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)

I am European and this article is the most biased article I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia. I have ctrl+F Kamala and there's nothing about her. Whole article is solely about Trump and mostly consists of stretched comparisons with Hitler. How is this allowed? B.fly87 (talk) 22:46, 29 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)

She very much does, but very little news sources ever bring that up as they are often pro-Harris. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, we reflect the weight and focus of what reliable sources as a whole say. If you believe one particular source is biased and is being given too much weigh, that is something that can be discussed and corrected; but if you believe the media as a whole is biased, then Wikipedia is ultimately going to reflect that bias, because we're an encyclopedia (meaning we summarize the best available sources), rather than a publisher of original stuff. We're not the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in terms of "correcting" media bias or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 29 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)

@Renathrax: I'm personally biased here, but considering the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the several things he has said or done and the people he has associated himself with, I feel as if that's a fair statement coming from Harris. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with Harris, it's still very much fearmongering. Due to by personal preference for Harris than Trump, it's justified fearmongering to me, but fearmongering nonetheless. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That's true. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 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.[[3]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to find ways to improve the article by choosing one of several topics, including economic issues. For example, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry poses risks to both candidates in the US-China dominance race. [[4]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

But coverage of that aspect is marginal compared to what's already in the lead; trying to give additional weight to it in order to water down criticism of Trump (which is essentially the rationale you gave above) would be both WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you want to argue that the balance of the article is off, you need to demonstrate that there isn't that much criticism of Trump in mainstream coverage - ie. you have to argue that we're giving it undue weight relative to its prominence in sources. Do you believe that mainstream coverage is precisely balanced in how critical it is of the two candidates? Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it reflects not just the content but the weight of mainstream coverage; if coverage is overwhelmingly more concerned about one candidate than the other, then the weight of our articles are going to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

agree with Aquillion. Many of the stuff proposed is small potatoes. Harris has the advantage of running as a clean state having been the VP which is basically a ceremonial role. while Trump was president for 4 years. (did that really happen or was it a dream?) Andre🚐 19:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Many users have raised the issue of improving bias, such as recording positive and negative opinions about Harris, but in order to record them, users must agree on the relevant part, and I understand that it has not been recorded yet because there has been no agreement on this yet. Regarding the opinion that it was recorded biasedly about Trump, there is related content in the link below,

[[5]], so You can write a proposal to ask users for their opinions and reach an agreement by referring to the relevant part in the relevant section, which is a neutral improvement of biased content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:Billionten, regarding your previous suggestion, If time permits, please suggest how you can improve the original proposal you suggested. This talk subject, which is directly related to your request, was created early, but has not been resolved yet, so I think it should be resolved as soon as possible.

Your original proposal: 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 . 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. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Personisinsterest,Kafkasmurat , User:Catboy69,User:Earl of Arundel, User:PackMecEng,User:DuneEnjoyer333,GoodDay, HAL333,User:Billionten, User:Spf121188

As per the many users' oncerns and suggestions, Political POV was placed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Article shows signs of democratic bias

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

Regarding the picture or graph part you mentioned,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"there are many other sections for expressing this"

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

As in, we have to

Bias in lead once again

Trump vs. Harris details in the lead

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

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

Hello User:Turtletennisfogwheat, User:DuneEnjoyer333,

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

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

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

---

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

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

References

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 [[6]] Aljazeera [[7]]

[[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] 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)

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)

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,[15] 2020,[16] and 2016.[17]. 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

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? [[18]] [[19]], [[20]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Incorrect rendering; accessibility issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheney

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Here's the link to Reuters.[21] Doug Weller talk 15:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

Lead sentence wording discussion

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