a picture of what's reported. Raladic (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you folks for adding and completing the table, and for adding in the EC votes; this is most helpful. Can you confirm that the EC numbers in the article match the table? Risker (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, they match correctly. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have now added the current running tally and verified it using Excel. So now we can use it for updating the main page with numbers. Raladic (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging @Prcc27 - since you're updating the map, you can use below consensus table now to cross reference for the states where all 5 sources have called it. Raladic (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks to all of you for working on this, and keeping the running information in the article correct. I am still watching, but if you see any "red flags" or encounter any problem users, please feel free to ping me, either here or on my talk page, and I'll respond pretty quickly. Risker (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  One slightly problematic one that I just noticed was this sneaky edit that flipped the incumbent party candidate with the other without explanation. I've flipped them back now until the election is actually called. Raladic (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like it happened again. IDB.S (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rushtheeditor please self-revert this immediately. The election has not been called. Raladic (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  It just shows the lead... we did this in 2020 too. Rushtheeditor (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ill change it though !!! Sorry!! Rushtheeditor (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  The order is that of the incumbent party. Until the election is called, this order is maintained. Raladic (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  1RR violationPossible 1-rr issue from @EarthDude - [47] - please self revert, per same reason as above. Raladic (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh sorry, didn't know that, I'll fix it. Also, a single revert, which I was literally told to do in the talk page by you does not mean edit warring, like come on EarthDude (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Some editors have been repeatedly switched the order back and forth against consensus that was established prior to the start of counting of maintaining the incumbent first until the election is actually called, which we don't do until all 5 news sources report it. When editors are editing on a contentious topic with active editing restrictions in place they are urged to use caution, so hence the warning. As you had already made another problematic content change just prior to that one, I placed the warning to prevent further disruption. I've struck the violation above and replaced it with "possible 1-rr issue" instead. Raladic (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I fixed the infobox now. Also, I understand I shouldve been more cautious when editing a contentious article. After you first told me to revert my statistics update, I accidentally reverted someone else's edit too, who had rearranged the infobox by incumbency. My bad, sorry EarthDude (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your understanding :) Raladic (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Risker - Peace was maintained until now by pinging editors who made edits against consensus and the help of others, but it's devolving into a bit of chaos at this point with premature calls of the election. Might be time for full protection until the dust settles by the morning maybe unless some admins want to keep an active eye on the page over-night. I'm logging off for the night. Raladic (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Table for tallying

Please fill below from if the respective outlet has called the state for Harris/Trump/another candidate. Sources: ABC, AP, CBS, NBC, and CNN

State	EC	ABC	AP	CBS	NBC	CNN	Harris EC	Trump EC
Alabama	9	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	9
Alaska	3	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	3
Arizona	11	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	11
Arkansas	6	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	6
California	54	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	54	0
Colorado	10	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	10	0
Connecticut	7	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	7	0
Delaware	3	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	3	0
Florida	30	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	30
Georgia	16	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	16
Hawaii	4	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	4	0
Idaho	4	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	4
Illinois	19	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	19	0
Indiana	11	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	11
Iowa	6	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	6
Kansas	6	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	6
Kentucky	8	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	8
Louisiana	8	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	8
Maine	2	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	2	0
Maine 1st	1	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	1	0
Maine 2nd	1	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	1
Maryland	10	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	10	0
Massachusetts	11	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	11	0
Michigan	15	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	15
Minnesota	10	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	10	0
Mississippi	6	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	6
Missouri	10	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	10
Montana	4	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	4
Nebraska	2	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	2
Nebraska 1st	1	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	1
Nebraska 2nd	1	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	1	0
Nebraska 3rd	1	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	1
Nevada	6	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	6
New Hampshire	4	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	4	0
New Jersey	14	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	14	0
New Mexico	5	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	5	0
New York	28	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	28	0
North Carolina	16	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	16
North Dakota	3	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	3
Ohio	17	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	17
Oklahoma	7	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	7
Oregon	8	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	8	0
Pennsylvania	19	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	19
Rhode Island	4	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	4	0
South Carolina	9	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	9
South Dakota	3	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	3
Tennessee	11	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	11
Texas	40	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	40
Utah	6	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	6
Vermont	3	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	3	0
Virginia	13	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	13	0
Washington	12	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	12	0
Washington, D.C.	3	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	3	0
West Virginia	4	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	4
Wisconsin	10	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	10
Wyoming	3	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	0	3
Total	538						226	312

With all 5 networks calling Wisconsin for Trump, all 5 networks are projecting Trump with over 270 votes and thus the President-elect of the United States. I'd like to request an admin edit the infobox in the main article (and wherever else they see fit) to be in line with these sources.--JasonMacker (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Striking through my own comment since the article is no longer fully protected.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 United States elections, 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, 2024 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, First presidential transition of Donald Trump (potentially), JD Vance, Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign, Planned presidential transition of Kamala Harris, Second presidential transition of Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump (also likely needs a rename per Presidencies of Grover Cleveland), Tim Walz, Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency, etc., and whatever I didn't think of that likely is linked to by Template:US 2024 presidential elections series. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Most to all of those should not need an admin edit, though. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Leftist bias in this article

Everything in the early sections of this article is critical of Trump.  It seems pretty clear liberal partisanship has tainted the editing.

BTW, being indicted is just that: an indictment.  No trial has occurred, no veridct has been rendered.  That Trump was indicted for anything is irrelevant to this article, which is supposed to be discussing how the election went..

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bigdumbdinosaur I agree Kalbome22 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bigdumbdinosaur I agree Kalbome22 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidate photographs

Wikipedia should use an updated photograph of the Republican candidate. He is older, fatter, and even balder than he was in 2016. R.dulgarian (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

find something better to do troll CavDan24 (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/R.dulgarian say that @R.dulgarian has had an account since July 5, 2011, and has made 47 edits, having a sporadic editing history, including a hiatus between 2017 and 2023. Weird to point out, but I figure the trolling offender might as well have technical info put out there. BarntToust 22:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Map caching

It looks like the map is being cached so changes to the file might not be seen for a long time. Is there a way to disable caching for certain files or reduce the cache time in MediaWiki? Laura240406 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BYPASS for that. Might add a FAQ for this too. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I know this trick but this doesn't work for the average reader of this page that might be confused why the map hasn't updated. Laura240406 (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe adding it to FAQ will help, but like you said, I'm not so sure for the average reader. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Prediction markets

It would be extremely interesting to mention what the prediction markets indicated; they are often more accurate than polls. For example: [48] -- 23:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Beland (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Financial Times--2024 was a bad year for incumbent parties globally

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/e8ac09ea-c300-4249-af7d-109003afb893 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if there is a correlation, seems like WP:UNDUE trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't at all think it's undue. It's a necessary part of the discussion about why Harris lost. Inflation is global. It has been written about by Vox, CNA, American Prospect, and others. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If there are other sources other than the Financial Times, that may be fine. But I feel like the sections on why Trump won/Harris lost in general are way too verbose and seem like recentism. For starters, Trump winning wasn’t really a shock, and a year out from now, every little detail of what caused him to win is going to seem less relevant than it does a few days out from the election. Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Electoral count

According to news sites, Trump has won Nevada. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We have Nevada light red currently since AP has not made the call. Prcc27 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Amen! beat me to that, Prcc27. BarntToust 19:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

He's up to 301, now. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Lowest popular vote percentage since 1992 in lede

May be worth noting that the reason Clinton's popular vote percentage was so low was a third party taking 19%. Somarain (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget California. Without that state, Trump would've won the 2016 popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Bill Clinton, not Hillary. Somarain (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead is already filled with too much WP:CRUFT, and stating this as a reason would be WP:OR, and implying would be WP:SYNTH. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

How can this claimed statistic even be determined when the number of votes is still being counted in many states? California alone is still only at 56% counted. Silverseren^C 00:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Simple math

The map in the info box has some errors. So, what we have so far !! In all States nd DC the elections called, except two - Nevada and Arizona. So, why in the world the map says Trump won 28 and Kamal 18 ?? 28+18 is 46, so where are two other states ?? Besides, the total electors are 538. Trump has 292 on the map, Kamala - 226. The sum - 518. Where are the rest 20 ?? Nevada and Arizona together - 17, so where are the rest 3 ?? You forgot to include Alaska 3 ?? M.Karelin (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not only we confused the number of States, but also number of electors, so lets correct it. M.Karelin (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The number of electors now corrected, what about State numbers ? M.Karelin (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The two other states are Alaska (as you suspected) and Maine, as well as one electoral vote in Nebraska. See the table above. The consensus is to only include states and their electoral votes when all of the five selected reliable sources include them. So, according to this consensus, each of the candidate's totals should be 4 EV lower (291 to 222) with the states numbers as they are now (28 to 18). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

To add, please see #Table for tallying. Once it is filled out completely, then so should the infobox be. If you see any data missing that can be filled in due to a recent call by a source, then please consider adding it in. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

One other point with math. Nobody seems to have noted that Harris needed 270 electoral votes to win, whereas Trump only needed 269. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 05:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Lede is too long

Does anybody else think that, as of now, the lede is too long and should be trimmed down? Shoshin000 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a whole chunk of text analyzing the loss of Harris that I moved further down into the dedicated section, in order to make this thing shorter. Shoshin000 (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved from #Lead too long?

 – CNC (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Before I get into discussion, I would like to mention that I haven't read a lot of the rules on Wikipedia despite having over 700 edits. But I've also learned a lot about it via discussions and seeing what the Wiki looks like. Please assume good faith lol.

According to guidelines, most leads of featured articles are about 250 to 400 words. Doesn't seem like we can reach that. We could attempt a journalist lead, it's a lot shorter and more concise.

There are other election articles that seem to be a lot longer than other articles. Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 03:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)