Talk:2024 United States presidential election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2024 United States presidential election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

Article policies

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLArchives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 7 days 

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Joe Biden Mid‑importance

	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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Donald Trump Top‑importance

	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.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections / Government High‑importance

	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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Elections and Referendums

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.

          Other talk page banners All draft articles relating to this article:

• Draft:Attempted disqualification of Donald Trump
• Draft:Democratic Party reaction to the Israel–Hamas war
• Draft:List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements
• Draft:News media endorsements in the 2024 United States presidential election
• Draft:The Political Machine 2024
• Draft:Jasmine Sherman

Section sizes

Section size for 2024 United States presidential election (50 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 24,761 24,761 Background 17 68,212 Procedure 8,248 8,248 Election interference 258 25,961 False claims of interference made by Donald Trump 22,808 22,808 Interference by foreign nations 2,895 2,895 Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump 14,954 14,954 Political violence 12,738 12,738 Electoral map 23 6,294 Effects of the 2020 census 1,917 1,917 Historical background 4,354 4,354 Campaign issues 329 77,347 Abortion 7,447 7,447 Border security and immigration 13,689 13,689 Climate change 6,327 6,327 Democracy 18,740 18,740 Economic issues 11,355 11,355 Education 2,932 2,932 Foreign policy 5,742 7,900 Israel–Hamas war views 2,158 2,158 Healthcare issues 4,661 4,661 LGBT rights 3,967 3,967 Democratic Party 20,030 20,846 Democratic presumptive nominee 816 816 Republican Party 14,819 15,737 Republican nominee 918 918 Third-party and independent candidates 1,291 33,219 Notable party nominations 131 14,771 With majority ballot access 38 5,792 Libertarian Party 2,224 2,224 Green Party 3,530 3,530 With partial ballot access 4,321 4,321 Without ballot access 4,527 4,527 Notable declared candidates 300 16,258 Independents 23 15,958 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 8,648 8,648 Cornel West 1,043 1,043 Other independent candidates 6,244 6,244 Withdrawn candidates 899 899 Timeline 85 85 Opinion polling and forecasts 37 19,250 Opinion polling aggregation 209 397 Harris, Trump, and Kennedy 188 188 Electoral College forecasts 18,816 18,816 Debates 1,185 6,293 June 27 4,659 4,659 September 10 449 449 See also 387 387 Notes 26 26 References 665 665 Total 266,828 266,828

Kennedy appears to now have 270 electoral votes

Kennedy appears now has enough ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots to get 270. (Which you can see on the visualization I made on the left.) @GreatCaesarsGhost:.

This graphic shows which have been certified by the state or official bid on third-party ballot (yellow) and counties (red). You can see it here.

• California (through American Independent Party)
• Florida (through Reform Party of the United States of America)
• Utah
• Arizona
• Colorado (through state Libertarian party)
• New Mexico
• Mississippi (through state Reform Party)
• Texas (Certified by counties. Hasn't been certified by state yet officially. Seems de facto, however.)
• Georgia (through both signatures and a fusion ticket of third-parties; but challenged.)
• Iowa (through fusion ticket of third-parties)
• South Carolina (through Alliance Party nomination)
• North Carolina
• Tennessee
• Delaware (through Independent Party of Delaware)
• Michigan (through Natural Law Party)
• Indiana
• Minnesota
• Hawaii

He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait"... but he has approximately ~270 electoral votes at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria. (He easily meets >270 if you include states with write-in voting.)

As @GreatCaesarsGhost: noted above: this is a foregone conclusion at this point. KlayCax (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy doesn't isn't counted in NYT's representation of Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida because they apparently don't count "party" access as access. But I think that's wrong.

For all intents and purposes the requirements of the RFC are passed or it's WP: WIKILAWYERING at this point. Since all we're waiting for in many of these states is a fait accompli certification. KlayCax (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What's an RFC? A "Request for comment" or "Robert Fried Chicken?" Or is it "Robert F**kin' Chennedy?" —SquidHomme ^(talk) 22:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The first. The RfC referenced is RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1) which closed with the following criteria: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and [a] candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Super Goku V (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I continue to oppose including Kennedy in the top infobox & believe it's time to place a six-month moratorium on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A six-month moratorium places it past the election. The agreed upon criteria was ballot access in states with a combined 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. Both appear to be now met. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We've been through this multiple times. RFK won't have a chance of qualifying until he's certified. End of story. Consistently bringing this up seems to qualify under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

Write-in access does not count! David O. Johnson (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't write-in access. This is certified ballot access or a nomination on a ticket that has access within the state, @David O. Johnson:. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your constant push to put Kennedy into the top infobox, is becoming worrisome. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He now meets the criteria for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't.

The Arizona ref you linked says,

"Kennedy is running as an independent. The group supporting him, America Values 2024, said it collected enough signatures for Kennedy Jr. to make the ballot. The group still needs to submit the signatures to the state's election office for approval."

They haven't even been certified yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The counties have certified. The same in Indiana. Meaning it's just a formality at this point. Unless something like a lawsuit occurs... but I highly doubt it'll prevent 270 from happening. KlayCax (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And that was an error citation on my part because there were so many states to cite. That was a fault on my end. Apologies. KlayCax (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In, California, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Delaware, which add up to 270 electoral votes, he has either ballot access through a certified independent run or a nomination or a party that has given access to the state. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop? GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Per the RFC he qualifies. I think, as GreatCaesarsGhost noted above, I think the time to add has come once we're past the RFC requirements, which appears either now or immediately. He's met the ballot access requirement and met the polling requirement. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So you're not going to stop pushing for Kennedy's inclusion, ever. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's my longstanding personal opinion, yes, and once he meets the RFC requirement (w/Indiana & Arizona certifying) I'd support editors adding it. We're a week or two away at most. KlayCax (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Going to wait until it's indisputable but qualification under the RFC guidelines is definitely imminent. KlayCax (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that we have met the RFC's standard for "ballot access to 270." In addition to the issues you note with TX, GA, and IA, I cannot find good sources for CA, AZ, MI, & TN. The links you provided are largely claims, not confirmations. You did omit one though: Oklahoma. - - I separately believe that we should read the tone of the comments in that RFC, rather than just its closing comment. In my estimation, the majority of opposition centered on the expectation that RFK would fade into irrelevance. That has not occurred, and I think it makes sense to reevaluate. I also think we are going to have a hard time citing ballot access; there are some funky ways it gets reported. HOWEVER, we have now raised the issue and given opportunity for editors to come to our way of thinking. They have not, so the issue should be dropped. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Kennedy campaign article does list California, Michigan, and Tennessee with the following sources: CA: 1, 2; MI: A cite error and 2; TN: 1

The campaign article should obviously not be used as a source of verification. ~ I see now on the CA SoS site where AIP does have ballot access, so that one is good. TN presents a problem because we don't know the state will come back and say YES or NO, or that anyone will write an article about it. I'm trying to avoid WP:OR, but I think we need to acknowledge that our standard is going to be complicated to enact. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it is going to be a problem. Though, some of it might be resolvable by the Secretary of State in those locations where they show who is on the ballot. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait on SOS certifications, as those would be hard evidence, rather than claims of ballot access. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I did some more searching and CBS News also lists him as qualifying in Tennessee, so it seems to check out. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, could you update the ref on the page where the CA SOS has certified the AIP?

I found an LA Times source here [1] that stated that it still had to be certified, but that was back in April.

I changed RFK's status in California to pending certification based on that, but if you find otherwise, please feel free to revert.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in response. I was going by the primary source here[2] which lists AIP among a small number of qualified political parties. It may get into some WP:OR to SYNTH this with AIP saying RFK is their man. But I think that by the spirit of the RFC, he is on the ballot in California. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted though that the campaign article only lists Kennedy as certified for 184 out of 538 electors. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy has fulfilled the requirements necessary to be eligible for over 400 electoral votes, and there is absolutely no basis for believing that he will have access to less than 270 votes. Thus, there is no sufficient reason to exclude him at the present time apart from personal bias.

To be clear, I will not be voting for Kennedy. However, the media has shown that he is absolutely a major candidate (along with the Secret Service who, themselves saying that they only provide protection to major candidates, have now provided protection to Kennedy). To exclude him at this time would be grossly negligent and biased. 2600:100C:B237:2882:79C7:ECFA:C30E:7A01 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not accurate and who you vote for isn't relevant in any way. We don't care. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I do care! 86.31.178.164 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The criterion established in the RfC was ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes - I don't think the polling criterion is being widely debated here as it's pretty clearly met. According to our own article, which I don't disagree is not a appropriate source, he is only confirmed on the ballot in states comprising a total of 203 electors. While we shouldn't be using our own article on his campaign as a source, it makes zero sense to try and decide something different here than we are on that article, as that article is the main topic for his campaign. If there isn't reliable sourcing to justify us including the state(s) in question on his campaign's article, we shouldn't be using them to determine whether he's in the infobox here. I agree with others that no matter what his campaign/sources have stated we should not consider him to have "ballot access" until the petitions are actually certified and he is confirmed on the ballot. I do disagree with some others that there is any one criteria for ballot access that matters - whether or not he got ballot access on his own as an independent or by being the nominee of a party guaranteed ballot access by state law - he has ballot access in either of those cases and that state's electoral votes can count. But he does not yet have that access confirmed in 270 electoral votes worth of states. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal The New York Times[3] and The Hill[4] seem to be keeping track of ballot access in an editorially responsible way. Nevertheless, there are discrepancies: NYT gives him CA & HI, where The Hill has SC, NV, and FL. I would like to suggest that we give him credit for either, with the rational being that adding a state to these trackers is a discreet act. Either RS could omit a state through negligence, but neither would add a state negligently. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez got it right by saying we should wait until at least his campaign's article shows he has 270. Then we can try to determine what is reliable enough regarding the discrepancies. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that RFKJR is barely hovering above the 5% threshold. If he averages less than that, his ballot access status will become moot as far as the infobox is concerned. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Putting Harris in the infobox as presumed Democratic nominee

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Harris has the endorsement of President Biden, and multiple big names in the party. On top of this, she has also secured pledged delegates, furthermore, nobody has challenged her and its unlikely they will. I am aware some of these factors I have listed can change within a second, but I am proposing that if no challenge appears within the coming days, she is listed in the infobox as presumed nominee, just as Biden was before his withdrawal. Obviously feel free to give your input and start a discussion. Cheers. Aryan Persaud (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) When the sources call her the presumptive nominee, then we can add her. Until then, the infobox would have to be blank. Maybe once a majority of delegates say they will vote for her, then we can add her? It will depend on how the sources handle the situation. Prcc27 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Agree with this. I understand the argument for including her, but it has to be supported by reliable sources. So far, the situation is still being seen as undecided, even if Harris is the clear favorite. Gust Justice (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC) It looks likely that it will be her, but we don't know that for sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC) @Prcc27 Majority of the delegates have just been secured 66.129.217.85 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) The ap put something out https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9 Char3290 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC) She does have one challenger, a woman, can’t remember her name. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Marianne Williamson? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC) I would wait until the convention, unless there is an actual public commitment made by a number of convention delegates sufficient to guarantee the nomination. Anything can still happen. BD2412 T 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) I think you just expressed the two sides of this argument. We probably WILL see a public commitment of some kind, and there is a question of whether this group will accept it. I would just say we are in unprecedented times (for WP's lifespan), so no one should be invoking tangential precedence. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC) @Aryan Persaud: Thank you for bringing this here - it's a great demonstration of collaboration & respect for consensus. Echoing what others have stated, while it may seem like this nomination is Kamala's to lose, we can't be for certain. There's still the possibility the DNC delegates will vote for somebody different altogether. BOTTO (T•C) 18:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Best to wait for sources. For all we know, the delegates may vote for Biden, which they still can. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) I would say give it at least a few days minimum and wait for sources to call her the presumptive nominee. If no one relevant enters the race by the end of the week (or publicly expresses interest in attending the convention as an on-the-floor option), than it'd be fair to call Kamala Harris the presumptive nominee. RickStrate2029 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Support, as many news organizations have called her the presumptive nominee. Rushtheeditor (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Harris Should Be Considered Presumptive Nominee WHEN the AP Delegate Tracker Shows Her Earning a Majority Here is the link to the AP delegate support tracker. She should be considered the presumptive nominee when she inevitably surpasses the required 1,976 delegates needed. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/ap-dnc-delegate-survey/ Trajan1 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) The survey is an unofficial tally, as Democratic delegates are free to vote for the candidate of their choice when the party picks its new nominee. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Nothing is ever official until the delegates actually vote. But if the AP indicates a majority of delegates will be voting for Harris, I think that is sufficient for declaring her the “presumptive nominee” (assuming the reliable sources also concur with that). Prcc27 (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) I don't think we should call her the "presumptive" nominee until RS do. And the AP counter isn't sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC) I agree. If the delegates were polled two weeks ago, this is not the answer they would have given, and we can't say for sure this is the answer they would give two weeks from now. It's a good guess, but the situation is dynamic. We should at least wait long enough to see if anyone else challenges Harris for the nomination, and whether there is any reaction to that. BD2412 T 01:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) This doesn't change the fact that she is the presumptive nominee, and that the pages have listed presumptive nominees before. Presumptive nominees have always been able to change and they have been included nevertheless. Pledged delegates are pledged delegates EpochPirate (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Pledged delegates are pledged delegates" is meaningless here. There are no "pledged delegates" since they are pledged to Biden, and Biden has dropped out. As long as Biden was the nominee they were bound to vote for him in the first round. Now they are not bound to vote for anyone, even if they declare an intent at this point to do so. BD2412 T 01:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) I think we should say she's the presumptive nominee. Until there's anything to challenge that, for all intents and purposes, she's the presumptive nominee. That's what the media is calling her. I think we should follow suit, there's no point in pretending like we don't know when we all know who it's gonna be. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) AP Tracker has her over the top now, and are calling her presumptive https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share. That's sufficient for an RS in my opinion. WanukeX (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC) “the Associated Press is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee”. Unless other sources decide to call Harris “presumptive”, she should stay out of the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Ah, had missed that line. Yeah, WP:CRYSTAL. WanukeX (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Here's a Bloomberg article calling her the presumptive nominee [5]. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC) I now support including her in the infobox per Bloomberg and because it only makes sense that the person with a majority of delegates should be considered the “presumptive nominee”. Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC) NYT now calling her the “de facto nominee” Dingers5Days (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Bloomberg is calling her now the presumptive candidate. Harris Crosses Delegate Threshold in Sign Nomination Is Hers - Bloomberg - Harris sealed her status as the presumptive nominee Monday night after crossing the magic number of 1,976 pledged delegates. Since Bloomberg is another well reputable source per WP:RSN, this should satisfy it now to update it. Raladic (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose - The delegates referenced in the sources mentioned here are unbound, unlike Biden (who had bound delegates) there can be no presumption that Kamala is the nominee until the voting actually occurs, because the delegates are free to vote however they please at the actual convention. For NPOV purposes, if Kamala is added at this juncture RFK Jr would have to be added as well since he has submitted more than 270 electors worth of ballot access petitions that are unchallenged and thus presumed to be valid at this juncture.XavierGreen (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Just to ask, since when did Biden have bound delegates? All he had were unpledged delegates to my understanding. (This sentence amended at 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)) Additionally, while these delegates are unbounded, these delegates have made statements of support to Harris being the party's nominee. Enough of them have declared their support of Harris to reach the majority in a first round vote, which is why reliable sources have reported her as the presumptive nominee. Furthermore, Kennedy has been discussed enough for an FAQ to be created. In short, Kennedy hasn't been said to have gotten to 270 in reliable sources yet. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Ah, but reliable sources clearly state that he has submitted petitions to enough states for well more than 270 delectors. Since he has submitted unchallenged petitions to over 270 electors, it can be presumed that he in fact has ballot access to at least 270. That is literally the same logical equivalent to including Kamala in the infobox at this juncture. All she has is a list of folks who said that they will vote for her, that doesn't actually translate into real votes until the voting actually occurs. To include Kamala but not RFK, Jr. at this juncture therefore leads to an NPOV violation.XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) This is a rehash of the other four discussions on here and it isn't the same. The Democratic Party is eligible for all 538 electoral votes. Kennedy is eligible for 99 electoral votes at the moment according to reliable sources. It isn't an NPOV violation to report that she is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and to say that Kennedy has not been announced to have secured eligibility for enough electoral votes. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Election 2024 updates: Harris secures enough delegates to become presumptive nominee - ABC News. They're calling her "presumptive", so should we. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose -Kamala has no bound delegates and shouldn't be added until after.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support - particularly given VP Harris has just released a statement titled “Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for President”. By its very nature, being the ‘presumptive’ nominee indicates a formalisation which is yet to take place but it is essentially a foregone conclusion at this stage. The campaign is referring to her as the presumptive nominee, most of the media are referring to her as the presumptive nominee, and this page should too. Ted86 (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose - she is not the nominee either officially, nor presumptively as she has no bound delegates. Should be left blank until the DNC. Statements from the Harris campaign are self-proclamations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and just because some media outlets are calling her the presumptive nominee does not mean it reflects reality. User:WoodElf 03:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC) That's not how Wikipedia works. we don't consider our own original thoughts. We report what reliable sources cite and we now have multiple very reliable sources that have said as much. The word wikt:en:presumptive means that it is Based on presumption or conjecture; inferred, likely, presumed, which is now supported by the polling of the delegates which have pledged their support for her. Raladic (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Should be left blank until the DNC. Definitely not. The roll call results should be completed by the August 7th deadline. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support - According to multiple RS, Harris can now be considered the presumptive nominee. She should be referred in this article as the new presumptive nominee, but first and foremost the infobox must be updated so that the state of the race is visible. Pledged vs unpledged delegates are not relevant here as we evaluate RS. CrazyPredictor (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support - Enough reliable sources are calling her the presumptive nominee, so she should be added to the infobox. Potentially we could add a note stating the AP line that the "delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice" as a compromise. Rogl94 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support - Multiple reliable sources, including ABC News, Bloomberg, and New York magazine, recognize Harris as having become the presumptive nominee, due to her having gaining endorsement from the majority of delegates. Additionally, as mentioned above, Harris' campaign has itself issued a statement recognizing Harris as the presumptive nominee. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Comment - What is the point of the bounded/pledged versus unbounded/unpledged delegates anyways? Biden had unpledged delegates from the primaries and Harris has unpledged delegates from endorsements. What is the actual difference? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support - Not one oppose has clarified why it was fine for Biden to appear in the infobox once he hit a majority of unbounded delegates from primaries, but not fine for Harris to be in the infobox when a majority of unbounded delegates endorsed her. Not one oppose has clarified why it is fine to ignore RSs saying she is the presumptive nominee. On July 20th, Biden had 3,896 unbounded delegates out of 3,949 that could vote in the first round for a percent of 98.7%. At the end of July 23rd, Harris has endorsements from 3,107 out of 3,949 first round votes for a percent of 78.7%. Do we really need to wait until she gets the endorsement of nearly all delegates to say she is the presumptive nominee? While I get that Rome wasn't built in a day, I do think it is odd that we are considering not following what a majority of reliable sources are doing and ignoring what a majority of delegates have said. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Support, most RSes are already referring to her as presumptive nominee. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support only because sources have begun to call her the presumptive nominee. Yeoutie (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose: No true reliable way of saying "I think person X will become candidate" before they become a candidate. Donald Trump almost died while being listed as presumptive here, so let's avoid a potential repeat of that. Only add Kamela when she gets the nomination officially. We don't list presumptive Oscar winners, so we shouldn't do it for presidential nominees Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Comment: In the meantime time, can we avoid edit warring over the info box? Thanks. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support Per Raladic above, it seems the oppose votes are confused about what the term presumptive means. She is unquestionably the presumptive nominee. There are no other credible candidates even running. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Do you think the Associated Press is also confused about what the term means? Still, the AP is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee. That’s because the convention delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice[6] Endwise (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 100%, they most certainly are. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) That one organization has chosen apply this meaning to their own reporting does not change the ordinarily understood dictionary definition of a term, nor its usage employed by everyone else. Please see our article on the subject. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose, the delegates are unbound (regardless of whether or not Harris receives state endorsements). The delegates are unbound until the convention. State parties could endorse Harris and then change their view upon the entry of another relevant candidate. Or, "draft" movements could spawn for candidates who are popular but don't wish to enter the race for the nomination. Calling Harris the presumptive nominee at any point would be ridiculous. RickStrate2029 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support: Per the Associated Press, Harris now has enough pledged delegates to be considered the presumptive nominee. As the editor who first placed the in-line notation for waiting until we had clarity, I am on board with having her named in the infobox. Proceed. BOTTO (T•C) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) The delegates are unbound, they are free to vote for anyone.XavierGreen (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC) And reliable sources say they will vote for Harris. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Good thing we're saying "presumptive", then. BOTTO (T•C) 15:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Same with Biden, but we listed him. I don't see the difference here. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Comment: New York Times uses "presumptive" Wall Street Journal uses "presumed" Washington Post uses "likely" ABC News uses "presumptive" NBC News doesn't use any term CBS News uses "likely" Associated Press says they're "not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee" --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Support - as she's just announced that a majority of the delegates have pledged to vote for her. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose — A candidate is only presumptive when they have won a majority of delegates through primary elections. Biden's Democratic delegates are unbound. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Comment @GreatCaesarsGhost: just wanna mention that i added passage with 1976 [7] but someone deleted the arrows Braganza (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) (you dropped this comment in the wrong discussion section) That is fine, obviously you can restore. But just out of curiosity, what is the virtue of having something like that but masking it with the arrows? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Support per my remarks above. Prcc27 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Oppose If reliable sources cannot agree on whether or not she is the presumptive nominee—as others have pointed out there is not a consensus among them—then we should wait until such a consensus is formed to put her in the infobox. Dingers5Days (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Support Most people in the real world treat her as the presumptive nominee, just add her. yeah_93 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Support. I was surprised to see Harris removed. She's being called the presumptive nominee by RS, she has the delegates needed to be nominated(and there's no indication they will change their mind), there's no viable challenger/alternative. I'm surprised this is at all controversial. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Comment It's been two days, the consensus for inclusion is consistent and overwhelming, and yet we still have an involved editor removing the image "per the talk page" GreatCaesarsGhost 12:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC) It isn't though? While more votes are present for showing Harris as the candidate, it is certainly not the WP:AVALANCHE you seem to depict. Many people have raised detailed points for and against to the point, and this discussion has not yet run it's course or had someone come in with an analysis. Again, read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC) That seemingly fell on deaf ears, as someone has reverted it without commenting here. At this point I am tempted to bring this issue of people just walking past this discussion to ANI, because I'm not edit warring for days on end against users ignoring one of the most basic principles of Wikipedia. (That is, avoiding the people who have correctly waited for consensus to be decided correctly). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC) If you are involved, you shouldn't be removing anything, even if it's the right thing to do. You certainly shouldn't be claiming that there is a consensus "per the talk page" that doesn't exist. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) I never claimed one? I said 'per talk page "comments" referring to this [8] where I responded to a user when they refused to elaborate on how they could decide consensus when they claimed he had one to readd Kamala to the infobox yesterday (an involved user in favour of adding Kamala). We are adding content or is this case different because it's been hammered into the article via means other than discussion? Furthermore, referring to the quote above I would prefer if we all actually treated each other in good faith than taking unfinished statements and using them out of context to say something different? It's not helpful. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Okay, but not everyone is going to view that the same way- others are interpreting that as you asserting a consensus exists for your position. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC) I also said ' discussion was closed prematurely' but to make it clear I don't claim any consensus or a authority to do so The discussion is about adding to the article though, so I hope you understand I am quite frustrated when people avoid doing so and add it in anyway without engaging in discussion. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC) With something that has high visibility like this, that's bound to happen. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Unanimity is not required for there to be a consensus. Whether you agree with us or not, we gave a policy based reason for inclusion, which has overwhelming support. If you do decide to go to an admin, they will probably say that you were in the wrong for edit warring and editing against consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC) I'm an uninvolved administrator and have reviewed this discussion. At this point I perceive sufficient consensus, by both numbers and quality of argument, to warrant listing Harris in the box as the presumptive nominee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's current potrait

The image is over a year old and has him facing at an angle, which makes it look akward against Harris' straight looking potrait, I suggest we replace it with a more recent image 72.183.112.131 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On a slightly humorous note the yellow tie on Trump really throws me off. I support whatever picture for Trump so long as it includes a red tie for my sanity. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the yellow tie pic was an improvement. The current Trump pic is just awful (slanted pose, weird facial expression, etc.) Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the yellow tie image is an improvement. It has him looking directly at the camera to match Harris' pose, and is a more recent image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg

File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg is a much better option then either of the above, giving Trump is facing the camera, is also from June 2024, but is wearing a red tie like usual. Hopefully that suffices concerns! --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You did not allow anyone to give a second opinion before making the change. Trump's image should be discussed more thoroughly instead of you alone changing the picture because you think it looks better. For example had you put it up for discussion I would be rather opposed to the image you changed it to as his facial expression is rather awkward, as well as him looking quite sweaty in the photo. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the first part, but I think this photo is much better than the other one. I support the change. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I really think we should look at more options beyond the one MarioProtIV changed it too, there are certainly many more pictures of Trump that are public domain and would suit the article better. TheFellaVB (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I support this option, though I can understand if someone doesn't like the uneven shoulders, the facial expression or the lighting. Have read a bunch of similar talks and seen these points considered too. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg (Option A)

He's not looking directly at the camera in that image, he's looking off to the left. File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg is the most recent image of him looking straight ahead (or as close to it as we can get) with squared shoulders. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I like that image on principle, but seeing Trump with a yellow tie really feels weird. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropariate to digitally change the colour of the tie to be red? This feels like something that'd solve this issue once and for all. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 09:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump June 2024.jpg (Option B)

His facial expression is quite odd, can't tell if he's smirking or bemused. I prefer this image from the same day with a neutral expression, option B. GhulamIslam (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's portrait should just be his from 2017 as president. It's not THAT old, and it's quite official, unlike the other ones that have been used Trajan1 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

7 years is quite old, actually. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Contrariwise, I don't think a 7-year-old is even old enough to run for President in the first place. jp×g🗯️ 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus to use a more recent image. Main reason being what Prcc27 said. GhulamIslam (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

7 years is old. Anyone that's 11 years old in 2017 can legally copulate by now. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 21:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree and I am supporting the upmost shown image in the discussion because it is one of the more recent ones and it have a relatively neutral expression Punker85 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a much better image due to his even more neutral facial expression (when compared to any of his previously proposed images) and his eyes are pointed more to the center. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, this is why I was against the argument of not using his official portrait because it was going to open a can of worms about updating the pic every year/few months whereas his official portrait would've remained. Yet, here we are. If I had to support a picture, I'd go for option A as it has a better angle and expression of Trump. He's facing more forward than the other option. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's left-wing bias on abortion

WP:NOTAFORUM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On almost every page that I read on Wikipedia, abortion is framed as "abortion rights", while pro-life topics like personhood of an unborn child are minimized or absent. To me, this is clearly a bias from Wikipedia, and I notice this with many left-wing topics. It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media. If Wikipedia cares about balance, there should be two photos in this article, one for and one against abortion. Also, any politician talking about personhood or related topics should be properly cited, instead of using terms such as "against abortion rights" or "anti-women". It was easier when "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were the common terms. In any event, please present the topic fairly. LABcrabs (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia cares about neutrality, that doesn't mean that 2 opposing sides get to be evenly represented, that's an inherently flawed philosophy for which Wikipedia has rules with WP:GEVAL. A group of people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't mean we have to dedicate half of that article to that believe. This is why we have WP:UNDUE. None of the phrases you take issue with are on this page (and as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia unless that is specifically the topic of the article/section) so there is no point of raising this issue here in the first place. And just to be clear: none of these phrases are biased language either. Being anti-abortion is not a popular opinion and as such, Wikipedia reflects that. Your own word usage here already shows you have your own biases, which is fine, but that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. YannickFran (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia" I have been using the English language as a second language since I was 9 or 10-years-old, and I have English-language certifications from the University of Cambridge and the University of Michigan. I have never heard of the term "anti-women", the term is misogyny or (for persons) misogynists. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false. Our article on the American abortion debate gives roughly equal weight to both sides. Note that about about half of Americans describe themselves as "pro-life" and half describe themselves as "pro-choice", and the vast majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion in some cases and not others. Endwise (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false." ...yes... that's what I said. Having said that, being "pro-choice" or against it isn't the same thing as being against abortion in general, and that divide is much broader, which the article you link also goes on to talk about. YannickFran (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC) You said we don't give equal weight to the "anti-abortion" viewpoint (because it is not a "popular opinion"), just as we don't give equal weight to flat Earthers. I was just saying that that's incorrect, because we typically do give equal weight to the anti-abortion viewpoint when the issue comes up in these contexts, unlike flat Earth. And I don't really know what you mean in your new comment being "against abortion in general"; most people who would be described as "anti-abortion" also support exceptions, for example for the health of the mother. Endwise (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC) “Wikipedia cares about neutrality but we will admit straight up in the same sentence that we actually don’t care about neutrality” 2600:8801:1194:8D00:D98B:7EE7:88E1:DC98 (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Neutrality does not mean evenly representing all opinions, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality is accurately reflecting the weight views and opinions are given in independent sources. — Czello (music) 09:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) even as someone who’s pro choice I’m going to say just admit you have a bias here towards one side. Because if that’s going to be your response there’s no reason to hide it anymore. 2600:8801:1194:8D00:DDF5:3459:2395:2EBC (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Well, it is referred to as abortion rights in reliable sources. And anyway, that's pretty neutral. You can agree or disagree on whether or not abortion should be a right. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC) On Wikipedia we decided to go with the "abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion" movements, which I agree is neutral. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are biased towards their respective sides. None of that is in contravention with this article though so I see no issue. Endwise (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media." So Wikipedia is working as it should. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources say, and left-wing legacy media are reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) I do think it is unnecessary to say “abortion rights” when we can use a more neutral term like “the abortion debate”. We absolutely should be using “pro-choice” and “pro-life”; those are the common terms. Finally, why only a pro-choice picture in the abortion section? Are there any images of protests in front of the SCOTUS building with both pro-choice and pro-life protesters? Prcc27 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) The language of "abortion rights" is kind of preposterous anyway since the idea of a right to an abortion in the U.S. was nullified by Dobbs. "Abortion rights" is activist language much like how "pro-life" was twisted into "anti-abortion" because it sounds harsher and more negative. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Pro-life is itself a euphemistic self-applied term. It only very tangentially relates to what this group advocates for, which is making/keeping abortion a criminal offense. "Anti-abortion" is a much more accurate description of the actual policy position. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC) We probably shouldn't re-litigate the issue on this page if it has been subject to more robust discussion elsewhere, but I personally find "debate" to be a non-neutral. It implies a discussion or deliberation of facts, which does not apply here. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC) @Dimadick Last time I checked, no legacy media, including both left and right wing sources, are a reliable source of information. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) They are. See RSP with GREL for some of them. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) I agree with User:GreatCaesarsGhost that this is too narrow a forum to address an issue of sitewide concern. With respect to "debate" perhaps the question to be addressed—in a more appropriate forum—is whether this should be called the "abortion rights debate". BD2412 T 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860."

@RaySwifty18 "Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860." You mean one full term right? Alexysun (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So what? He and Trump are both so old they should not be running at all. It's good he dropped out. Now Trump should do it. Maybe there should be a constitutional amendment to prevent running after 70. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a poorly-written sentence that needs revising, at a minimum.

First off, I'm in agreement that it should read "Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one full term since 1880", on account of LBJ serving a little over a year of JFK's first term, running for and winning the 1964 Presidential election, then deciding not to run in 1968.

Secondly,1880 seems like a rather odd & arbitrary year to use as a comparison point. 1880 isn't exactly a defining election for the Presidency, like, say, 1912 (with Teddy splitting the Republican vote between him and Taft, and handing the Presidency to Wilson), or 1932, where FDR is elected and redefines the Modern Presidency. It's also not the first election where a Democrat was elected to the Presidency, or an election where a Democrat was elected at all - a Democrat isn't elected to the office until 1884, which is further complicated by Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive terms of office. I mean, there wasn't even a Constitutional ban on more than two terms in office until 1951. I'm sure this has to do with what the source originally says, but if that's the case, then I'll just say it's too poorly written to use in the article.

I get what the sentence is trying to convey: that's it's been a really, really long time since a President hasn't stood for reelection in his first term. But as is, the sentence is insufficiently conveying the that fact.

If kept, and not deleted, I'd rewrite it to convey something along the lines of "This is the first time an incumbent President hasn't sought reelection since 1964, when LBJ (etc. etc.)."

Might be some worth to mentioning the last time a Democrat incumbent chose not to run for reelection (LBJ, 1964) and the last time a Republican did so (Coolidge, 1928). Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead of Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election states this far better than I can.

Biden was the first incumbent president since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 to withdraw from the race, the first since the 19th century to withdraw after serving only one term, and the first ever to withdraw after already winning the primaries. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Theoretically speaking

Theoretically speaking there is no way to know whether Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee, because she said she got enough delegates to agree to vote for her at the convention, but that's her own words. She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. So essentially Biden's old delegates don't need to vote for her, and there's no way to know if her own claims are fully true. Alexysun (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still an open nomination at the convention at the end of the day. Alexysun (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It will not be a nomination at the convention. “We will deliver a presidential nominee by Aug. 7 of this year,” The problem is an Ohio law that only takes effect on September 1st. However, Ohio Democrats were pushing their party to pick a candidate sooner via a virtual roll call vote. That’s because Ohio voted to move the deadline for candidates to make the ballot from Aug. 7 to Sept. 1 to accommodate Democrats’ mid-August convention in Chicago. That law takes effect on Sept. 1. So the DNC will be doing a virtual roll call with all the delegates sometime in the next two weeks. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"But that's her own words" There are sources corroborating Harris' claims; media organizations have pages to track her delegates. Here's one from The Hill, for example: [9]. There are more that are sourced in the 2024 Democratic National Convention#Pre-convention delegate count subsection of that article, as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh interesting. Alexysun (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. How is that different from Biden? They were not locked in for him either. Biden could have won all 50 states and still have not gotten the nomination due to delegates voting for someone else. In both cases, the delegates are unpledged. So I am still baffled why this is a major issue for Harris, but didn't seem to be an issue for Biden.

Additionally, it isn't her claims. The delegates have made statements to endorse Harris that have added up to her having enough to win the first round vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, presumptive is a more than good term, so far it is deeply expected all or most of Biden's delegates go to Kamala Harris, and the definition of presumptive is "presumed in the absence of further information", and in my opinion holds the same nature as a primary with a lone candidate and a write-in option, in all theory, voters can just write-in someone else, and the lone registered candidate can be defeated as it has happened in the past (most notably Vermont where write-in candidates have defeated nominees), this is key reason why it is put as "presumptive nominee" and not outright as nominee, as all expectations and metrics indicate Harris being nominated, such as no formal opposition being in, multiple endorsements from notable figures, and Biden having gotten almost an absolute amount of delegates who has endorsed Harris, so even if some decided to vote someone else, it is expected most of them will be indirectly pledged to harris.

Presumptive nominee for Harris is a correct term, as almost everything indicates she will be the nominee after the primary and roll call, if she wasn't the nominee it would be an extremely big upset and a 360° flip, and absolutely no one expects it to change, and if it happened we can just remove Harris and put the final nominee, but putting Harris as presumptive nominee is very well fundamented.

Other story is for the VP, who at the current time is completely unknown and there is no going behind someone like last time. SuperGion915 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Magical Golden Whip despite the presence of a comment right above the infobox asking for discussion to finish before adding a candidate to the infobox, you have decided to reinstate an edit that has been opposed twice now. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC) The discussion is currently 10-6 in favor. Why is the default to remove rather than add? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC) See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We are adding new content, so there needs to be a consensus around it being added if it is removed, as per the revert-discuss cycle. As opposed to digging in, edit warring and avoiding discussion altogether. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) If you can find WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, you can scroll to the next section and read WP:NOTBURO. And perhaps take a gander at WP:SNOWBALL. The consensus of both editors on this page and the media and people living in reality is that she is the nominee. The only counter argument is that the AP has chosen not to update their priors to deal with an unprecedented situation. Their internal bureaucracy is making them look foolish. Luckily, we have policies in place to ignore bureaucracy when it threatens the quality of the project. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC) In WP:NOTBURO it quite literally says "disagreements are resolved through consensus based discussion". A 10-6 is by no means an avalanche. If anything, you are using bureaucracy to push forward a candidate that may win a nomination, when there is no reliable source saying 'its obvious Harris is gonna win'. None of those voting for the next Democratic Party leader are bound to vote Harris either. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but consensus is established based on a reading of our guidelines and policies and the arguments in favor of inclusion here strongly favor our guidelines about supporting what a majority of WP:RS is reporting. We don't generally consider the original thoughts of editors that are opposed to the inclusion if their arguments are not supported by Wikipedia's guidelines. You may be interested in the essay about status quo stonewalling. Raladic (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) And who are you exactly to decide the consensus, considering you have participated in the discussion yourself? Just because some sources say 'it is likely' doesn't mean it's a guarantee. For almost any other article, we do not include the candidate that is most likely to win the nomination. For example, for the recent 2024 United Kingdom general election, we didn't add a 'presumptive' winning candidate for a constituency simply based off polls You may be interested in the essay about status quo stonewalling. For your own sake, I'll ignore your little remark here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) I have read the arguments. It's not just that some sources say 'it is likely' - we have multiple respected reliable sources using the specific word "presumptive", but it's definition in the English language. Also, as for your last sentence, please avoid to WP:THREATEN other editors. I simply linked to an explanatory essay about reversions on status quo during a discussion if the arguments brought don't favor it based on our guidelines and policies. Raladic (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) This has been going back and fourth by several users adding and re adding her in for a few days. Since my last warning I just reverted back to the way it was before with her picture there. In seriousness you need to make up your minds on adding her or just waiting until the DNC. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "I have read the arguments" You have participated in the discussion in favour of including the image. This is like being the prosecutor and the judge at the same time. "We have multiple respected sources" And? We didn't add 'Succeeded by: Keir Starmer (presumptive)' to the infobox of ex-Prime Minster Rishi Sunak despite Labour being predicted to have a landslide before the 2024 United Kingdom general election. WP:CRYSTAL needs to be taken into account here and I would rather leave putting down a candidate for the Democratic party until the DNC. Then it is undisputable and there is no maybes or buts about it. "Avoid WP:THREATEN" Highly ironic you put this down after being quite WP:UNCIVIL by implying that I am "stonewalling" because I disagree with you. If you want my position on this, I would rather wait to the Democratic National Congress before adding a candidate, because one thing Wikipedia is certainly not is a poll tracker. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC) And what does the WP:OTHERCONTENT British election have to do with the US election that has a specific use for presumptive candidate, not winner, candidate. After the DNC (though current news based, likely within the next few days based on a virtual roll call before August 7th) she won't be the presumptive, but the confirmed candidate. I didn't imply anything, please remember to WP:AGF when interacting with other editors. I simply linked to a useful explanatory essay on when and when we may not remove content that is being discussed when a certain outcome appears to be currently favored during the discussion, such is the case here. I then simply reminded you to please avoid to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Raladic (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC) You don't know what will happen at the DNC though, and nobody does accurately. There are plenty of things that could happen to Harris between now and August 7th, and a source isn't going to predict that. "I didn't imply anything" Textbook WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour. If you didn't imply anything, I wouldn't have flagged it. At this point I have shown full WP:AGF and never accused you yourself of casting aspersions, throughout the discussion, as opposed to you stating I am exhibiting status quo stonewalling, so i will now ask again what authority do you have in ruling on a consensus after clearly expressing support for one side? "US election that has a specific use for presumptive candidate, not winner, candidate" Where is this specific use from? Name the policy. I don't think you have really got what I am trying to push across to you from this discussion, so here is a simple question: Is Harris the current Democratic Party leader, even in a de facto capacity? If yes, how? What about candidates such as Michelle Obama getting higher approval ratings against Trump[10]? There are so many things here that could change and making this page like a poll tracker is going to open up a massive can of worms that could be bypassed by simply waiting for the DNC to confirm. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Perhaps this should be brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? We're getting a lot of hot collars and are at an impasse. BOTTO (T•C) 21:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Probably. I did take this to RFPP the other day and the user who reviewed didn't think it was to the level of requiring FULL, plus there are good edits being made outside of the infobox situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC) While I don't believe the article should be Goldlocked, we should at least semi-protect the talk page to prevent IPs from talking since they are adding too many sections that contain pointless topics in them. Qutlooker (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Not seeing that much evidence of topics breaking the rules. If it does, then we can get RFPP to lock the talk page a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Thinking about it some more, there are multiple users who would likely be parties at DRN and I am less certain that would work out. Maybe we need a formal RfC rather than a discussion turned survey. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC) The issue with an RFC is that this issue will resolve itself soon. But something along the lines of it is needed, but it would need to be quick. @Raladic has decided to avoid participating in the discussion further despite being asked to respond by myself, something which is not helpful here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) I didn't reply because I am not obligated to WP:SATISFY you. The removal of well source information has stopped a day ago, so it appears an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS has formed, so at this point, this thread is just rehashing of the above existing discussion. Raladic (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC) You aren't obligated to satisfy me, but you are required to discuss and I asked you what authority you had to decide what way the consensus is (whether it was no consensus or something else) since you are involved - and it since you can't answer that, the answer is you have none to decide consensus. Dispute resolution is probably on the menu, but the biggest thing that can be done to solve is have a neutral editor who has not participated in the discussion to have a look at the discussion. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) To just focus on the RfC part, per RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be & If one of the reasons to end RfCs applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course. Our deadline would be August 6th, so just under two weeks. If you prefer dispute resolution though, then feel free to go that route. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Please see my comment above. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Are Swing States trivia?

I added swing states to the lead, someone with a potential conflict of interest in the article removed it, saying the matter of swing states is 'trivia'. Are swing states a key aspect of the election or are they trivia? Tom B (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is my understanding that they are key. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It was unsourced content; all claims on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. There is general agreement on some states being “swing”, but also some disagreement. For example, some forecasts say Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada are tossups, while others say they are lean R. Regardless, it is common practice on Wikipedia to add information to the body before we even consider adding it to the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Prcc27 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It was already added to the body with a source, and therefore does not need a source in the lead, Tom B (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did your edit summary say the issue of swing states was trivia @Prcc27? Tom B (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wordiness

Any good editor knows that “led to a series of events that resulted in” means “led to”. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, and I deleted those seven unnecessary words. Brevity is the soul of wit. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I have a 130k word manuscript that I need to reduce to 100k! =o) --SFandLogicReader (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris portrait

For the picture of Harris in the infobox and elsewhere, should we use a more recent picture of her or her official vice-presidential portrait? Punker85 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a more recent picture of her should be used since it would be more representative of her current appearance than the 3 year old vice-presidential portrait Punker85 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm strongly opposed to this. There needs to be some consistency. We were fine with Joe's portrait being used (which is the same year Harris's portrait was taken). If we were fine with Joe, we should be fine for Kamala's official portrait. Plus, her appearance did not change that drastically between 2021 to today IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agree completely, Her Vice Presidential portrait is the best representation of her. It's the same as how Trump's 2017 portrait is used for the 2020 election. And should she win it'll be changed to her official Presidential Portrait, same as Trump. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. If Trump's 2017 portrait was good enough for 2020, then there's no reason why Kamala's 2021 portrait isn't good enough for 2024. Three years isn't enough to warrant a change. Plus, the argument that Joe's portrait should be kept because he's the incumbent president (see Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries), but not Kamala's doesn't make sense since she's the incumbent VP and the portraits were taken in the same year. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  (+ @Punker85:) So the way I understand it, some of this comes down to copyright. The Vice-Presidential and Presidential portraits are government created, making them Public Domain. (At least in this case.) Public Domain images are wonderful on Wikipedia as they allow us to have an image that we should not be sued over. In the case of Trump, that image was taken in 2023. Thanks to the photographer's licensing, we have been able to use it as a suitable image that complies with copyright issues. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed; should Harris win and get a presidential portrait, that should become her infobox picture (which will be in 2025, closer to 2024 than the 2021 picture). Dingers5Days (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Last sentence should be stricken. (47th president)

We don't actually know if the 2024 election will result in the 47th president and 50th Vice-President, a lot can happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden is the 46th president who is no longer in the running. No matter who wins, it'll result in the 47th president and 50th vice president being elected. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Again not true, until Biden officially leaves office on January 20th 2025, at the swearing in of the next president, we won't know who the 47th president and 50th vice president will be. A lot can still happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed theoretically possible that, e.g., Biden resigns or dies, making Harris the 47th president before January, and then Harris loses the election and the winner becomes the 48th president. BD2412 T 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, it's like saying the winner of the 2028 election will result in the 48th president, we don't know that. Especially with how crazy America politics can get. ~~

68.189.2.14 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh now I get it. I thought you were questioning the order in the event if it's Biden leaving office on 1/20/2025. Well, I support with your sentiment that anything could happen from this point until 1/20/2025. I'm inclined to keep the sentence as it's based of what we know now, but I could understand the opposing arguments. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We could add some qualifying language, then, e.g., "assuming Biden and Harris serve in their current offices until the end of their current terms". BD2412 T 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

As I'm aware on Wikipedia it is procedure not to be presumptive about future events, as an example the winner of the 2024 election being sworn in as the 47th President. We don't know for sure if that will happen, although it is likely, just like it is likely that the 2028 election will result in the 48th president being sworn in(Although much less so). Regardless 6 months is an eternity in American politics. Given the fact that Biden is of advanced age, and we're in a very tumultuous political time, where both political leaders seem to be in danger of political violence, it's definitely not set in stone. Hell Biden might even resign just to guarantee the first female president, we really don't know. Just like in 2020, there was a real chance that Trump could have gotten Impeached and removed from office, making Biden the 47th president.~~

68.189.2.14 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If I were to say the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games will occur later today, that would be predicting the future. There may be a terrorist attack or alien invasion in the intervening period that causes a delay or cancellation (or the end of all life on Earth). WP has a policy that specifically says that we can presume certain future events that are "almost certain to take place." The likelihood of an 80 year old man dying in the next year is about 7%. Inauguration day is in just 6 months, and Biden will have access to the best care in the meantime. And being that he is no longer an active politician and of an advanced age, his exposure to risky events like public rallies will be quite low. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between an event that's 1 day away, vs an event that's 6 months away. Again using that argument, it's like saying, prior to Joe Biden dropping out, the 48th President will be sworn in on January 20th, 2029. Is that likely to happen in that scenario? Yes. Is it guaranteed? no. Trump got impeached twice and nearly assassinated. Many reports have suggested Biden get removed due to the 25th amendment, his health is a big question mark. He might even resign. Again all reasonable hypotheticals, not alien invasions. The odds of a terrorist attack or alien invasion preventing the Olympics is so small that that's such a straw man it's ridiculous. (How many Alien invasions prevented the Olympics historically?). Compare that with a series of presidential assassinations or attempts, president's dying in office, president's being impeached, removed or just resigning. I'm sure everyone thought Nixon would be re-elected, until he wasn't. If Trump loses for example, he could stage major political violence. We really don't know. If this was 20 years ago it would be a more reasonable assumption. This is one of the most volatile political times in American history. It would also be reasonable if this was a month prior to the inauguration, during a lame duck session, where everyone has accepted the results. At this junction in history it is far from a guarantee. ~~

68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright to use 47th prez & 50th vice prez, as long as nothing unexpected happens. Otherwise, we'd simply change the numberings. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I remember a while back when Newsom beat Cox I wrote that the winner would be the 40th Governor of California, and they where pretty adamant not to make such a statement until the winner was sworn in, and that was a lot less of a contentious race and pretty much a guaranteed victory for Newsom. I don't get the "implying that nothing unexpected happens". The event hasn't happened yet, the nominee of the Democratic party hasn't even been decided, there is no rule that the 47 president and 50th vice president will be sworn in, after the 60th presidential election of the United States. It's not like a sporting competition where you can guarantee that the team that beats the other team in the final will be (XXX) champions. They're so many political scenarios that can take place until then. If this is the case, and assuming Trump wins (Which is probably 50-50 proposition at this point). Why not just start already assuming that the 48th president will be sworn in on January 20th, 2029? That won't be done because people realize that maybe in 4 years time a lot could happen. In 5 months time, a lot still could happen.~~

68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Left leaning Bias in the article

There are a large number of things which I find to be left leaning.

1. The hateful rhetoric of both sides is not represented equally. While the heated aggressive rhetoric of Trump is mentioned, the rhetoric of the Democrats ,who have referred to Trump as a dictator or Hitler is not present in the article , is not mentioned in the article at all. The heated rhetoric from the right alone is mentioned in the article.

2. The change in the number of illegal immigrants during both presidencies should be shown. In this article, the reduction of immigration during Joe Biden's presidency alone is shown while in comparison to Trump's immigration rate, Biden's rate would be very high.

There are many other left leaning biases which I will leave up to the discussion. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It is late July in the year of the election, so it seems pretty obvious that people have already come up with "the article is too biased against Biden/Harris/Trump/Kennedy/etc", e.g. I don't think this is a particularly actionable complaint without some reason why previous discussions on the subject have been inadequate. jp×g🗯️ 23:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also observe that, being illegal, it is clearly going to be impossible to know how many illegal immigrants have crossed the border at any time, (even though Trump supporters seem to be 100% certain) so any claims on that front must surely be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@User:HiLo48 The official number of immigrants noted by the government can be used or cited. Or the number of immigrants observed by each side can be mentioned which will introduce neutrality as currently only the fact that the Biden administration has reduced the number of immigrants crossing the border compared to last three years has been mentioned while the immigration rate of this administration compared to the Trump's administration is high which is not mentioned in the article. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

How can a number of illegals possibly be known? HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 The illegal immigrants are counted when the border patrol agents encounter them at the southern border and US customs and border protection (CBP) releases the data annually or sometimes monthly. Obviously the real number will be higher than the official count but still the official numbers are required to give the readers a perspective about it. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a perfect example of synthesis to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Prove it with facts JohseTheUnknown (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is US CBP's Enforcement statistics.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG If there were previous discussions on this subject, then it appears to me that they were ineffective in achieving neutrality by showing all views of the subject. As I have mentioned using some examples which indicate the bias towards left, I think that the previous discussions on the subject are inadequate. I have made credible reasons as to why the subject is biased and does not show all views. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG If there were previous discussions on this subject, then it appears to me that they were ineffective in achieving neutrality by showing all views of the subject. As I have mentioned using some examples which indicate the bias towards left, I think that the previous discussions on the subject are inadequate. I have made credible reasons as to why the subject is biased and does not show all views. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It was Trump who said he would be a "dictator on day one", which this article includes. What Democrats are calling him "Hitler"? Doing a Google search for that, all I come up with is JD Vance calling him "America's Hitler". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu That's true and should be included but there are also Democratic officials who also claimed that Trump is Hitler and they should also be included. In the case of JD Vance, he has retracted that statement but the others have not yet done it. This information should be included to provide neutrality in the article. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Which Democrats? Provide sources please. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list of Democrats/democrat supporting organization which compares Trumps's rhetoric to Hitler.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/james-clyburn-trump-hitler-comparison/index.html

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-that-s-hitler-s-language-biden-and-harris-slam-trump-over-unified-reich-ad-211392069957

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-immigrant-comments-hitler-mein-kampf-poisoning-blood-rcna130251

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4774363-democratic-campaigns-trump-hitler/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slGr9UEv5hw

My original goal was to point out that Trump's rhetoric is displayed, while all other's rhetoric is not. Both sides have made hateful rhetoric of the other and both should be displayed. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is a prominent one few days before the assassination attempt.

https://newrepublic.com/series/37/trump-2024-american-fascism-series JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be comparing things Trump has said to what "any person opposed to Trump" says. It would certainly be appropriate to include comments made by Harris, but if we get into the comments of proxies and advocates, that would violate WP:UNDUE. Also, this would not benefit your side; see for example the MAGA candidate for governor in North Carolina advocating to kill political opponents.[11] GreatCaesarsGhost 12:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Comments made by Harris should be added. I understand that due to the recent change in the Democratic Nominee, the comments of Harris have not been added yet. But considering the political landscape, it would be better to include the views of each party's prominent members and thus possibly informing people about it through a neutral viewpoint and possibly reducing political tension among them. Also, I didn't try to approach this issue through the Republican side but through a neutral view point. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM Qutlooker (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that I have a neutral point of view. If you found anything that is not neutral, could you reply with appropriate sources JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

How is comparing Trump to Hitler hateful? They are genuinely concerned at what MAGA has said and done. It's nowhere near as hateful as Trump saying immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country" Jayson (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is not primarily about comparing Trump to Hitler but the non-representation of the comments of Harris and Democrats, which include calling Trump Hitler, a threat to democracy, racist, etc. This view of the Democrats is considered as being false or hateful by about half of US population because they say that there are no objective facts to prove it. Thus, to represent both the views in a neutral point of view, the comments and view of Harris and Democrats should be mentioned in the article irrespective of your views.

Also, Trumps said that Illegal immigrants are"poisoning the blood of our country"

Even this article does not mention the fact that he is talking about illegal immigrant, which is an important distinction. This is also an example of left-wing bias which disregards the original facts and follows mainstream left-wing media to change the words of right. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A previous discussion on "Left-Wing Bias" was closed for the reason I mentioned Qutlooker (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Alr good. Close this one Jayson (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" should also be another Arbitration Remedy

Seeing the recent talk page discussions on edits, I believe this is something that should be implemented as another restriction. Comments? Qutlooker (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We have multiple different ways on how we achieve consensus, whether it be through editing, which may include reversions (on this article by different editors due to the 1RR restriction in place), or discussion.

Forcing any editing disagreement to become a talk page discussion can sometimes needlessly slow things down, which is why instead we have WP:1RR which avoids the same editor making multiple reversions (or face a block from the page/Wikipedia).

This works quite well across Wikipedia, but if you want to propose changes to AE remedies, you should ask for feedback at WP:Villagepump or start an WP:RfC instead more centrally, rather than on this talk page here per WP:NOTFORUM. Raladic (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Bias in Presidential Candidate Portrayal

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.

---

While I agree with the vast majority of content in this article, I have found that some parts of the page display a degree of bias, primarily from the standpoint of an American Democrat. I may agree with statements like "Trump's comments come as part of violent, dehumanizing rhetoric Trump has increasingly utilized during his campaign", they clearly display such bias, and the majority of US Republicans would strongly disagree with this statement. As such, this sentence should be stated as the opinion of whatever organization it was sourced from, or else removed in order to create a less biased account. I am not against the statement as a whole, simply its portrayal as an objective statement agreed upon by the majority of readers. Nalixar (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

While we should obviously be careful about assigning "weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, if Trump is using "violent, dehumanizing rhetoric" it is not biased for us to say so. It is in fact very unusual for recent elections in the developed role for a party to openly advocate for detention, deportation, and killing of the internal population of ethnic undesirables and political opponents. Fair and honest coverage of Trump will look bad to reasonable people because Trump is a bad guy. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 27 July 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.

Fox News projections?

Should we consider using Fox News projections as one of our news sources we use to update the infobox and map in November? Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is not reliable with regard to politics. I would actually lean in support of using Fox News projections, if the Fox News Decision Desk was 100% free of influence from the network. But in 2020, the network did not allow their Decision Desk to call Nevada for Biden, even though they were ready to make the call. Yes, the Arizona call was bad and was part of the reason the network stepped in; but nevertheless, it is still concerning when a network does not allow their Decision Desk to operate independently. Consequently, I think we should not use Fox News projections when we update our infobox and map, albeit we should give due weight to their projections in the article and lead. Prcc27 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Yes Buildershed (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for possibly continuing to use the Fox News Decision Desk? Prcc27 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

They're generally not reliable. But the Decision Desk has substantially more autonomy than, say, WP: FOXNEWSPOLITICS so I'm leaning against removing it. (Albeit not entirely.) KlayCax (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

They do not have enough autonomy, IMHO, per what I said above. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if there's lack of independence or bias in how they forecast the election: this is only really going to be a problem if we're basing it on how Wikipedia calls elections.

Otherwise, it's like saying that a projection from X (Nate Silver's model) doesn't have independence. For projections? I don't think it's a big deal. What's exactly the concern here?

The only time I can imagine this being a problem is if it influences Wikipedia coverage. KlayCax (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to redo how we call states for the purposes of Wikipedia. A "conservative" (in terms of calls) source like Reuters or New York Times seems best. KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Associated press is the most basic and longstanding trusted source. 172.58.160.73 (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not think we should use Reuters or NYT; that would be WP:UNDUE. We should stick to the major media organizations only, i.e. the National Election Pool (ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC) and AP VoteCast (AP only, Fox News [crossed out per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS]). If we want to be conservative about which states we call, we can simply implement a requirement that a state is not added until all major media organizations call a state. This is what we more or less did in 2020. We can worry about the criteria for adding a state later; right now, I just want to make sure we are all on the same page about Fox News being a no go. Prcc27 (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume there are a quantity of sources used? If Fox is unique in holding out for calling a state for Biden, we should absolutely ignore that and proceed. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

In 2020, the criteria for adding a state to the infobox and map was to wait until all major media outlets make a projection for that state. If we adopt the same criteria in 2024 (although that is still TBD), I absolutely agree with you that we should add a state’s electoral votes with or without Fox News’s blessing. Even if we move forward with a less strict criteria, I still think many users and readers will take Fox projections with a grain of salt, so maybe the best course of action is to avoid Fox projections altogether? There are plenty of other networks Wikipedia can rely on for election projections. Prcc27 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone from the city with the proud history of having given Rupert Murdoch to the world, I can say that I trust his media outlets 100% with the football scores. I don't think he has ever let us down there. Beyond that, no. We should stick to policy and ignore anything Fox News say on the election. And before anyone asks, no, we don't want him back thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I also do not think that we should use Fox News projections. The entire network is a deliberately extremely unreliable and divisive propagandistic and manipulative extremist hate-machine. David A (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is not a policy matter, nor is it taking it as a reliable source. The proposal is simply to list their forecast of the election. WP: FOXNEWSPOLITICS doesn't apply here.

Independence of the Fox News Decision Desk is much less of a concern when it revolves around forecasts. The vast majority of reliable sources include their forecasts, among others. Hard to say there's an issue.

I don't like Fox News either but I'm struggling to see what the deal is. KlayCax (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

How do we know Fox News isn’t going to tell their Decision Desk which states they should and shouldn’t make a projection for? I used to at the very least trust their Decision Desk, but now I have less faith in them after they were influenced by the network executives in 2020. I respectfully disagree with the notion that the Fox News Decision Desk is “independent” from the entire outlet as a whole. Prcc27 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax, either you or I have misinterpreted Prcc27's request here. A "forecast" is what they do now. A "projection" is what they do after the polls close. My understanding is Prcc27 wants to remove Fox from the list of sources that we are using to confirm a candidate has won a state on November 5th. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies then. Wasn't sure what the intention was. I'm alright with that, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. I think the Fox News forecasts should remain in the Electoral College Projections section.

I would support "[removing the Fox News Decision Desk] from the list of sources that we are using to confirm a candidate has won a state on November 5th."

We don't have to reuse the standard done in 2020. KlayCax (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be worth to mention it, but of course if one network makes a call, and others dispute it, then it should not be solely used. I think this is rather common sense - as you want multiple networks to make a call before going ahead.

There's always a possibility of Fox breaking precedent, or weird deja vu 2000 scenarios occurring and I don't think it should be ignored either, as states can have their results contested for a week, or up to a month. I doubt this will be the last we will hear of this discussion. Borifjiufchu (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax discussion

There is currently a WP:AE discussion going on here. Prcc27 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden's COVID-19 diagnosis

The article currently states: "Following a widely-panned debate performance against Donald Trump on June 27, 2024 and a COVID-19 diagnosis in mid-July, Biden announced on July 21 that he would withdraw from the presidential race, allowing the Democratic Party to choose a new candidate."

It seems misleading to mention Biden's COVID diagnosis in this sentence, as if the COVID diagnosis was a major factor in his decision to withdraw, which I don't think any reliable sources have claimed. Hominid77777 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur. There's a SYNTHY case to be made that he was sidelined for a long time at a crucial point which accentuated concerns about his health, but that's not in the RS. Separately, It is likewise misleading to suggest that debate performance led him to withdraw. It was the campaign to push him out (which in turn derived from the debate performance) that did that. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The main thing I see tying the two together was apparently a statement from an interview that "he would only consider dropping out of the presidential race with Mr Trump if he was told to do so because of a medical condition." Might be relevant, but it likely is better to remove given there isn't much from sources about his Covid diagnosis tied to his campaign. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

wikilink age and health concerns of Biden where already written in second paragraph of lede. MattFry7 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Left guide (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Election date

Cyrobyte, it's absurd to list the election date as December in the infobox.

While it's technically true, it's not the general understood sense of the phrase "election day". I'm pretty certain that all previous US presidential elections have the November date, not the December date, in their respective infoboxes (aside from the 2020 United States presidential election article, which you changed). David O. Johnson (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is absurd to include both the actual date the president is elected and the date of the general election of the electors. I don't think that we should omit the actual date just because the public doesn't understand how the election actually works. Cyrobyte (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at the language that the US Constitution uses when discussing the presidential election:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. [...] The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

The electoral college election in December is the actual election. The November election is just an election in each state and DC to elect the electors. The constitution clearly says that the state legislatures can appoint electors in any manner they want. The average person is not aware of this because they are not educated, so they think that the actual election takes place on November 5. Why not just put both dates in? Cyrobyte (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This detail can be added to the second graph under the "Procedure" where it is already mentioned. The lede should only note November, and I assure you that you will not find consensus here to modify that. I'll assume you are acting in good faith, but saying December is "the actual date" is creeping into Stop the Steal conspiracy territory. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The indirect election on November 5 is an actual election for president; on that date millions will vote for president (using the indirect process). Every reliable source is going to identify November 5 as the election day. A footnote might be appropriate, but it shouldn't say that the November election is not "actual." -- JFHutson (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In the most technical sense the election of the president does occur in December, with the election ultimately being indirect. However no reliable sources describe it this way. They pretty much uniformally treat the election of electors in November as the actual election, with the subsequent vote in December being a mere formality, confirming the result which was determined in November. The fact that the election is technically indirect is not enough of a reason to depict the election day as being in December. Instead, this can be explained elsewhere in the article, namely in the lead and the procedure section. Gust Justice (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe in 2020 we had a footnote in the projected electoral vote field which clarified that the electors vote in December, and that the election is certified on January 6th. We should do something similar this November. But in the meantime, I am open to a footnote explaining when the electors vote in the election date field. Prcc27 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Democracy

In the Democracy section we have "Kennedy and Trump have claimed that Joe Biden is a threat to democracy". No reason is given for this claim. It looks like nothing more than unsubstantiated political rhetoric. Is it meant to look like this, or did the accusers actually give reasons for their allegations that we haven't reported? HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is weird and shortened it in half to try and reduce the WP:Undue it had. I would support deleting Superb Owl (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Biden dropping out is even more reason to remove those sentences from the article entirely. Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it meant to look like this, or did the accusers actually give reasons for their allegations that we haven't reported? So what happened was that BootsED added it to the article back in April as the following: Speaking on Erin Burnett OutFront, Kennedy said that President Biden poses a bigger threat to democracy than does Donald Trump. Trump has claimed that Joe Biden is the "destroyer" and real threat to democracy, and has repeated false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him, of which there has been no evidence. (First edit, Second edit) That was how it was until a few hours ago when Superb Owl above edited it to: Kennedy and Trump have claimed that Joe Biden a threat to democracy, while Trump has repeated false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him. (Recent edit) In short, a recent edit gave it much more attention and the point seems moot given Prcc27's reply. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a long time ago but if my memory serves it was added in to address balance concerns. If the consensus is to remove it I have no objection. BootsED (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Silver Bulletin forecast

I want to see some consensus before I try and implement this because it will probably take time to fiddle with that chart, but what do you all think of adding the Silver Bulletin forecast by Nate Silver to the forecast chart? [12] R. G. Checkers ^talk 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Silver Bulletin was already added to the article as far as polling aggregation. If we do add them for forecasts, someone will likely have to subscribe, as the state forecasts are usually paywalled. Prcc27 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m subscribed R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Excessively bold edits

Maybe it's just me, but in an article with so much activity on the talk page and so many potentially partisan editors quibbling over individual sentences, WP:CAREFUL should be in play. I don't think anyone should be striking multiple well cited paragraphs[13] without discussion here. The material stricken here is generally accurate and relevant to the section. If we need to tweak, that's fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)