Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Bias in lead once again

I made complaints about this earlier, and while it was briefly changed, the exact problem is back. The election is less than a month away. So many people are going to see this page until then. We need to remove all the stuff about Trump here.

More than half of his paragraph is dedicated to criticizing him. "Trump has made many false and misleading statements, engaged in fearmongering,and promoted conspiracy theories, including false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him which prompted the January 6 Capitol attack. The Republican Party has made efforts to disrupt the 2024 presidential election as part of a larger election denial movement. In 2023 and 2024 Trump was found liable and guilty in civil and criminal proceedings, respectively, for sexual abuse, defamation, financial fraud, and falsifying business records, becoming the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime."

This is not neutral. This is going to leave people with an anti-Trump bias. And there's nothing here about Kamala! Why don't we put in that she supports genocide? I think that it's reasonable to include the indictments, but this is too much. Wikipedia is a big source of information for people. We are not supposed to take a stance here. We will put the relevant information in the lead. We can go into the controversies and issues in the body. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Kamala doesn't support genocide, so that shouldn't be included because no RS will say that she does. Andre🚐 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The claims about Trump are very well sourced, as is required in Wikipedia. Did you look at the sources? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, extremely well sourced statements about Trump. Andre🚐 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And I can find just as many sources criticizing her for her positions on inflation, the border, and Gaza. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Quality of source matters here, not quantity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. See my previous discussion about this. We should at least shorten this and make a policy paragraph. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Just think about this from an outsiders point of view. When they read that paragraph, they will not think Wikipedia is neutral. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What's an outsider? I'm Australian. Does that count? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

An American undecided swing state voter who can't make up their mind, who will either think Wikipedia is bias or will be convinced to vote for Kamala. They should be convinced on who to vote for based on the policy and issues, which is well discussed here. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is a politician lying not an issue to you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it is an issue worthy of being mentioned in the lead, unless the extent of Trump’s lies are unprecedented (which arguably they are). Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, but it might be productive to have a separate paragraph about these types of criticisms, rather than in the general discussion. The indictments should be kept, as should the election denial stuff, but the other parts should be moved to a separate paragraph. Yavneh (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong...but most politicians lie. Vice-President Harris has lied before as well, as has her campaign, yet you might notice there is no mention of "The Harris campaign has had many false and misleading statements". Despite her now saying Mr Trump is a fascist who is a threat to democracy (this would be fearmongering), there's no "engaged in fearmongering", either. Nor "promoted conspiracy theories" (despite Ms Harris and her campaign often citing attack stories against Trump that have no evidence or corroboration). Yet, again, that isn't part of the Democrat paragraph even though it would be easy to source. Is VP Harris lying not an issue to voters? If Trump lying is, one would think Harris lying would be as well. So why is that not in her paragraph? The OBVIOUS REASON: Because the writers and the people who have left that on the page are biased. Again, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Renathras (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I read it and think it's blatantly biased. I don't generally edit Reddit pages (never, actually, after my very first attempt), and I don't think I've ever posted on a talk page. That paragraph is TERRIBLY biased. The Democrat paragraph is written in neutral tone, the Republican one seems like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. Something can have sources AND BE BIASED at the same time, and just a cursory reading of that paragraph would lead any neutral person to thinking wikipedia is biased. It led me to that conclusion. I don't want to read any of the rest of the article because I can't imagine with a lead like that the rest would be neutral or fair at all. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for this. Renathras (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And yet, the TONE is not neutral and reporting at all. I read the Democrat paragraph and was thinking "Sounds about right", then was shocked with the first few lines of the Trump one. This seems like something written by the Harris campaign, not something deserving of the title Humanity's encyclopedia. Something can be well sourced AND BE BLATANTLY BIASED at the same time. Renathras (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Tell me one sentence, with sources, that you'd like to add to the lead about Harris' campaign. The border, inflation, and Gaza are not it, but if you have anything else, let us know. Andre🚐 01:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What if, instead of putting the criticism specifically in his paragraph, extend the paragraph about issues to go more in depth and keep this Personisinsterest (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

We will put the relevant information in the lead. And we have. We summarize[d] the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It cannot be helped that a political party and their candidate for office had a number of prominent controversies since the last election. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Although controversial, since the article is detailed in detail, it would be better to summarize the introduction, which is overly critical of a specific candidate and takes up more than half of the entire introduction. This is to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality by attempting to gloss over the controversies doesn't seem like a workable path, but if you want to suggest something than I will review it. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Your objection is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our role as an encyclopedia is to summarize what the sources say; if they're overwhelmingly negative about something, then our coverage must be overwhelmingly negative as well - it is not appropriate for us to "put our finger on the scale" to correct what we consider an imbalance in the sources themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree it needs to be removed, I was pretty concerned while I was reading this page that there was so much bias here.

I've read a couple of arguments above, let me answer to all of those. I've cited in italics some points of the Wikipedia rules.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." I don't see either neutrality nor fairness.

"Even when material is sourced, editors must ensure that its inclusion follows Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and is written to give appropriate weight to the views." Are we sure this is followed? Doesn't look like it from my side.

Adding to this, anyways, the introduction isn't really the space for that, is it? It almost looked like the editor was so impatient to write those things aye? Wikipedia is not the place to share opinions or attract votes to a side or another.

Finally,

"Articles must be fair and balanced in their coverage, and must not contain unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons, even if it is accurate."

You can consider the sources as reliable as you want but even reliably sourced negative claims should be handled carefully to ensure they don't come across as defamatory or disproportionate. 93.36.176.195 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources You removed the rest of the sentence after that, which states in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. It also further states, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

2. I can't find this statement in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Where did you get it from? Even if it is included, appropriate weight is given to the sources.

3. Again, I can't find this sentence in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Where did you get it from? Either way, the sentence is sourced and not poorly sourced. BootsED (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we please talk about my proposal instead now? Personisinsterest (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Given there isn't a single criticism of Kamala Harris in the lead, the arguments from the editors here imply that not a single RS has criticised Kamala. That leaves us with only three plausible conclusions: (1) the definition of a RS needs to be greatly reconsidered, (2) Kamala is perfect and has never been criticised or, (3) the editors are bias. I'm going with (3), but I'm sure you're all about to tell me that it's actually (2). 2404:4408:831D:4100:7858:202A:506B:6B2D (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Or (4), WP:WEIGHT determines whether space should be given to a particular topic. — Czello ^(music) 11:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And with that implication that Kamala has no noteworthy negatives, Czello has put themself firmly in the (2) category. Polls suggest the majority of voting Americans disagree with that “weighting”. This article is bias. 2404:4408:831D:4100:81BF:3502:EA68:9C41 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make the case that there are noteworthy negatives about Kamala that deserve listing on this article, please go ahead. You'll need to demonstrate that the prominence of criticism is reflected in reliable sources. — Czello ^(music) 20:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

She has called her opponent a fascist and a threat to democracy, which is fearmongering. Clearly, that was worth including in the Trump paragraph, thus it must be worth including in the Harris paragraph. I could go on, but just like that, I've already defeated your position. Renathras (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and he's both.

But apart from my personal bias, please find a reliable source as per WP:RSP Maximalistic Editor (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: It's likely you'll not get a (required) consensus for your edit proposals. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah Personisinsterest (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Personisinsterest:

Please suggest the example about "practical updated lead part" to be reviewed, we can then update the required part after discussion with other editors for this article. I understand that we can not get 100% meet the WP:NOPV however, I also think that current lead part is biased. If you can suggest some lead parts to be updated, and other editors (including myself), will suggest the next to improve the lead part of the article to be more fair and reasonable. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we should improve the lead section of the article with a newly created section before user:Personisinsterest suggests an updated section/suggestion.discussion: it is the updated discussion for this topic.[[1]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Trump vs. Harris details in the lead

Reading the lead of this article for the first time, and I'm struck that there are an awful lot of details about things Trump has said and done since 2020, but almost no details about Harris. The paragraph on Trump is indeed a bit jarring to read not because the lead doesn't include negative material about Harris but because the lead includes so much about him (all negative, though I wouldn't argue for WP:FALSEBALANCE) and doesn't include any material, positive or negative, about Harris. The second paragraph needs an overall summary of the character of Harris's campaign.

Then, along the lines of the suggestion above, it could use more information about platforms. It's a long article; the lead could be longer. I thought about taking a stab at this stuff, but figure it might've come up before. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Any reader(or those in the distant future) wanting a quick rundown of both candidates will be left disappointed. The paragraph about Trump is longer than the rest of the lead itself. Some elements could be merged (like "false statements" and "conspiracy theories" as well as "unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history and a continued breaking of political norms"). A paragraph about Harris campaign can be added as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27: closed this section because it's "already being discussed in the section above". Presumably, since you didn't actually specify a section, you're talking about the "bias" section? I've reopened it because bias is not the subject of this section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the bias in lead once again section. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Mixed: I do think we should add a bit more about Kamala's campaign, about anything that may be of note. However, I also do think that if Trump takes up half the section and it's not erroneous nor repetitive, then it shouldn't be changed. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I sort of feel like the info about Harris in the opening section dives into minutiae that doesn't really feel like it belongs in an opening section (which should summarize the topic), like her interview on fox news. Some of the criticisms of her seem to be stated as objective and seem poorly written and/or vague, and there are formatting issues.

"Her speech sounds like “word salad.”"

"and that she would show new ideas and experiences."

" Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes." with spaces between the cite notes

It can be argued for like others have that there needs to be more balance in the mentioning of the issues that the candidates have, but it seems a little sloppy with Harris. WWWHHHHYYYYYY (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In an effort to move forward, I made a bold edit to the lead, with changes detailed in the edit summary. Main goal was to address the above. IMO it still needs another good sentence about Trump between Trump's campaign is focused on economic nationalism, deregulation, and a strong anti-immigration stance. and His campaign has been noted for making many... Maybe something about him defending his record while in office? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you. The lead is supposed to be a summary, your edits were too verbose. We already have a paragraph saying which campaign issues are going to be important for the election. Information on what the candidates’ views are on these issues can be found in the body paragraphs. The reason why there is a lot of focus on Trump, is because it is WP:DUE to focus on prominent controversies. Is there a prominent controversy of Harris? Anyways, this section is redundant, please refrain from duplicate discussions, and take your concerns to the relevant section above. Prcc27 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE in the lead is based on what's in the body. Hoping to get additional perspectives on whether this is an improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That is better contents and improved part for this article. In particular, if we summarize the content a little more, I think the core parts will be conveyed better.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance cannot be changed by user agreement. In particular, there was no agreement that issues held by Harris, which have various reliable sources, should not be included in the Lead section, and only Trump's issues should be included. I think it is against the spirit of Wikipedia to demand an agreement that issues held by Harris, which are mentioned in prominent sources such as CNN and VOX, should not be included in the Lead section. Please improve the contents that I updated summarized in the lead sectionGoodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

@Prcc27, Personisinsterest, GoodDay, Rhododendrites, Czello, BootsED, Aquillion, Super Goku V, Andrevan, Yavneh, HiLo48, Ca, and WWWHHHHYYYYYY: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the Bias in lead once again section above. BootsED (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

At least it was. Seems like that discussion has died down in favor of discussing it here as the last post there was five days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed since last time. We have put the relevant information in the lede. We summarize[d] the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It still cannot be helped that a political party and their candidate for office had a number of prominent controversies related to the prior election.

Regarding the paragraph, I don't see it covering any prominent controversies. Part of the problem seems to be that two of the sources were the same week Harris' campaign for president started and four sources were about her recent interview with Fox News. On that last subject, I am disappointed in seeing another attempt to use Fox News as a reliable source despite WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. It was brough up last month, Goodtiming8871. As a reminder for the future, Fox News is not reliable for politics and is not a reliable source.

I will add that if it is clear that there are prominent controversies involving Harris, then they need to be included. But I am struggling to see that here. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

(Suggested part on article) Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, with her background as a prosecutor, has been criticized as a very poor communicator when it comes to expressing policies on many important issues. Her speech sounds like “word salad.” For example, she struggles to present her vision for the country to voters on how to improve their lives. Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office, as well as issues with her leadership, also raise concerns about Harris’ management style. However, Harris said she would demonstrate a leadership style different from Joe Biden’s in an interview with Fox News, a conservative channel that Democrats have previously avoided, and that she would show new ideas and experiences.

Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her. For example, the United States has failed to stop Iran from raising funds for aggression to other countries for the past four years. Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes.

Hello @Prcc27: I am asking about your claim that only very important controversies should be included in the lead, but generally, important controversies that voters can base their choice of the US president on should be excluded, or can only be included through the agreement of other users, which means that important controversies about Harris will eventually not at all be included in the lead.

Was there an agreement through RfC that only very important controversies should be included in the lead, and even if they are important controversies for voters about Harris that voters can base their choice on, they can only be excluded from the lead or can only be included through the agreement of other users? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I usually try to stay away from these 'too-negative' description for Trump/'too-positive' description for Harris, content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Lead part, which currently lists more than 10 negative things about Trump, big or small,

Regarding Harris, wouldn't it be fair to the voters to list all three or at least one major issue about Harris's past 10 years or more that could actually influence voters' choice of U.S. president, and let them know that Harris has several or at least one flaw?

In Wikipedia's summary of the election that determines the future of the United States, which should be recorded fairly, it is unfair that only one candidate's flaws are listed, and the other candidate Harris is recorded as if she is perfect and has no flaws at all. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to balance the lead, in any way you see fit. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Fairness has nothing to do with it. WP:RS determines what is included on the page. The fact that one candidate has numerous controversies and RS detailing them does not mean the page should be "balanced" to be "fair" to the other candidate as that would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We also have several RS detailing the historic nature of Trump's controversies in the election, from his criminal record to his authoritarian statements and rhetoric. We don't have anything comparable with Harris' campaign. None of the sources you have provided are about an actual controversy regarding the Harris campaign. BootsED (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

”Harris… has been criticized as a very poor communicator” Being a “poor communicator” isn’t a controversy, even if it was, we would probably actually need to mention Trump’s linguistic pitfalls. ”Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office”. I have never heard of this “controversy”, but again, what about Trump’s staff turnover rate? I’m pretty sure Trump’s turnover rate is a more well known controversy (which by the way we don’t even mention in the lead). ”Kamala Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her”. This is based on an unreliable source called Israelhayom? We have already explained to users like you why we do not have anything “negative” about Harris in the lead. And quite frankly, I’m too exhausted to repeat myself. Prcc27 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, they are called Israel Hayom. Currently, both the .com version and the co.il version appear on over 600 articles each with some article using both for references. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

In relation to this, isn't it in line with the founding spirit of Wikipedia that Wikipedia editors should list the three major weaknesses of Harris, based on reliable evidence, that could allow voters to judge whether Harris is a person who can do a good job as president, whether Harris is directly or indirectly responsible for the war in the Middle East and how she will handle it in the future? The language can be softened by referring to the above-mentioned content.

For the past 10 years or more, 1) Harris has frequently changed her words and has difficulty establishing and implementing specific policies, 2) leadership in organizational management, and 3) verification of her role as the second most powerful person in the United States for the past four years and her promise to do a good job in the future. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Let’s assume the source is reliable. It would still be WP:UNDUE to edit the article based on 1 source. Blaming her for a war when she is the vice-president, not the president, is bizarre. I’m not entertaining this discussion any further unless there is a real, well sourced controversy. Prcc27 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to "balance" content on a page to appear neutral. If the majority of reliable sources describe someone as a liar, the page will reflect this. It is not the job of editors to "balance" the page as this would be the introduction of editorial bias. Wikipedia goes on what the majority of what RS says, we do not "balance" content as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. BootsED (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• I mean, WP:FALSEBALANCE also applies to total coverage, not just to negative vs. positive coverage. The due weight for how much we discuss Trump vs. discussing Harris is based on coverage; it's possible that there is simply a lot more coverage of Trump, which means you'd expect an article about the election to devote a ton of text to him and much less to Harris. We could look up coverage of Harris and then weigh it against what's already in the article to make sure our balance is in the right place, but intuitively it's not surprising that there would be more coverage of Trump. (The fact that Harris only became the candidate near the end of the campaign also contributes, of course, and isn't really something with any precedent - it is possible our balance is off as an artifact of that and the article just needs to be updated to reflect recent coverage, but it's also possible that that just means there is less coverage of stuff that Harris did before she became the nominee, which we can only reflect.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Can we ban IPs?

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.

---

This is not a joke, we have already had several things of IP spam and Sockpuppetry here. I believe we add protection to this page. Qutlooker (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I second adding page protection to this talk page. BootsED (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I also found out that there are anti-Trump or anti-Harris IP users and some of them are Sockpuppetry. For example, anti-Trump IP users (or anti-Harris Users) using Sockpuppetry have previously distracted other real user's contributions with their IPs. - e.g. the_US_Vice_Presidential_Debate[[2]]

Hopefully, genuinely constructive IP users will be able to express their opinions on this talk pages but, we need to block spam IPs with Sockpuppetry. I think it would be inconvenient, but helpful to the spirit of Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It'd be very inconvenient for me to make an account. Should I make one nonetheless? 220.240.171.237 (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To specify:

I don't have a personal email (I'm a bit of a hermit in real life) therefore my contributions would therefore be likely to get lost if I leave my work. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend suggesting it at WP:RFPP, though they usually don't lock down talk pages. For examples of successful requests, here are two recent ones: 1 & 2. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have requested one, will see what happens. Qutlooker (talk) 19:36, 19 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.

Pov-pushing false balance

Can someone please remove the POV-pushing, anti-Harris paragraph in the lead? It was re-added by a user that is not following WP:BRD. Now the lead has a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even if we were to add Harris’s weakness in the lead, obviously using wikivoice is inappropriate per WP:YESPOV. Not to mention, their edit disregards WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Prcc27 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The election is LESS THAN THREE WEEKS AWAY. WE CANNOT BE DOING THIS. "Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, with her background as a prosecutor, has been criticized as a very poor communicator when it comes to expressing policies on many important issues. Her speech sounds like “word salad.” For example, she struggles to present her vision for the country to voters on how to improve their lives. Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office, as well as issues with her leadership, also raise concerns about Harris’ management style. However, Harris said she would demonstrate a leadership style different from Joe Biden’s in an interview with Fox News, a conservative channel that Democrats have previously avoided, and that she would show new ideas and experiences. Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her. For example, the United States has failed to stop Iran from raising funds for aggression to other countries for the past four years. Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes." Personisinsterest (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is a terrible, unencyclopedic paragraph. I wish I could revert it myself, but we are under WP:1RR (which I am not happy about). Prcc27 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted it. Goodtiming8871, do not edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There was no agreement that only one of the two major candidates could be criticized, and that the other candidate could not be edited even if there was a reliable source. I suggest that you include some more refined sentences from reliable sources such as CNN and VOA, and I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion on the relevant parts on the Talk Page above. [[3]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was only significant controversies should be included in the lead. None of the sentences you added were significant Harris controversies. Prcc27 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will respond to your feedback through the talk created above regarding your opinion. If there are duplicate or related titles, please respond through the talk page we started first. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We cover things according to the balance of how they are covered in mainstream media, not based on putting our thumb on the scale to make it 50-50. And when it comes to the lead in particular, this means the lead should reflect the body (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), which in turn covers the best sources in accordance to their weight. Or, put more simply - would you assert that the media, overall, has been equally critical of both candidates? If not, our article shouldn't be expected to be equally critical, either; and no matter how you feel about that coverage, trying to "correct" it here by putting undue emphasis on criticism of one candidate relative to how much overall coverage it makes up would be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In the article body, we have eg. an entire Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump section, an Election interference section, an Age and health concerns section, and lots of details in the Campaign themes section; all of these reflect major aspects of coverage of the race and therefore need to be covered in the lead. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE to look at that and then dig up every single criticism you can find about one candidate, no matter how obscure or unique to a single source, and cram it into the lead in an effort to produce a "balance" that doesn't represent coverage overall. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Add more information about Harris in lead.

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.

---

There’s 10 sentences related to Trump in the lead of this article, and three sentences about Harris. I think there should be more info about Harris (and maybe less about Trump) to balance out the information. The notable things about this election have not just been about Trump, but about Harris too. Cleebadee (talk) 16:32, 21 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.

(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 [[4]]

2) Goodtiming8871 clarified the content of this RFC at 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC) [[5]]

3) User:Raladic removed RFC unique number and RFC title - Reason: RFC content was no indication of revision. 01:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[[6]]

4) Goodtiming8871 clarified the RfC content according to PerWP:TPG and WP:TALK#REVISE- [[7]]

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

[[8]]

[[9]]

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 [[10]]

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 :: [[11]]

[[12]]

[[13]]

[[14]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:23, 24 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.

Map of the 2024 Presidential primaries

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)

I'll give my approval for this one. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Article shows signs of democratic bias

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

Regarding the picture or graph part you mentioned,

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

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

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

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

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

there are many other sections for expressing this Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"there are many other sections for expressing this"

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

Accusations of the United Kingdom engaging in “election interference”

The statement on the page that the United Kingdom has allegedly engaged in “election interference” is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The Trump campaign accusing another country of “election interference” does not warrant inclusion when RS do not state that the country is engaged in interference. The provided sources also state how the volunteers from the UK have come to the US on their own time and with their own money, which does not qualify as state-sponsored election interference. The Trump campaign accuses just about everybody of election interference, including the producers of a movie they didn’t like. I am at my 1RR and would like to request this addition be removed. BootsED (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED, regarding your removal of the UK election interference section: I don't think that WP:FRINGE applies here. These are official statements made by the campaign, and the rebuttal came from Starmer himself; even if the accusations appear to be baseless they still deserve to be mentioned in my opinion. Several sources are reporting on it now, so it definitely qualifies as notable and I've cited the Washington Post article. Catalyzzt (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article more, I think you're right that the claim doesn't belong in that section. The other countries are mentioned in the context of proven voter fraud. I think the claim is important to cover though. I will remove it now. Would you support adding it to Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election? Catalyzzt (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So, a couple of things. The other countries in that section are not related to “proven voter fraud” but covert disinformation campaigns by intelligence agencies. Mentioning the claim itself is WP:FRINGE and does not meet notability and due weight requirements. I do not support adding it to the page you mentioned as that would be WP:OR. The source does not state that the accusation was made in an attempt by the Republican Party to disrupt the 2024 election. The source says that the Trump campaign is accusing the UK of attempting to interfere in the election, which is itself a fringe claim. So putting it in that article would not make sense. BootsED (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

An update, I keep seeing some editors add the UK as being involved in election interference. To be blunt, this claim is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. As stated by this article by CNN, "The Trump campaign's complaint does not contain any evidence that the individuals were compensated; instead it references the LinkedIn post and various media reporting, asking the FEC to investigate further." No independent reporting has substantiated the campaign's claims. The appearance of these claims in news articles does not increase the "truth" of the claims. No reliable sources add anything to the discussion other than "Trump accuses the UK of election interference". Even including this mention in the foreign interference section alongside Russia, China, and Iran's covert intelligence operations is WP:UNDUE. As stated: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." BootsED (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There is evidence of Russia, China, and Iran's efforts to influence our elections. Trump claiming that there is election interference from the UK based on this and without any real evidence appears to be a smokescreen and is UNDUE/FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe some editors are mistaken. Being mentioned under the title of “election interference” does not mean anyone interfered. It means that it was suggested, and the FEC has NOT ruled one way or the other on it. The official campaign of Donald Trump filed an official complaint with the FEC, which warranted Primr Minister Keir Starmer himself to have to intervene. The inclusion of the United Kingdom does not say they are guilty. All it says is someone important claims they are. NathanBru (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is now an issue being brought up by head leaders within the Tory Party, so it that brings even more plausibility to it. Here is a quick link if you would like to see!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kv48lF_3ce0&pp=ygUgR3Jvc3NseSBpbWF1c2libGUgbGFib3VyIHNsYW1tZWQ%3D NathanBru (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminders: Do not post electoral projections or a declared winner without unanimous consensus

Wikipedia is not a news organization, electoral projection website (i.e. Decision Desk HQ), or place to provide information as fast as possible. In the event a candidate declares victory, until there is unanimous consensus from ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC, we're not posting it. On the Sunday of the election, these banners will go up:

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually feel like, at the very least, we can mention individual projections for who won the national race in the body paragraphs and even add other semi-major sources (i.e. Reuters, Decision Desk HQ, and New York Times) to the list for the body only. I am even open to mentioning individual national projections from any of our major 5 sources in the lead, before the call is unanimous. This was previously discussed and we have not quite figured out what to do about declaring a national winner. Should we avoid making a mention in the lead until the call is unanimous? Do you support what I said about the body paragraphs, or do you also think we should not mention any projections until it is unanimous? I also do not know if it is necessary to add those banners on Sunday, seems premature. Prcc27 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI, in 2020, I believe we added the Decision Desk HQ projection to the body, a day before the major media followed suite. Prcc27 (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In 2020, Trump prematurely declared victory before any major media organization projected a winner. This article is ECP, and I'm open to adding projections from single, reputable news organizations for individual states, but I prefer the 5 organizations having a unanimous consensus to declare a winner.

Side-note: I'm a graduate student, and I won't be available all the time on the week of the election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as wikivoice goes, I agree we need the 5 organizations to unanimously agree. We can note what each outlet projects, without declaring in wikivoice. But of course, there is no rush. Prcc27 (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: I will put the banners up, and may contribute to discussions on the evening of Election Day, but likely won't have the time to compile projections or color in states blue/red on the week of the election.

Side-note: I have classes Monday to Thursday, and an exam on Friday that week. See WP:VOLUNTEER JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:45, 28 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)

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)

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)

Order of the Candidates in infobox

I've noticed that in previous U.S. presidential election articles, the winning candidate (president-elect) is typically placed on the left, and the runner-up on the right. For elections with more than two candidates, they’ve been ordered by electoral votes or percentage of the popular vote. Since we're dealing with a future election here, could someone point me to the relevant MOS guidelines or template documentation that specifies how candidates should be arranged in the election infobox for upcoming elections? Much appreciated! Xoocit (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Xoocit, I don't know if it's written anywhere, but in an upcoming election, we normally list the incumbent (or incumbent party) first. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it (for future elections), the incumbent party's candidate is on the left. If Trump wins this year, than the Republican nominee will be on the left in the infobox of the 2028 US prez election article. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If Trump wins, I also think Trump and Harris would swap places. Prcc27 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That would've been a given, the winning candidate of an election goes first on the left, but before that election takes place it's whichever party won the last time around. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nominations need to be higher up

On nearly every other Presidential election page, there is a section around the background of the election, and then the party nominations. Currently the nominations section is bellow the major campaign issues, it needs to be moved up. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:19, 24 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)

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)

I can attach sources from the Wikipedia article about them if you like Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:43, 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)

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)

Against: We didn't remove them for the UK elections and other things of that sort Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:36, 25 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)

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)

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)

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)

Exactly. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was my bad then. Even then, I'm technically not wrong. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 07:14, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] 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)

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)

[[18]] [[19]]