The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
2024 United States presidential election is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Prcc27 (talk·contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Member-Elect for local Democratic Party leadership.)
Trump image RfC
Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - A seems to be sufficient enough, I don't see why we need to change it, it looks recent enough. I would note though that none of these pictures seem inaccurate enough to not serve the general purpose.
While the 2017 photo is a bit dated, the 2019 photo offers a more recent and positive representation (it was taken just one year ago). Compared to the frowning 2023 option, the smiling 2019 image feels more fitting for an official photo.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually several sections open, and it is becoming very difficult to try to discuss and form a consensus. Better to centralize the discussion into an RfC. We typically decide photos via RfC anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree. Multiple discussions (mostly among the same handful of people) about what amounts to the same thing but not producing a clear and actionable consensus, isn't helpful. RfCs are useful for several things, and agreeing on the best option among a choice of available photos is often one of them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B as first choice, A as second. C looks ridiculous. A is arguably a better picture from a portrait perspective, but has distracting background elements. B doesn't have those, and is a reasonably good as a portrait, and is not a silly, hammy thing like C, so let's use that. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The later-added F and H also look fine (though the images need cropping, especially H). PPS: The even more newly added option I would also work, but should be cropped; it's very smiley, but looks much less fake or leering than several of the others. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B or C are equally fine for me. "A' looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy, but we're supposed to be neutral here, for almost anyone that means using a positive-looking picture when one is available. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: It is somewhat recent with it being 9 months old and, in my opinion, looks visually pretty good with him not having a awkward smile and is well lighted. B is not a bad pick but it is soon to be 1 year and 9 months old, so this is an important reason why I am holding this option back Punker85 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) ; Modified by Punker85 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it has to be that recent, after all, Biden’s presidential portrait is older (2021). I think the main argument with regards to recent photos was that Trump’s 2017 portrait was way too old for an infobox in 2024. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L: One of the most recent pictures of him here by a good amount, he doesn't look weird, in my opinion, he have a relatively neutral face and have correct lighting for me Punker85 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose a photo of Donald Trump, I would still choose his main presidential portrait, but if one of the three above is complete, B would be better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. Most representative of how he currently looks, especially in regard to his weight loss, and the best match with Biden's picture out of the three. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - used in our article for the Republican primaries. In B he's blending into the background chameleon-style and C and D are fairly poor. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B — neutral, non-distracting. A would be my second choice (per Herostratus: "[A] looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy"...) and C is my last choice, as it looks entirely ridiculous. What's a picture from, the dentist's office? Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume That is going to be the deciding factor, because it seems more than a majority have reached a consensus on using B, though the RFC is still ongoing. InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is my only choice. B is too shadowy, C is too smiley, D has a mic in the way and his head is slanted head, so those are out of the question IMHO.Which is not to say there can't be some other picture E which is better than any of these, but that's a bit besides the point.Subjectively, A also seems more representative of his personality—which precise adjectives it conveys is left as an exercise to the reader, as different people may assign positive or negative ones, but in any event it is very, very much a quote-unquote "Trump" look167.88.84.136 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is the best option here. C and D have downsides, A does not; it's neutral. I was going to add that the lighting on B is a tad dramatic, but seems like we don't need to worry about that anymore. TheSavageNorwegian15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
K, now that it's been introduced, is a very good option, probably my favorite. L works great too, and the lighting is more normal. I'm still happy with A otherwise. (Wow, this rfc has been going on a while!) TheSavageNorwegian22:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should assume Option B is an option if/until it is actually deleted, but of course users that prefer option B should have a backup option just in case. Prcc27 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it's a fairly open and shut case. The user uploaded a number of Getty images because he did not misunderstand the license, and they are subsequently getting pulled. There is zero reason to think we would retain it. GreatCaesarsGhost20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - For the high visibility contrast. B looks likely to be deleted, but is also low contrast and fades into the background. C is ridiculous and objectively doesn't even look like the subject. D would be my second choice. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated opinion with new options added: Expressly unchanged, adding that for all options added (E-I) are not as good as option A or D, primarily because the lighting is really bad. E also has another ridiculous facial expression which makes it inappropriate. The contrast for F, G, and H is so bad that he basically whites-out into the background. I is slightly better in this regard, but only slightly... it's also too small, and the straight face-on angle does not accurately reflect his appearance. And because it's come up a few times, I agree that his official portrait should not be used. Fieari (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C “a photo of Donald Trump with a warm smile instills hope. I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024. However, if Photo C is not chosen, could someone locate an alternative picture of Donald Trump wearing a cheerful smile? For instance, could anyone locate a copyright-free photograph of a smiling face, (in other word: A winning smile), akin to the "4 big smile" featured in The Guardian News below? Additionally, may anyone peruse the collection of photos taken at the White House or any potential copyright-free locations. thus far? If we cannot find an appropriate photo now, I hope we can replace it when a suitable one becomes available. News link: [1]Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the heck should "I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024." factor at all into our analysis LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the person who took 3 of these photos being considered, why isn't his official portrait just being used? He doesn't look that different. Calibrador (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point !
Since the official photo clearly identifies Tump, and serves its purpose well, would it be acceptable to use it again instead of replacing it? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t necessarily disagree with that consensus, but I really do not like photos A, C, and D. If we are not going to use the presidential portrait, I feel like we should still use a photo that’s presidential. And these photos fall short of that IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. Not going to repeat the same arguments made above, but B has the large shadow, C is alright but is not the best photo, D has a strange facial expression, and I am against using the official portrait. Yeoutie (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What brought about the need to change the image? He doesn't look that much different in each of the options so what caused the start of this RfC? Tepkunset (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Biden photo is from 2021, while the current Trump photo is from last year. The whole impetus for changing Trump's photo was that it was out of date compared to Biden's.
Thanks for the ping. I still think A is the best out of those options. Regarding the new additions: E has a noisy background; F is blurry; G is not bad, but the text in the background is distracting; H has his hair blended in with the background; I is blurry. Some1 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know there's a consensus not to use Trump's portrait, but some of these pics are during his presidency. Can't see why the logic behind not using Trump's official portrait doesn't pertain to some pics taken 2-3 years after the official portrait was taken. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close and try again Given that B has been deleted, there is no consensus for a change and it is unlikely one will develop this long after the thread opened. That said, I think J is probably the best, and K & L are an improvement over the early suggestions, including A. However, they are likely not being given full consideration by editors that checked out of the conversation. We should probably close this now, and pick up the topic again later. GreatCaesarsGhost14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something that could make Options A - J Ineligible is that A Prescent in All or Most U.S Presidential Article's is that the Pictures for the nominee's for the infobox has to be from that year the election took place, with the exception of the Incumbent or Elected, in which their Presidential Portrait is used, Option A - J were posted/Taken before 2024, with Option E - I being posted/Taken in 2019, And Option A, C, D, & J Being Taken in 2023. InterDoesWiki (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible is too strong a word. The preference is to use a high quality photograph contemporaneous to the election. But where it is not possible to achieve both, quality is paramount. See 1968, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 for examples of very aged photos being used. GreatCaesarsGhost14:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking, I can see your point. And I can using the word "Ineligible" as opposed to "should have less consideration" was a mistake on my part. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for closing this conversation and making a new one. A lot of options were added after the start of the discussion and option B, which was a strong contender, as been deleted. So, not all options received the same amount of consideration by all editors which is not very fair Punker85 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Close And Try again: Orginally, this looked to be a contest between Option A & B, With Option B taking A Massive Lead But Option A slowly equalized.. Then Option B got deleted which disrupted the RFC, which resulted in scattered voting. At this point, there will never be a winner. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comments: Should a sentence mentioning Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack be included in the lead?
Should the following sentence be added to the lead:
^Balz, Dan (January 6, 2024). "Three years after Jan. 6 attack, the political divide is even wider". The Washington Post. ISSN0190-8286. Retrieved April 14, 2024. Three years on, there is no escaping the impact on American politics of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Other issues will significantly influence the 2024 presidential election, but few define more clearly the contrasts, stakes and choice that will face voters in November than Jan. 6.
Support Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history, and the January 6 attack was the first attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power in recent memory and is an event of historical significance, as the provided sources state. The fact that a former American president is now running for reelection directly after these attempts is noteworthy, and deserving a mention in the lead of the article. These events are also mentioned multiple times within the body of the article itself. BootsED (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without "notably", per MOS:INSTRUCT and MOS:EDITORIAL. The facts (which are supportable with bulk of the RS material, even if there is a strong current of denialism in far-right echochamber media) are highly pertinent to the subject, and arguably among the most important aspects of it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support January 6th will still undoubtedly be a huge topic in debates, voter's mindsets and even reasons to vote against Trump/actively discussed (in terms of pardons) among GOP supporters. Also per BootsEd. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is one of key facts making this election unique and indeed unprecedented in American history. Of course this should be included to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the lead of this article should focus on the 2024 presidential election, and given the lead currently mentions Trump's conviction for 34 felonies this seems a bit like overkill. There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. AdamBlacktalk • contribs02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if I'm weighing in on the overall RFC question, but NPOV does not mean we need to include criticisms against all candidates. It just merely means we should not be giving undue weightage to one over the other. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. If one candidate has much more serious and widely covered criticisms levelled against them, that's reason enough to include just that. Whether that applies here... That's for the RFC to decide. Soni (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have worded it poorly, but my point was that piling on criticism after criticism of Trump in the lead with no mention of criticisms against the other candidates would be undue and not representative of a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting we should mention criticism against Biden and Kennedy, but think that adds to the argument that it would be undue to add everything against Trump in the lead. AdamBlacktalk • contribs08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) Oppose as proposed - the sentence should certainly not include the word 'notably', which is improper editorialising. As for whether it's due in the lead at all, I'm not sure that it is. It's a kind of 'sky is blue' assertion - this thing that happened in 2024 happened after something that happened in 2020 - well, yes, obvs. For it to be worth mentioning it would need to go on to explain how the former event influenced the latter one. So yeah, the sentence as proposed isn't worth adding. GirthSummit (blether)09:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the word "notably" was removed, would you support the proposal? I agree that the word "notably" should not be there. BootsED (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be undue given the length of the lead. The most important thing about Trump in 2024 is probably his convictions. CurryCity (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that at this time it is undue unless we vastly expand the lead. We could easily include a passing reference to it after the election though when Trump calls the results into question again. Yeoutie (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have said, Trump's 2024 convictions are notable, but the 2020 and 2021 events have long since passed and their only notability to this election is if those actions were among his 34 felonies, or if after the election there are interviews stating that these events are why people didn't vote for Trump. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as undue weight. Other issues have been shown to be more important to voters. The current arrangement elegantly addresses weight vs. thoroughness. GreatCaesarsGhost13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
For those who are curious as to where the sentence in the lead would go, it was previously located after the sentence, "His predecessor Donald Trump, a member of the Republican Party, is running for re-election for a second, non-consecutive term, after losing to him in 2020." BootsED (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His attempts to overturn the last election are more deserving of the lead than his conviction in the New York case imo.
That case concerns his attempt to illegally influence the 2016 election by preventing the MacDougall and Daniels affairs becoming public. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I mean is: why should January 6 be singled out among the other attempts to overturn 2020 in the lead, and not the fake electors plot? GhulamIslam (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have "presumptive" nominees in the infobox at all. Particularly considering that various betting markets have Biden at 65-35% for the nomination right now.
In this case they have already been popularly voted by their parties, and Trump has a 75% majority. Biden also has a large majority. Why do we need presumptives? Also going off topic what's your chess ELO I play too 59.102.22.11 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Age of the candidates included as a campaign issue?
I think this should be included as a campaign issue, as both major presumptive nominees would be the oldest ever nominated by the their parties, with Biden’s age in particular generating significant discourse. 97.92.69.25 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't necessarily need to be in the issues section. We do talk about Biden's age being a concern. We probably should at least mention Trump's age and mental deterioration, though we should be careful about armchair diagnosis. GreatCaesarsGhost23:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is age a “campaign issue”? It is a concern voters have, but not something either presumptive nominee is giving significant attention to in their campaign. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been very extensive discussions that have established consensus on this subject is what the hell he is talking about. RFK will need to secure "ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes" while maintaining his polling numbers. He currently has 70. You can track here:[3]GreatCaesarsGhost12:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can afford more than a single sentence regarding the debate
Hey Muboshgu and David O. Johnson: Do you really think that nothing more than a single sentence is warranted regarding the debate? The most significant aspect of all this -- the panic in the party, with some Dems and e.g. the NYT editorial board calling for him to step aside and have a brokered convention -- is now missing entirely. Compare this to, for example, the 2020 election page, which has like ~10x the amount information about the debates, despite them being less significant. A single sentence in this page is not appropriate IMO.
It definitely deserves to be reinstated, @Endwise:. Look at the leading article of the NYTimes today. Multiple reliable sources say it's the most influential debate of all-time. There's widespread calls for Biden to drop out.
A sentence or two is fine, but this still reads like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. The political press is making a lot of hay about this because making hay is their job. Many have noted that the press is not similarly attacking Trump's egregious lies in the debate because that is baked in and doesn't generate clicks (your proposal makes the same omissions, mentioning calls for Biden to drop but not similar calls to Trump). Polls have shown Biden steady or improving in polls since the debate, so we should not be reinforcing what is literally tabloid coverage. GreatCaesarsGhost12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A sentence or two is fine, but this still reads like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia." Sadly I don't believe with modern politics that we'll be able to make it look like an encyclopedia then a newspaper article. Media is too divided to even keep a center stance and "center" political sources are often paid by many think-tanks to persuade people to a certain ideology. Qutlooker (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alright with shortening. But I can't see what we can cut out here without losing critical information, @GreatCaesarsGhost:.
CNN hosted the first major debate of the election on June 27, with 51 million viewers watching. Biden's debate performance was widely described as the worst since the beginning of televised debates in 1960, with multiple domestic and international media outlets characterizing it as a "disaster" for the incumbent president and his party. Commentators noted that Biden frequently lost his train of thought and gave meandering, confused answers. Responding to a question on health-care policy, Biden stated: "Making sure that we continue to strengthen our health-care system, making sure that we’re able to make every single, solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the … uh, COVID … excuse me, dealing with everyone we had to do with … look, if we finally beat Medicare..." before the moderator stepped in. G. Elliott Morris and Kaleigh Rogers of ABC News' 538 argued that Biden had failed to reassure voters that he was capable as serving as president for another four years, given his age.
Biden's debate performance led to widespread concern about his age, cognitive ability, and continued viability as a candidate. CNN's chief national correspondent John King reported that "a deep, a wide, and a very aggressive panic" began in the Democratic Party minutes into the debate. Elected officials, party strategists, and fundraisers conversed about replacing Biden as the party's candidate, including whether prominent Democrats should make a public statement asking him to step aside. Some called for a brokered convention to replace Biden. News outlets—including Politico, NBC News, The Guardian, Vox, The Independent, Slate, and the Associated Press—ran articles on possible scenarios for how the Democratic Party could run an alternative candidate. The editorial board of the New York Times stated that "Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago" and urged him to step aside as a candidate, saying "the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election." A Biden campaign spokesperson stated that Biden would not be dropping out. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both reiterated their support for Biden following the debate. A "counter-debate" featuring Kennedy Jr., who argued that the CNN debate criteria were biased to keep him and other third-party challengers off the stage, was hosted by reporter John Stossel in Los Angeles. It achieved 5.8 million concurrent viewers on X and 9 million total by the end of the night. Kennedy Jr. argued that the debate between Biden and Trump highlighted the "vitriol, the division, the polarization that makes [Americans] disgusted with politics". Time argued that interest in third-party candidates would rise in the aftermath of the debate.
According to The New York Times, the debate led to a "crisis" within the Democratic Party, with many fearing "he will lose to former President Donald J. Trump and drag Democrats to devastating defeats in congressional and state elections."
This seems very concise if anything. Newspapers may make hay as their job. But to say that this doesn't merit 2/3 paragraph or so is pretty questionable. This whole situation is unprecedented in modern political history. His odds on betting sites to be the nominee have dropped to 50-70%. (From 90% or more) To say it didn't have an impact is ludicrous. As for who wins a debate: it's who people thought won the debate. Not whether their policies are best for the country.
The only things that I can see an argument for cutting out for here is:
G. Elliott Morris and Kaleigh Rogers of ABC News' 538 argued that Biden had failed to reassure voters that he was capable as serving as president for another four years, given his age.
—including Politico, NBC News, The Guardian, Vox, The Independent, Slate, and the Associated Press—
A "counter-debate" featuring Kennedy Jr., who argued that the CNN debate criteria were biased to keep him and other third-party challengers off the stage, was hosted by reporter John Stossel in Los Angeles. It achieved 5.8 million concurrent viewers on X and 9 million total by the end of the night. Kennedy Jr. argued that the debate between Biden and Trump highlighted the "vitriol, the division, the polarization that makes [Americans] disgusted with politics". Time argued that interest in third-party candidates would rise in the aftermath of the debate.
Responding to a question on health-care policy, Biden stated: "Making sure that we continue to strengthen our health-care system, making sure that we’re able to make every single, solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the … uh, COVID … excuse me, dealing with everyone we had to do with … look, if we finally beat Medicare..." before the moderator stepped in.
You have essentially three full paragraphs saying "Some pundits thought Biden looked old and performed poorly, with some even calling for him drop out" This is absurdly WP:UNDUE; it could be said in one or at most two sentences. You also completely omit criticism of Trump for lying through his teeth, including calls for him to drop out. But most importantly, if Biden stays in (which is still substantially more likely) this section looks absolutely absurd. That "no high-quality polling exists post-debate so far" reinforces that you are trying to act too fast. Again, we are not a newspaper; people wanting this content can find it elsewhere. GreatCaesarsGhost12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with adding that as well. Provided that an extension version of the summary is provided.
It is unprecedented in the modern era for "elites" within the Democratic Party to publicly urge for a withdrawal like this. It's still leading news six days later.
The four paragraphs for the June debate (linked here: [4]) seems excessive. I do agree that one sentence is too minimalist. Let's try to strike a balance. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"CNN hosted the first major debate of the election on June 27, with 51 million viewers watching. Biden fumbled through many of responses and struggled with a hoarse voice throughout. His performance revived concerns about his advanced age and sparked calls from some commentators for him to end his campaign. Trump was meanwhile criticized for making many false statements, while moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bush were called out for not correcting Trumps claims or asking follow-up questions. " GreatCaesarsGhost12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wording implies that the debate damaged both candidates easily. The reactions after the debate showcase that it's not the case. KlayCax (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; I think my wording is much worse for Biden than Trump. But we cannot have a section about a two candidate debate and not mention one of them. GreatCaesarsGhost15:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Liable" not "Guilty" for the E. Jean Carroll matter
Under Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump, the article currently says:
"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found guilty by an anonymous jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation."
This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Therefore the proper term is "found liable" not "found guilty." None of the sources cited say that Trump was found guilty (because that isn't the term that is used in civil cases), and the Washington Post and Huffpost sources cited say "liable."
I propose it be changed to:
"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found liable by an anonymous jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation."JMM12345 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to submit the edits of this article with reliable sources as frequently as possible relating to the forthcoming US general election. Thanks. SolshineBenie (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the user is requesting edit access. SolshineBenie, ECP edit access will be provisioned automatically when you have made 500 edits to the project. GreatCaesarsGhost16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should Biden still be referred to as the "presumptive nominee"?
Many betting markets now have Biden under <50% and multiple reliable sources have argued that Biden should not even be considered the likely nominee. I think that this is an overcorrection. However, it seems obvious to me that there's still a substantial chance (whether you'd pin it at 5% to 60%) that Biden steps down. Should we still label him as the presumptive nominee for the time being? I'm leaning towards no. Since this seems way too presumptive now. KlayCax (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden is the presumptive nominee because he has a majority of pledged delegates at the upcoming Democratic convention. Betting markets don’t matter for this. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serafart:, a presumptive nominee is considered to be: "presidential candidates who are assumed or projected to be their political party's nominee". That is, it is almost assured that they'll obtain it.
I absolutely don't think we can say that about Biden now. It's additionally not just betting markets, but political consultants, pundits, statisticians, and others as well. KlayCax (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystalball. It is not up to us to decide who is “presumptive” or not. Until the sources say otherwise, it is essentially WP:OR to claim he is no longer the presumptive nominee. Biden is going to be the nominee, as long as he still wants the nomination. Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been paying attention to the news for the past week? The number one headline has been whether or not the DNC is even going to accept Biden as the nominee, and whether or not he'll step down. Any notion that Biden is the presumptive nominee is severely outdated at this time, in light of recent political developments. 2601:152:A01:9D20:7512:4890:21E:8B88 (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KlayCax, for the umpteenth time: this is not a newspaper. If Biden drops out or is removed by the party, we will have little trouble getting him quickly removed from this page. Especially in the current environment, we should not be elevating fringe theories and (I can't believe I have to say this) citing betting markets as reliable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost15:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those delegates that Biden won in the primaries are bound to him, at least on the first ballot. Therefore, he is the presumptive nominee, unless he drops out. Nothing less changes this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fringe theory. (As you can see here.) Nate Silver has explicitly stated that "Biden can no longer be considered the presumptive nominee". Impossible to get more explicit than that.
Obtaining a majority of delegates ≠ presumptive nominee. Overwhelmingly, this has been the case, but presumptive implies a species of likelihood absent from the other. Saying that Biden is the overwhelmingly likely nominee is essentially absent in sources post-June 27th. As for the delegates: it's more complicated than that. They're mandated to "represent the views" of their constituents. '
Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee. The primary voters chose him to be the nominee. He has the majority of the delegates. If nothing changes between now and the convention, he will be nominated. Everything else (betting markets, media speculation, polls) is noise. We're not a crystal ball. Unless or until he announces he is stepping aside we should label him the presumptive nominee. MonsterMash51 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of post-debate controversies
Once again, @Muboshgu: and @David O. Johnson: have blanked out critical information from the debate and its aftermath, claiming that it violates WP: NPOV and WP: DUE.
And with Muboshgu, claiming that having a brief mention of the post-debate aftermath being referred to as a "crisis" for the campaign is unsubstantiated and shouldn't be in the article. This is despite:
You can find similar statements on almost every major American news channel and many, many international ones that have not already been listed. The attempt to whittle the debate and its aftermath into four to five sentences is absolutely absurd. (Particularly considering that we're investing far more words and paragraphs into healthcare and background information!) Even worse, there's been an effort to imply that both Trump and Biden were equally harmed by it, which is even more ludicrous. Of all the things in the article to trim... this is absolutely the worst possible thing to cut out. KlayCax (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to involve me as I only work on the talk page as I do not have Extended Confirmed Access need for the article Qutlooker (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that these situations can make us lose context, but we all need to slow down and take a breath. WP:RECENTISM gets us in its grasp and we lose focus. That has been apparent on 2024 POTUS election-related pages these past few days. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that this is a situation where WP: RECENTISM applies. This situation is clearly unprecedented and not a "regularly occurring election event" like other editors are suggesting.
It is absolutely unheard of in the modern era to have many party elites calling for their (previously) presumptive nominee's dismissal. KlayCax (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Muboshgu here, this is very clearly WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. And I don't see the need for a another talk section as the other is still quite new. Specifically calling out, in separate sentences, the individual actors speaking against Biden is excessive. Your proposal is way, way too long. Even if Biden drops out, the eventual coverage of this incident would be shorter. Try using my suggestion above as a starting point- add a sentence or two for anything you think is missing. But the detail you are attempting to add does not belong in this article. GreatCaesarsGhost11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article by Nate Silver. It explicitly states that most commentators (and betting markets) have concluded that it is unlikely he'll be the nominee. A presumptive nominee is generally defined as presidential candidates who are assumed or projected to be their political party's nominee or nearly assured to be the nominee. It is absolutely ludicrous to say that this is the case now. This assertion is essentially unanimously rejected by left-wing, centrist, and right-wing sources.
I was (and still am) against including any nominees that are presumptive. (A scenario like this is exactly why I was against it a few months ago.) But I could tolerate it when both Trump and Biden seemed to be >90% odds and shoeins.
Biden is the presumptive nominee because he earned the delegates in the primaries. Nothing that commentators say changes this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's commentators from those sources, and op-eds are not the same as news articles. Yes it's OR to say he's not the presumptive nominee or that there's anything to that other than having the majority of bound delegates. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Klay, you are an active editor on this talk page and fully aware that changes of this type without previous consensus are highly disruptive. Please restrain yourself. GreatCaesarsGhost15:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the two major American newspapers of record state that Biden shouldn't be considered the presumptive nominee. Then, per WP: WEIGHT, it must be indicated or mentioned in the article.
Presently, if the status quo holds, then it's actively misleading, as readers will get the impression that Biden is overwhelmingly likely to get the nomination. That's overwhelmingly rejected by WP:RS. KlayCax (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee. The primary voters chose him to be the nominee. He has the majority of the delegates. If nothing changes between now and the convention, he will be nominated. Everything else (betting markets, media speculation, polls) is noise. We're not a crystal ball. Unless or until he announces he is stepping aside we should label him the presumptive nominee. MonsterMash51 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Biden is overwhelmingly likely to be the Democratic nominee! Because he earned most of the bound delegates. He's not the presumptive nominee only if he announces he's ending his campaign, which has not happened yet and sounds unlikely to happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia is currently colored as “lean D” by 538, but the map legend says greater than or equal to 75% is “likely D”, and Biden has exactly a 75% chance of winning Virginia according to 538. What should we shade Virginia for 538 on our end? Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their main forecast page doesn't show decimal places. On their page for Virginia, it is currently at 746 out of 1000 simulations, or 74.6%. So it is less than 75% and meets the "lean" category. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Obama
Hello.
I found the following highly relevant information, and would greatly appreciate if it can be incorporated into the article in an appropriately structured manner. Thanks in advance for any help.
According to a Reuters/Ipsos public opinion poll among 892 registered voters released on July 2, 2024, Michelle Obama was the only listed Democrat option who would defeat Trump in a confrontation, with 50% of the votes for Obama versus 39% for Trump. 55% of the voters also had a favourable view of Obama versus 42% toward Trump.[1][2]
If she is the only available major candidate who would conclusively beat Trump, I think that it seems very relevant for the public to be made aware of. Of course, the poll in question did not ask about Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but nevertheless. David A (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly WP:UNDUE. Michelle Obama is not receiving significant speculation of running. Even if she was, Biden has already said he is not dropping out of the race. Prcc27 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These results of polling are not so much about Michelle Obama as about the chances of the Democratic Party, and the overall situation in the election. Therefore, such info is relevant and interesting for a casual reader like myself. That's why it was widely published in media at the first place. I think this is OK to include. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing a consensus here for the trivia about Michelle Obama to be included. The onus is on those seeking to include it to get consensus per WP:ONUS. The paragraph in question should be removed; David A should not have re-added their BOLD edit. Prcc27 (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that we should finish our discussion here first, before removing the information, but maybe I am mistaken. David A (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now undone my revert, but ask all opposed to this to please reconsider, as this seems extremely relevant for a clear perspective regarding the currently only known way that Trump can be defeated. David A (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn’t really concerned with “what if” scenarios (please see WP:CRYSTAL). Biden is going to be the nominee, as long as he wants the nomination. If he does step aside, I can guarantee you Michelle Obama will not be his replacement. The information you seek to include in the article is irrelevant. Prcc27 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant, but potentially undue. Indeed, one needs a WP:Consensus for inclusion. I am not sure if we have one here. She could be a fantastic president, maybe better than anyone, but she said she has no such ambitions on several occasions. Unfortunately. My very best wishes (talk)
WP:UNDUE is certainly the issue here. The article is already long, and we don't want it to become unwieldy. There are many facts that are in this vein that are tangential and could be mentioned if readability was not a concern. Also, there is an almost universal phenomenon in polling where approval is higher when someone is not actually running. GreatCaesarsGhost13:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That is very unfortunate. I had hoped that we might have some positive impact here.
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.
President Joe Biden’s and Former President Donald Trump’s ages’ have become a very hot topic in this election and will likely be a key deciding factor into who is elected president.
This is not subjective, many polls have been conducted and many Americans have the view point that both men are too old to serve as president.
As such I think that age and cognitive health should be a topic that’s added into the campaign issues section of this article Phx3216 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add inbox of Withdrawn primary candidates like 2016?
The 2016 election page has those collapsable inboxes that list all the candidates by the time they withdrew from the race. With how many candidates there were on both sides this year, should the withdrawn candidate box be added in each parties section? Los Pobre (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is TRUMP missing from Summary Results for 2024 United States presidential election
Summary Results that Wikipedia places on Google and other search results only display the Incumbent Joe Biden as a contender for President in 2024. This is a disservice to ALL Wikipedia users. Joe306tow (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Redundant section "Calls for Biden to step aside"
I am seeing where someone has added a section called "Calls for Biden to step aside" to the "Democratic Party" section. This clearly replicates what was already in the debate section. We have clear consensus above that the media obsession over Biden "dropping out" can be mentioned but kept to a minimum in light of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE. I'm striking it from "Democratic Party" on that basis. I'm fine with either but not both. It seems to make more sense to me in Debates. If it is to go in the the Democratic Party section, it does not warrant its own sub-section. GreatCaesarsGhost20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here from the AfD. I think it is much better off as a section in this article. Yes, the calls were mostly initiated by the debate but it has been almost 2 weeks since then and it's only becoming more of a prevalent topic (ex: [5][6][7]). I think this will definitely have some WP:LASTING significance and has clearly become a major part of the election, not just the debate. CFA💬20:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a prevalent topic, but it is a media story[8] not a campaign story. The media are talking about it because it benefits them, but they're mostly making stuff up (like the "Parkinson’s doctor" story) to keep the gravy train going. GreatCaesarsGhost20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points about media coverage, but I think it's because of that excessive coverage that this will become significant. This is just my opinion, but I can only see two outcomes here after all this negative press coverage: Biden gets replaced as the nominee or he loses in November. He certainly had a chance before all of this, which is why I believe it will have some lasting significance. Regardless, if you think it's better in the debate article, I have no issue with that. CFA💬21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, two users have decided by themselves the biggest story of the campaign is a media invention.
Not one editor has argued that it should not be included. The argument is that it must be covered at a length that is at scale with the topic. This is an article about the entire election and a two week media frenzy should not have a full separate section or multiple paragraphs listing every person involved. Remember: this is an encyclopedia. We are trying to convey information concisely in a readable length. Multiple sentences articulating the same basic point ("Bill called for him to drop. Then Larry called for him to drop") detracts from readability. GreatCaesarsGhost11:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Regardless of their intentions, if they give it credence Wikipedia should reflect at. Your personal opinion of the nature of the coverage is irrelevant. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how no consensus has been reached here, that other editors are objecting to the current status, and that the AfD will need a stable redirect target (if it is redirected), I've created an RfC below. CFA💬20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: (copied from above) I think it is much better off as a section in this article. Yes, the calls were mostly initiated by the debate but it has been almost 2 weeks since then and it's only becoming more of a prevalent topic (ex: [9][10][11]). I think this will definitely have some WP:LASTING significance and has clearly become a major part of the election, not just the debate. CFA💬20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am not an American, just one thing isn't clear to me from the article. The winner will probably assume office in December, but when exactly in December? Please add this datum to the article or notify it here. Thank you in advance. 103.199.70.7 (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The winner of this election is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2025." Is that usage clear to non-Americans? I don't think I've ever heard the term used for a non-American office. GreatCaesarsGhost11:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with the addition specifically, but this section now seems excessive and overly detailed in light of the SCOTUS decision. GreatCaesarsGhost13:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Jamedeus (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: The Israel-Hamas war views section is about public opinion polling on the war; there is no similar coverage in the article about Ukraine that could be split to a new section. The candidates' positions on both wars are discussed in the Foreign policy section. Jamedeus (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 20:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Option A (15 July 2023)
Option B (deleted)
Option C (28 October 2023)
Option D (28 October 2023)
Option E (29 June 2019)
Option F (29 June 2019)
Option G (29 June 2019)
Option H (29 June 2019)
Option I (29 June 2019)
Option J (15 July 2023)
Option K (6 June 2024)
Option L (6 June 2024).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
3.jpg)
.jpg)
2.jpg)
5.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Comment: My concern with the new photos is that though they're not as old as the presidential portrait, they're still not new; correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all from 2019, right? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Consensus is against that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}