Talk:2016 United States presidential election

This talk page contains a Request for Comment subpage regarding the remodeling of major party candidate areas. Please visit it here: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Remodeling_of_major_party_candidate_areas.

Appropriate Trump image

proposed image

current image

No offense, but the current image of Trump makes him look like a goofball. There seem to be a handful of individuals who disagree so I would like a consensus as to which image should be used for the candidate. The justification seems to be, "its the image used on Trump's own wikipedia page." However, the images used for Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton differ from their pages. Why can't Trump's? In looking at the pages for past elections, the images for the canidates of both major parties are far more respectable than the image currently in use for Trump. I suggest changing the image from goofball face to an image with a more "presidential" look. The proposed image is preferable but not perfect.Kingpin1000 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with the existing image, which makes him look attentive. I don't see where you are getting the "goofball" feeling. Also, Wikipedia isn't in the business of trying to make people look more presidential. Ideally, we want a clear image of his face, which this new image doesn't satisfy. --Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I support the status quo. It's the clearest picture we have of Trump's face, the other one looks a bit odd to me. --JackWilfred (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Between the 2 options, it's best to keep the current image. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I consulted world-famous portrait photographer Annie Shutterbug. Apparently anyone with an orange face and an orange-dyed comb-over looks like an orangutan goofball in any photograph—which explains why, for sheer goofballiness, there’s nothing to choose between these two shots. More to the point, which is the clearest image of the face? Obviously the current one. Writegeist (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Current image: you can not really see Trump's face in the proposed photo. We need a picture where the candidate is facing forwards so that his face is fully visible. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How about this image of The Donald? --Jerchel (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Kinda looks like he's trying to have a fart. I'd stick with the current image, even though the microphone is in it. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe also this one should be good; it has a better caption and it's without the microphone:

• 

What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the one Nick.mon proposed. You can clearly see his face and there's no microphone in the way. Plus, he isn't leaning (like in the current image) and he isn't making a weird face (like in the photo on the right). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree CCamp2013 (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The image you've proposed at 20:14 (May 7), should be added to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I like the Nick.mon image too. He's not wearing a flag pin, so obviously he hates America! Seriously though, it is a much better image that seems to capture his usual appearance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I also prefre the Nick.mon image. As others have said, no microphone in the way, and captures a more casual and neutral look than do the others.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Last election we used photos of the candidates speaking instead of formal portraits until the election was over. A couple of possibilities: one, two, three, four, five, six. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Was there a valid reason for why it was done in the past and why it should be done now..? I personally don't see the point of only using photos of the candidates speaking. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I prefer the image with the darker background and no flag pin (added by Jerchel). I certainly do not want to see the photoshopped image, which I would argue is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. (The microphone was artificially Photo-Shopped out, removing the original context of the subject's expression and posture. User Prcc27 says "he isn't leaning", but the reality is he *is* leaning, but the photo Prcc27 prefers was artificially spun to make it appear he isn't leaning, and since the reality is the opposite, now Trump's tie defies gravity -- "Isn't that special!" And how is a "more casual look" created by artificially modifying the photo from its natural environment & context, subtracting from it and spinning it?! [If you want natural, leave the original alone and stop trying to "improve" it.]) IHTS (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I propose we use the following image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed image.

I'm changing my preference to the one posted by William S. Saturn.--Rollins83 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The one William S. Saturn proposed looks good and clear. I'm okay with it being changed to that. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

He's looking directly at me now. I find that unnerving. I have to look away. Help! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Further cropping of Jerchel's image. IHTS (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I like William S. image too. Anyway I think that Trump's face look so big in this photo and maybe it should be better with a different zoom. I have uploaded another version on WikiCommons, tell me what do you think about; anyway as I've already said, I like William S. image too. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed image (2).

I prefer the zoomed out version. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Reminder for those who weren't there: the discussion on Trump's portrait was settled in March in an RfC with no less than 20 pictures to choose from, including the ones that are being floated here again. Let's stick to the previous results unless a vastly superior free image emerges. I would limit the discussion to opining for/against cropping and rotating, and for/against removing the microphone and white smudge in the background. The lapel pin on his costume is part of the candidate's chosen public appearance and therefore should not be retouched away. — JFG ^talk 20:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So why do you keep switching the long-standing Trump image with a Photo-Shop'd & rotated version? The Photo-Shop'd & rotated version that you keep slipping in to replace the long-standing image, was rejected in the archived Talk discussion you've referred to. IHTS (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This particular variant was not in the RfC, it was just suggested a few days ago by Nick.mon above and gathered immediate support from 5 editors, so I used it to replace yet another crop of the same picture which had been inserted earlier. And for the records I don't "keep switching", I just did it once, for consistency with other articles; I'm not particularly passionate about one or the other variant, although I do prefer Nick.mon's version. I'd be happy to participate in a new discussion about the picture, which as I mentioned above should be limited to choosing which variant of this image to use. — JFG ^talk 12:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. You've done it here at this article, here at article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, and here at the Donald Trump article, where you clearly expressed personal preference for the photoshopped image, contrary to consensus specifically rejecting the photoshopped image in Talk:Donald Trump archive, and contrary to an imbedded note informing not to change the image without prior discussion at Talk:Donald Trump. IHTS (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as JFG as said, I uploaded the image just few days ago and my version wasn't in the RfC. Anyway I agree with JFG and I think that we should start a new discussion about the two variants of the same picture. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's not even entertain the idea of a Photoshopped image. That is completely unacceptable. Cropping is okay, but messing around with rotations and airbrushing is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessy. Cropping is acceptable, but photoshopping is inauthentic.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, Trump always looks like a goofball. He can't help it. Seriously - he always looks either gormless or arrogant/superior/smug. I do think it's important to show the most impartial looking images as possible. I can see some sections of the media choosing scary or weird images of Trump (likewise for Sanders and Clinton, btw). That's not what an impartial encyclopaedia should do though. The photo currently in use seems to be a pretty decent one of the man.

As a side note, I personally think that the fact that he says goofball things constantly, kinda compounds the matter! ;) :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.20.56 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As a Trump supporter, I'd say the current picture is the best one available of Trump. He doesn't even look that bad. Besides, I've seen less flattering pictures of presidential candidates on Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarado98 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016 – 2nd

Please change:

Potential battleground states include Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Other potential Democratic targets include Nebraska's second congressional district, Missouri, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Meanwhile, Republicans may also target Maine's second congressional district, Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota, and New Jersey. Other states may also become competitive if the close races of 2016 differ from the close races of the 2012 election, or if 2016 becomes a landslide election. Both major parties might decide to target the home states of their nominees or that of their running mates if they are from a swing state or have high favorability in the state or region.

to:

Potential battleground states include Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Florida. Other potential Democratic targets include Nebraska's second congressional district, Missouri, Indiana, Montana, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Meanwhile, Republicans may also target Maine's second congressional district, Oregon, and New Mexico. Other states may also become competitive if the close races of 2016 differ from the close races of the 2012 election, or if 2016 becomes a landslide election. Both major parties might decide to target the home states of their nominees or that of their running mates if they are from a swing state or have high favorability levels in their respective states or regions.

Thank you!

References

24.246.89.125 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done – Pleasure!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  01:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian and Green Party

I think these two should be excluded from the box unless we have serious polling numbers above ten percent. --89.13.115.79 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Those two party tickets remain, because they're eligible to win at least 270 electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Johnson is polling at 11% according to certain polls. 2600:8805:3B05:6E00:4400:6084:5753:AFBC (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We already agreed that they should be included in the box because they have access to 270 electoral votes, atleast until the election. If they get less than 5% of the vote, they will be removed. Ghoul flesh (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, in 2012 for example there were multiple candidates that received had ballot access to over 270 electoral votes. We might not have to wait for the election. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that multiple candidates had ballot access to over 270 electoral votes? Because only one candidate actually received that number of electoral votes in the election.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, yes that is what I meant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that isn't the case so far for the 2016 election. The other third parties are only registered in less than 10 states. Like I said, we already agreed for them to be included in the infobox. Ghoul flesh (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough per your statement above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

They should be excluded -- this is a joke. They are not Ross Perot. As for the moment, they are fringe candidates. Should Johnson start polling at 15% and get into the debates? Yes. But not now. Archway (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

They absolutely must be kept. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and polls are showing strong support for both Stein and Johnson.--TM 11:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• There already is strong consensus to keep in the infobox all candidates who mathematically could become president, even if that eventuality is remote. Therefore, ballot access is the criterion for inclusion, not poll numbers. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Abjiklɐm correctly describes the current consensus. The "15% rule" is not Wikipedia's rule, and is the subject of a current lawsuit[1] by the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, alleging that the Federal Election Commission and the Commission on Presidential Debates have fostered a duopoly in American politics that has made it impossible for a third-party candidate to win the White House[2][3][4] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: How should we go about declaring a candidate the "presumptive nominee"?

There seems to be dispute among editors wether or not a given candidate is a "presumptive nominee." For example, a lot of editors think that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein should be considered the presumptive nominee of their party, others disagree. I think it would be helpful to reach a consensus on what makes someone a presumptive nominee.

First, I would like to point out what our article on presumptive nominees says: "a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee of his or her party when his or her last serious challenger drops out or when he or she mathematically clinches—whichever comes first." My interpretation of what this is saying would imply that, for someone to be the presumptive nominee, one of these two things must be:

1. He or she has no challenger from his/her same party that is featured in a major poll.
2. He/she has obtained 50% or more of his or her party's delegates.

The above seems pretty reasonable to me. However, some editors seem to think differently; they think that a major news agency has to announce him/her the presumptive nominee of their party before Wikipedia does. This disagreement could affect at what point in time should we call Hillary Clinton the presumptive Democratic nominee, or wether Jill Stein is currently the presumptive nominee for the Green Party.

I think it would be helpful for this election and future elections for Wikipedia to have a consensus on what makes a candidate the "presumptive nominee" of their party. --Proud User (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Johnson is the Libertarian presidential nominee, as he just got nominated (on the second ballot) today. The Green convention isn't until August & so far, Stein isn't certain of getting that party's presidential nomination, so we don't list her at all. Trump remains the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party, until he's actually nominated in July. Hillary Clinton is still being challenged by Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination & has yet to obtain a majority of the pledged delegates, so we don't list her either. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Hillary Clinton? we may have to go with the media's declaration. It appears as though Clinton won't be winning a majority of the pledged delegates, to the Democratic National Convention. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean one more month of TBA is not going to kill anyone. If we were going to go with the media's declaration Clinton should have been up there sometime around January. We need a flat rule for everyone and follow it. Can't be making exceptions for one candidate and not for others. --Majora (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless Sanders drops out before the convention in July? or Clinton 'somehow' get a majority of the pledged delegates? then we should stick with TBA. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In all cases, including the Democratic Party, shouldn't a candidate be declared presumptive nominee when they get 50% of all delegates, not just the pledged ones? That would be the strictest, most unambiguous definition of "mathematically clinches". Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 08:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton will likely need the super-delegates to put her over the top & we can't be totally certain that they'll continue to support her. Super-delegates aren't pledged to anyone. It's true that currently over 500 super-delegates have promised to support Clinton in July. But, they can always change their minds. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with GoodDay on this. Even now, when AP has claimed that she has clinched the nomination, she still does not have enough pledged delegates to ensure victory and will almost certainly not have enough before the convention. As such, it will be up to the superdelegates, who can decide at any time up to the vote at the convention. There is therefore no "presumptive nominee" by the standard that the candidate needs to have 50% of all delegates. Neoredpill (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that a nominee is presumptive when there is no reasonable possibility they could lose the nomination. If a floundering Cruz or Kasich were still actively in the race would Trump be the presumptive nominee? There might be more of a debate, in any case. But here since the unpledged delegates have not actually pledged, it would be premature to call a nominee. The fact that the Chris Matthews has indicated MSNBC and other media outlets may do so before polls close in California does not make it real. I think that until the convention there is no real presumptive nominee. Otherwise it's like taking that day's opinion polls and making the presumptive nominee whoever polls higher. It's obviously relevant who's higher in the count, but that's not the same thing as a presumptive nominee. In 1972, this https://www.uco.edu/la/political-science/files/gatch/George-McGoverns-Promissory-Note-optimized.pdf called McGovern the "front runner and presumptive nominee at the Democratic convention" and this would have been when he would have had both like 60% of the delegates and was in a race where the next runner up had like a third of that. So I actually think it might be unprecedented [to simply go with whoever has the higher unpledged count]; and the language like "presumptive nominee at the convention" suggests it might be appropriate to use that language if (as in 72) there were a far-and-away frontrunner [also in 72, I think everyone major except Wallace had dropped out prior to the Convention and Wallace wound up with only 382 delegates]. But that's dissimilar to the scenario in 2016 - where at least in theory neither candidate has that far-and-away lead, and - additionally - those superdelegates are not counted [and actually per DNC rules neither are pledged delegates] until cast on the floor of the convention. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:V. Wikipedia does not make the decision. It should be cited to sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This is correct. Note that primary sources (party X says candidate Y will be the nominee just as soon as they formalize it) are at least as good a secondary sources. Note also that weak second-order claims, such as that Y "will be the presumptive nominee" eventually, aren't sufficient - if those are allowed, the same portrait race will keep coming back to the article. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to count superdelegates that have publicly pledged their support in determining whether a candidate has a majority. Even if no candidate gets a majority from pledged delegates, it's likely that public support from superdelegates would put one over the threshold around when the elections end in early June, meaning we wouldn't have to wait until the convention if the result is already clear. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Support the OP's position and criteria. Strictly speaking, the nominee is elected at the convention, not earlier. To call somebody the presumptive nominee, we need to show that barring exceptional events this person will be elected nominee at their party's convention. Self-predictions, media calls, polls and endorsements should be simply ignored. In this particular election year, Trump was not called presumptive nominee until all his opponents dropped out (more precisely when the last opponent who had a remote chance to deny him the absolute majority at the convention abandoned the race). On the Democratic side, we are still far away from making such a conclusion. Because superdelegates represent 15% of the total convention votes, they actually make it quasi impossible for either candidate to gain an absolute majority before the convention day. After the June 7 primaries, we should call Clinton the presumptive nominee only if either she gets an absolute majority with pledged delegates only or if Sanders concedes the race. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why people think that a candidate gaining the majority of pledged delegates would make them a presumptive nominee? If Sanders concedes, my understanding is that DNC rules don't really allow for a replacement aside from surprise stuff like brokered conventions (? - I guess the prospective nominee may still have had to previously been a candidate; I'm not sure). So since that looms regardless, presumably wouldn't a presumptive nominee be one that no longer has rivals (and thus is winning by default) or who has clinched the pledged delegate number. Doesn't winning a majority just imply, absent concession, a contested convention? Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Msheflin: I'm not sure I fully understand what you are asking, but I'll try answering anyway. In both major parties (and probably in alternative parties as well, although I am not well-informed on their policies), the nominee is by definition the candidate who receives an absolute majority of delegate votes at the convention. A candidate is called the presumptive nominee if their vote count is settled before the convention, so that barring exceptional events (death, incapacitation, insurgency, <fill in your preferred disruptive scenario here>) he/she is certain to obtain the necessary majority. Trump reached this stage twice: first on May 4th when his last opponent dropped out, second a few days ago when he accumulated more than 1237 pledged delegates. On the Democratic side, none of the two remaining candidates has reached a majority yet. Even if Ms. Clinton gets a majority of pledged delegates in the upcoming primaries, it is still possible that she wouldn't have an absolute majority of convention votes just with pledged delegates; so calling her presumptive nominee at that stage would not be technically correct. As you point out, many people, including reputable media sources, jump to a conclusion that she would be the inevitable nominee because of the overwhelming support she enjoys from the party's unpledged "super"delegates. However, by the party rules themselves, the nomination happens at the convention and superdelegates may vote either way in order to choose the "best-suited" candidate to face off the Republican nominee in the general election (this was the whole purpose of superdelegates). So my analysis is that unless Sanders drops out in June, Clinton can only be called presumptive nominee if her pledged votes go above the absolute majority of all delegates, not only the majority of pledged delegates. The world will find out soon enough... To your other question, if Mr. Sanders concedes, it's over; if he doesn't, then he would be forcing a contested convention, again by definition, where two candidates come into the convention with a sizable chunk of pledged delegates (e.g. 45% and 40% of the total), and the nomination will be decided by superdelegate votes (15% of the total). — JFG ^talk 07:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah we're mostly in agreement. You'd previously said "absolute majority with pledged delegates." But I didn't realize (which makes sense) that the 2,383 number is actually just 50% of the total delegates. The logical problem, though is that even if she gets the majority of total delegates (i.e. > 2383) it wouldn't be a presumptive nomination until the Convention if it included superdelegates. In other words, I think either way, Sanders would have to drop out or she'd have to get >= 2,383 pledged delegates prior to the convention. Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with GoodDay's position completely. Superdelegates are not secured until they vote at the convention, no matter what anyone in the media says. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we just use what the sources say instead of inventing our own criteria? HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a quandary for you: What if reliable sources that define what 'presumptive' means are contradicted by the declaration of 'presumptive' by some media outlets? What do we do with that? What if Sanders doesn't concede? What if superdelegates are not secured until they vote at the convention? What if a media outlet saying a superdelegate is "secured" is merely their opinion? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We can presume that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee barring some catastrophic event, making her the presumptive nominee. Otherwise there can almost never be a presumptive democratic nominee, because it is very difficult to clinch the nomination with pledge delegates alone.

Ballot access and the top row of the infobox

In 2012, there was consensus that the Libertarian candidate should not be listed in the top row because they did not have ballot access in all 51 jurisdictions. This time around, it's being widely reported that the Libertarians will in fact have complete ballot access, so we should figure out the implications for the infobox sooner rather than later. Relevant (brief) discussions of the consensus as it existed in 2012 are here and here. It seems there was some support for including a third party in the top row if they got complete ballot access, but not enough people were involved in the discussion for there to be a judgement of consensus either way.

This is moot right now as we have only four candidates in the infobox, and having three in the first row and one in the second would be aesthetically displeasing. However, it's very possible that there will be more candidates added in the future: the Consitution Party may qualify, like they did last cycle; the "Stop Trump" candidacy may turn out to not be vaporware; or another third party may reach majority ballot access, as was the case with the Justice Party and Americans Elect last time. So the outcome of this discussion is contingent upon there being at least five parties in the infobox in the future.

In general, we have preferred objective, verifiable criteria such as ballot access rather than polls, which require interpretation, or inclusion in debates, which is subject to the whims of the two major parties. I would like to gauge consensus for the statement below. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A party should be included in the infobox top row if it has complete ballot access, as long as there are five or more candidates in the infobox.

• Support subject to an absolute requirement for good aesthetics in the single most visible part of the article. In my opinion it's more of a toss-up than the media is implying whether the LP will get nationwide ballot access; the currently have it in 32 states plus DC, and in at least two (Maine and Ohio) they can only gain access by way of a lawsuit. It's also not clear to anyone whether the Constitution Party will get access to 270 votes. In any case, I endorse displaying all parties with access to 270 electoral votes, and endorse displaying the two major parties most prominently. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should verify the ballot access ourselves, since news outlets are often sloppy on this kind of reporting. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no reason for it. There is little evidence that a third party is going to play a significant role in this election. Ballot access doesn't imply they'll have some sort of success, which will be a requirement after the election. Meanwhile, poll numbers do, even though they can be mistaken at the end. --yeah_93 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Poll results are the wrong way to do it. Leave aside all the other problems, it could require tweaking the infobox every time a new poll was released. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That argument just reflects the kind of success that can be expected of third parties in this election. --yeah_93 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support The two leading criteria are ballot access and being a major party. However, major party status is essentially based on past success in elections, with the implication that only they will have success in the future, which is a subtle case of WP:CRYSTAL. Ballot access is purely objective, so I would lean that way at the moment. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's a violation of WP:Crystal if we put the libertarians on the top row. We are presuming they will be a significant impact in the presidential election, the only evidence we have is some polls which prompted Gary Johnson giving him a high level of support, though the same happened for Deez Nuts in Ohio, so should we include him in the info box? No votes have been cast yet, and even if Gary Johnson takes the lead in the polls I oppose moving him. The info box order should be based on the previous presidential election, and then after the election it should be re-arranged if necessary. Jzema (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• There's only one row The four candidates that are there now are likely the only one's who will qualify for infobox placement. Many other election articles place four candidates in one row, so there is no issue -- just put them in order left-to-right. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The template only accepts up to three candidates per row. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - we should limit the rows to 2 nominees each so that the intro to the article, doesn't get narrowed to the point that it's difficult to read. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We should show 2 or 3 candidates per row depending on the total number of candidates in the infobox. It's best not to leave a row with only a single candidate. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If we go with 3 in the top row, the images will have to be reduced in size so that the box itself isn't made too wide. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just like it's been done in the past (e.g. 1980, 1996, etc.). Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

POV issues in "Debate lawsuit" section

#Debate lawsuit has some biased wording.

For one, it makes it sound like the "corruption of the Commission on Presidential debates" is a given, rather than an allegation by the plaintiffs, and the phrase "denying the vast majority of the claims made without proving their lack of validity" is suspect. Was their validity the issue in question? Does their lack of validity have to be proven?

It would also be nice to have more secondary sources to help contextualize the situation, as most of the current citations are to court documents, which are a) difficult to understand out of context and b) are focused on law, rather than politics.

Also, I think we need an explanation of why Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are relevant to the suit. Currently they're just mentioned offhand in the article as if the reader would already know. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this whole section is very bad. In addition to the points mentioned here, I have to point out that one of these lawsuits is ritually filed in every election cycle since Ross Perot managed to get included in the debates and then wasn't the next time around. None of them has gone anywhere and this one likely won't either. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and would further argue that that is WP:UNDUE for this article and should be moved, after editing to fix the aforementioned problems, to Commission on Presidential Debates or to when it is created as a separate article (it is currently a redirect to this article).--Rollins83 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the additional feedback; I wasn't aware that this was a regular occurrence, and in my opinion that makes it even less notable. Unless there are any objections I plan to remove the section entirely in the next few days. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the section is given undue weight on this page. It would be better placed in United States presidential election debates, 2016 when it becomes a standalone article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that it should be improved, not deleted. The "this is a regular occurrence, and that makes it even less notable" view is especially weak. Many issues (slavery, gay marriage, abortion, gun control) have had multiple lawsuits attempting to right what some see as an injustice while others see the current laws as being fine as they are. Not winning the fight the first time doesn't make the fight any less notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If you or anyone else can write a better version of the section and demonstrate why the lawsuit is notable enough to be included in this article, please do. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Order of the list of candidates in the infobox

What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope: U.S. Presidential (general) Elections

(Publicized at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums, Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom, Talk:Australian_federal_election,_2016, Talk:Icelandic_presidential_election,_2016, Talk:National_electoral_calendar_2016, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics)

Background: Broad consensus has been reached as to which candidates are included in the infobox in presidential elections, however, despite much discussion on the issue, there has never been a firm consensus as to how they are ordered. Previous suggestions include alphabetically, an aesthetic criterion, by ballot access, by poll results, or some other order. Summary of advantages/disadvantages:

Aesthetically - Advantages: Looks nice, graphic quality. Disadvantages: Imprecise, more subjective.

Alphabetically - Advantages: Fair, simple, precise and unambiguous. Disadvantages: Doesn't give extra weight to potentially stronger candidates.

Ballot access - Advantages: Gives extra weight to potentially stronger candidates. Disadvantages: Perception of bias toward established parties, the order changes as ballot access changes.

Poll results - Advantages: Provides a rough indication of candidate's popular support. Disadvantages: The actual election is not based on popular support, polls are unreliable, subject to bias and constantly changing.

Other criterion? Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• Alphabetically - This method is precise and fair, and once settled on, it avoids all future arguments among editors as to which candidates/parties should get "extra weight" in the infoboxes. The order doesn't constantly change based on external factors which are sometimes ambiguous and potential biased. This also more closely follows WP guidelines on the order of lists. Regarding WP:Weight, all of the candidates in the infobox have achieved a threshold that separates them from the hundreds of others who are unlikely to be elected. The difference in elect-ability between a candidate that has 50-state ballot access and one who has 47-state access is inconsequential. Although two parties have dominated U.S. politics for some time, this can change (and historically has changed). Differences between the candidates who have made the cut and appear in the infobox are best handled within the body of the article where the subtleties of weight can be better addressed. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• What is the scope of this RFC? It's phrased and advertised as if it's relevant to all elections, but the argument and forum suggests that it's relevance is limited to US presidential elections. The scope needs to be clarified before continuing. Rami R 12:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've clarified in the proposal that the scope is for U.S. presidential (general) elections. Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: do you mean future/on-going presidential elections, or all presidential elections? Ebonelm (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is for this article (United_States_presidential_election, 2016). If it results in a firm consensus with a clear standard, then the consensus could be relied upon for 2020, 2024... Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that this covers the pre-election time period. I believe that there already is a consensus to sort the candidates by actual electoral votes received post-election. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Is this meant to address the same issue currently discussed in #Ballot access and the infobox above? If so, will you add a comment there to avoid splitting discussion? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • They overlap but are not precisely the same. This RfC is about ordering the candidates, that one is about how to break that order up into rows. (I encourage everyone here to participate in that discussion as well.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Tradition – US elections have essentially been a two-party system for more than a century, so the first row should reflect this reality, otherwise many readers would be confused. Second-row candidates and beyond can be listed alphabetically. For the ordering of the first row, tradition places the incumbent party on the left and the challenging party on the right, i.e. no change from today's placement. — JFG ^talk 19:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Tradition - I see no reason to change a long standing practice done in books, and encyclopedias alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Tradition/keep prior consensus The candidates were consistently sorted by ballot access throughout 2012, with the incumbent party in the first spot. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some newer !votes support using past electoral results to determine the order. This carries an implication that only parties with prior success will have success in the future, which is a subtle case of WP:CRYSTAL. Ballot access is purely objective and reflects a current rather than past situation. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The implication is what you make of it. It is certainly not WP:CRYSTAL since we're not adding any further information. You'll agree that we must find an order, and any order will carry some perceived bias. How exactly do you suggest to order parties with equal ballot access? There are two issues here: inclusion and order. I agree that ballot access should be the criteria for incusion. However, for ordering the candidate, this page should use the same method used on all election articles across WP: previous election results. Ballot access is not precise enough, polls are too volatile, and alphabetical gives undue weight to any minor party whose name startswith A. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Tradition - If we are going to include 3rd Party candidates in the infobox, let's not pretend they are as important as the two major parties. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• We need to summarize in the same way as reliable sources. At the moment, they describe this election in a 2+1+1+others way, so Dem/Rep on first line, Lib/Green on second, and lets see if any others get ballot access. Revisit if a 3rd party rises sufficiently to get access to debates (15% in polls). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• My default position for an upcoming election is to list candidates in order of how well they did last time: that's the usual approach on most election articles and seems sensible. If reliable sources/polls are consistently showing something else, then I would switch to that (recognising that "consistently" can be difficult to define). Were we to get to a point where, say, Stein was consistently being talked about as having a serious chance of winning, but Johnson was being ignored by RS as an irrelevance, then I think the infobox should reflect that. (I do not believe that outcome will happen.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think that Bondegezou's suggestion (ordered by votes in previous general election) is a good one. In general I would favour some sort of simple, objective criterion; it will hopefully minimize both arguing about the order and about whether wikipedia is taking/should take a political POV. Second preference would be for alphabetical order (though probably it should be clarified whether you mean alphabetical by party name or by candidates name, and if the latter what you intend to do whilst two of the candidates are still unconfirmed).Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Tradition - The Democrats & Republicans should get the top row. A third & fourth party can be added to the top line if they win any electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Previous result is, I believe, the only method that is impartial, non-arbitrary and rooted in actual facts. It settles the issue once and for all and it has the advantage of mirroring the order used for other election articles (e.g. Canadian federal elections). Specifically, I would order the candidates by their parties' electoral votes in the last election. The tie-breaker would be the popular vote in the previous election. As a second (unlikely) tie-breaker--for example if two brand new parties qualify--we can go alphabetically, either by party or by candidate's last name, or ballot access, whichever the community prefers.

In short I suggest we order the parties according to:

1. Party's electoral vote in the last election
2. Party's popular vote in the last election
3. Party's ballot access in the current election
4. Alphabetically by party's short name

Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If no consensus can be reached regarding using alphabetical order, then previous results is preferable to just arbitrarily selecting the Democrats and Republicans to always go first. I'd suggest always putting the incumbent first because sometimes the incumbent will not have the most electoral votes (or no votes, e.g., Ford) or a candidate could switch parties while in office. Then sort the remaining candidates by the candidates'/parties' previous electoral votes, treating "independent" like a party. If there is more than one independent in the infobox, then sort them alphabetically in place. I agree that popular vote could be used as a tie-breaker. Also, I think that the incumbent should be indicated as "incumbent" or "incumbent party" and the previous vote totals shown in the infobox so the sorting order is explicit. If an election was settled in the House then also include those votes in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the incumbent candidate or their party should be put first. I think adding other info like incumbency and previous results is too much. Th infobox is cluttered enough as it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, including previous total electoral votes prior to the election is less information than is included after the election. Also, including the word "incumbent" is no more than including the word "presumptive", which is currently there for two of the candidates. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to include that information even after the election. I'm not against including it until Election Day. However, I still think writing "incumbent" is not needed. That information is included on the infobox's bottom left corner already. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Rank by electoral college votes in the previous election or, if did not earn an electoral college vote in the previous election, by rank in polls or (if no polls) ballot access.--Proud User (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, if we had stuck with my original idea of not putting any prez or vice prez nominees in the infobox, until after the presidential election results? There'd be no disputing over order of candidates, who to include, when to include etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Traditional Images are sorted by previous electoral college results. No mess. Easy to follow. Less drama if we stick with what we know works. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What if the sitting president (or their party) did not receive the most electoral votes in the previous election? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: I think you confused electoral college votes with the popular vote. While the winner of the popular vote has not become president four times (most recently in 2000), the candidate who receives the most electoral college votes becomes the President 99.9% of the time. The only time this could not occur is if nobody receives a majority. Then Congress picks and could, in theory, pick someone else. This has not happened since 1824 and is unlikely to happen again. If and when that occurs then we can come up with a different consensus. Until then, we go by the last electoral college results. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the cases in which the House decides, or a president switches parties mid-term, or when a president is not elected at all, e.g., Ford. The possibility of no majority is actually pretty high this year, in fact, one possible strategy being discussed for an alternate candidate is to appear on the ballot in a few key states in order to deny a majority and then win in the House. If the list of candidates is not sorted alphabetically, then I think the incumbent should be first, and the rest sorted by electoral votes (or votes in the House if the election is decided that way.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Cruz, Kasich etc... "suspend" campaigns or ended them?

Is this some quirk of US-English that they state candidates have "suspended" their campaigns, or have they literally put their campaigns 'on hold'?

I'm confused by the whole US electoral process! Here is the definition of the word 'suspend', from Merriam-Webster:

transitive verb

• 1: to debar temporarily especially from a privilege, office, or function <suspend a student from school>
• 2
  • a : to cause to stop temporarily <suspend bus service>
  • b : to set aside or make temporarily inoperative <suspend the rules>
• 3: to defer to a later time on specified conditions <suspend sentence>
• 4: to hold in an undetermined or undecided state awaiting further information <suspend judgment> <suspend disbelief>

intransitive verb

• 1: to cease operation temporarily

Is the implication therefore, that each of the candidates are likely to resume their campaigns? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a legal technicality. By "suspending" their campaign rather than terminating them, they're still allowed to fundraise so they can pay off their debts. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that succinct and helpful answer, Muboshgu! :) Do you think this is something we should explain in the article? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I added a footnote with User:Muboshgu's explanation; it would need a proper source, though. — JFG ^talk 07:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There's this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That article actually says that candidates are legally allowed to continue fundraising or get back in the race regardless of what wording they use to end their campaigns. According to the article, they suspend their campaigns because it's politically easier to continue fundraising or jump back in the race should the opportunity present itself. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Reading the above comments, one could come to the conclusion that the U.S. has had an exclusively two-party system in which its dominance rendered any third party involvement insignificant, for over a century. That notion does not actually reflect reality. In 1912, for instance, the candidacy of the ex-president, Theodore Roosevelt, was rejected by the Republican party establishment. In response, he rapidly formed a third party, the Bull Moose or Progressive Party. It was denied access to the ballot in some states by his former party, but won Utah, for instance. The incumbent president, William Howard Taft, generally did awfully. The ultimate beneficiary of that division was Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Even the major U.S. socialist party presidential candidate, had some influence. That was in no small part a consequence the effect of the loss of labor votes from workers particularly in the timber and mining industries, drawn away from the dominant parties in the western U.S. In Florida, for instance, Socialist Eugene V. Debs beat both Taft and Roosevelt, gathering almost a million votes, eight years prior to women gaining the nationwide electoral franchise by virtue of the passage and ratification of 19th Amendment. More recently, in 1992, the largely self-financed candidacy of Ross Perot had an effect on the outcome, despite the lack of a party apparatus. His Reform Party siphoned enough disaffected votes from the candidacy of the Republican incumbent, George H.W. Bush, to result in the narrow election of Bill Clinton. In 2000, ballots cast for a third party candidate, Ralph Nader, running under the Green Party banner, were seen to have an effect on the national outcome, though it was more likely decided by the deliberate disenfranchisement of an estimated 50,000, mostly minority Florida voters, by an organized but obscure voter caging initiative led by Republican Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. Activist (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the Reform Party didn't exist in 1992. Perot ran as an independent. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Thank you. Activist (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with this discussion? Zeldafanjtl (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the comment above has nothing to do with this discussion and violates WP:NOTAFORUM. But since the comment above was made, I will note that the majority opinion is that the U.S. has a two-party system, both historically and present-day. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposing a new infobox image for Trump

I think this is the best image to use.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogomaniac (talk • contribs)

We just had an RFC on this.--TMCk (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding Clinton to the Infobox tomorrow

Are we going to wait till Sanders drops out? Or shall we add her when/if the news organisations declare her the presumptive nominee? Jzema 15:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We should go by what the reliable sources say. However, we must make sure not to misinterpret what the sources say. "Probable" or "presumed" nominee is not the same as "presumptive" nominee. Only the latter should be reported. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

See Rfc above, concerning when to declare someone a presumptive nominee. IMHO, we should go with the news organisations declarations. Unless Sanders can convince enough super-delegates to vote for him at the Convention? Clinton will be the Democrats presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Associated Press just called the race for Hillary. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait until after the many primaries, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Partially agreed, tentatively as the story breaks. If it seems to be irrefutable throughout the next 18-24 hours, I don't think it would be beyond standards to declare her the presumptive nominee before tomorrow night.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What the heck, go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed here, it would also be WP:CRYSTAL to say that the super-delegates are going to change their course. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Now the editor disputes will begin over who goes on the left side, Clinton or Trump ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton presumptive?

I added the following text to the article, but then saw the notice at the top of this talk page specifying that potentially contentious edits should be discussed first. My apologies for not having noticed this earlier. I'll return the sentence to the previous text for now, pending the results of discussion here. Should we go ahead and include the text below?

He is expected to face [[Hillary Clinton]], the [[Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016|presumptive presidential nominee]] of the Democratic Party in the general election.<ref>{{cite news|title=Clinton 'wins Democratic nomination'|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36466228|work=[[BBC]]|date= June 6, 2016|accessdate=June 6, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|first1=Abby|last1=Phillip|first2=Robert|last2=Costa|first3=John|last3=Wagner|title=AP: Clinton clinches the nomination, becoming first woman to top a major party ticket|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-long-and-bitter-democratic-nomination-is-finally-near-its-end/2016/06/06/3417b264-2bfd-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_democrats705p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory|work=[[Washington Post]]|date= June 6, 2016|accessdate=June 6, 2016}}</ref>

Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

She'll be the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, until she's actually nominated at the Democratic National Convention in July. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

She IS NOT THE PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE!!! The SuperDelegates do NOT vote until July and the DNC has said they should NOT be counted in the totals. Also It doesnt matter that AP has called it for Clinton. The DNC has said that it is not final when included the SuperDelegates until the July Convention. I am requesting that it be reverted to Unknown until either candidate has the majority based on pledged delegates or until the Convention in July B787 300 (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please look up the definition of "presumptive". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I know the definition of presumptive thank you very much. The AP should not have called it bases on the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE's wishes. But they did. It is a disservice to those that vote tomorrow and beyond that this page shows Hilary without Bernie as NEITHER OF THEM HAVE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PLEDGED DELEGATES! Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial adding Hillary in now is not impartial B787 300 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You should take your complaints to AP then not us, we only follow what reliable sources are telling us. If the math is there it would be wrong to not go by it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, we're not the one making the news here, it is from AP, a reliable source. Shall I say it is more reliable than leaning news outlets like FOX News and CNN?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 14:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say, and right now they say she's the presumptive nominee. Interpreting past DNC declarations would be WP:SYNTH. Unless the DNC explicitly refutes the announcement of Clinton as presumptive nominee (I think that would count as a more reliable source than the media) we should follow the media announcement. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: actually, I think the media is probably a more reliable source than the DNC, particularly if it is unanimous in what it is saying. The DNC is I think a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, while the media constitutes secondary sources, and it's the latter that WP considers most reliable.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used when they are relevant and when we use common sense. Given that the DNC organizes the primary process, I think it is clear that they are a reliable source when it comes to describing the process. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, no sources are saying that she IS the nominee, the same goes for Donald Trump. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

They are not saying they are the nominee, they are however saying that they are the presumptive nominee, which is what counts here and is what they are labeled as. Ergzay (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

ah but this also would fall under WP:CRYSTAL as there are still many many votes left open and still two candidates. This is using media confirmations to predict the election when it is no where close to being over. Also as to what Abjiklɐm said it is not WP:SYNTH as they clearly said it in the past and have reiterated the point many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B787 300 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Again she isn't the nominee, the math as it stands adds to a Clinton win though. The media has called it as such, so that is what we are going by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

But by saying she is and not giving equal space, you are influencing the election (as many people would check wikipedia first for information). I happen to agree that the math isn't there for Sanders to win without Super Delegates switching (which at this point is very much WP:CRYSTAL) I just think that the presumptive should be left blank until the DNC makes an official call on the matter. -B787 300 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I would've rather waited until after the primaries tomorrow, to list Clinton as the Dems presumptive prez nominee. But, it's only a matters of hours before she get the majority of delegates/super-delegates & the other news organizations start declaring her as well. If Sanders somehow manages to persuade enough super-delegates to back him? then we can always replace Clinton in the infobox, with him. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'm glad to see I wasn't wrong to mention Clinton as the Democrats' presumptive nominee. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I support counting superdelegates who have pledged support for a specific candidate. That being said, my preference would have been to wait until after tomorrow's elections being that they're only a day away. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton is only presumptive once she has locked up over half of delegates in pledged delegates as superdelegates don't vote until the convention. Therefore, she's not presumptive at this point. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree; editors are really jumping the gun with this one. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In a few hours, the DNC chairwoman & many media organizations will be declaring her the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, in the same manner that the RNC chairman & many media organizations declared Trump the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, on May 3. Therefore, Clinton should be added into the infobox. We can always replace her with Sanders, if he persuades enough super-delegates to back him & the media sources report it as such. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You may well be correct, even if Sanders wins California and refuses to concede based on Clinton not having enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. If most/all the "reliable" media organizations are saying that, we kind of have to acquiesce to that, per our policies, even if the media organizations are telling a lie. Of course, we could also add reliably sourced info on what 'presumptive' actually means and has historically meant to balance out that lie. I imagine there will be scattered reliable reports or noteworthy essays on that point in short order. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You know the rules. The sources is NOT a tabloid journalism. And it IS reliable. If you suggesting that the media organization s are telling a lie, then what is the use of 'citations' here in Wikipedia? We can go through like our fellow Uncyclopedia if that happen. So I suggest, that you should create a page explaining your problems with the media establishments.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 14:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I sure do know them. And there are reliable sources showing 1) the DNC has instructed the media to not count superdelegates until they vote at the convention; 2) Sanders disputing the 'presumptive' label. We have to look at this from a whole perspective, not a selective one. It is in dispute at this point. Maybe not later today, or soon, but as of now, it is. And telling me what I should do external to this matter is not your concern. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You have a proof to that? Then write about that! Write the whole thing. From the AP declaring Clinton a nominee, until your DNC and Sanders viewpoint! But don't ever judge if a media is telling a lie or not! Who are you? A Judge? This is where Wikipedia is impartial. We don't JUDGE.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, showing Clinton as 'presumptive' at this point is acquiescing to a corporate media lie, which is one of the downsides of Wikipedia, wherein we are to trust the 'reliable' corporate media even when it's not telling the truth. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

When more media organizations & the DNC chairwoman declare her the presumptive prez nominee, your continued reverting will become less acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)are no judge. W

First, I haven't done "continued reverting", I've done only one. On your point, though, you may be right, even if actual facts don't match up to what the media organizations are saying and if Sanders refuses to concede based on superdelegates not being official until the convention. Wikipedia is a kind of slave to these "reliable" media organizations that are highly biased in corporate and political matters. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, changes have also been made at Hillary Clinton & 2016 Democratic National Convention, showing Clinton as the Democrats presumptive presidential nominee. The inertia is to describe her as such. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, but I hope we don't make editorial decisions in the Wikipedia based on inertia. I would hope it would be based on a balance of reliably sourced facts. It might help if someone could find some reliably sourced definitions for 'presumptive' in this matter and then see if the media organizations' proclamations match up. If they don't, as encyclopedists we should be concerned about that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You'll note in the Rfc on this article concerning presumptive, I favour keeping Clinton out of the infobox until Sanders drops out, because she needs the super-delegates to put her over the top. But, I also know when to 'throw in the towel' & these incoming sources (which now includes CNN) are making it more difficult to prevent showing Clinton's changed status. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the RfC. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

'On Monday, Hillary Clinton gathered commitments from enough delegates to become the presumptive presidential nominee for the Democratic party, according to The Associated Press' http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-race.html?_r=0 End of the debate, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.94.139 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagreed that the debate is over. This is one corporate media source reporting against the facts. Clinton has not clinched the nomination in pledged delegates. Superdelegates do not vote until the convention, and Sanders appears to be likely not to concede based on that. We should at least wait until later today to see if more than just the AP is willing to state this effective lie. Then I think we will have to acquiesce. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

CNN has reported Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders communications director Michael Briggs issued a statement on this yesterday:

"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgement, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer. Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race."

The above statement was widely reported by reliable sources, So right now, the sources say that the "presumptive nominee" claim is disputed. Perhaps after the polls close in California `the sources will agree one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears as though the Democratic National Committee, is on the verge of contradicting their own previous statement. Jeepers, what a mess. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it based on the AP call or is it CNN's call? A link would be helpful here. Also, I've noticed that many have called CNN the "Clinton News Network" in this campaign due to their heavy bias in Clinton's favor during much of the primary process. I would like to see a preponderance of media calls independent of each other, and not just relying on AP. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's CNN's source. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Note that they are at least honest when they say "according to CNN's delegate and superdelegate count". The report also talks about "securing" superdelegates -- this is CNN's opinion that they are secured. We don't know what's going to happen between now and the convention, and superdelegates can change their mind. Of course, based on your RfC position above, I think you know what I'm talking about.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/06/06/481020591/why-hillary-clinton-will-be-called-the-presumptive-nominee), Boston Globe (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/07/why-clinton-becoming-presumptive-nominee-isn-welcome-news-for-either-camp/UjAmEjtVDbQSkfAXd7uxZM/story.html), CTV (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/history-in-hand-hillary-clinton-faces-voters-as-presumptive-nominee-1.2934265) calling her the presumptive nominee. Accusations of 'corporate media lies' belong on conspiracy websites, not Wikipedia. The Democratic Party nomination process includes superdelegates, whether you like it or not, and enough of them have voiced they would vote for Clinton so that her total reaches 2383. It's not Wiki's job to pretend they don't exist to fit a narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.94.139 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2016‎

It is an effective lie because the definition of 'presumptive' doesn't match up to the claim (superdelegates are not secured until the convention) and it's in dispute at this point, including by the Sanders campaign, which has not conceded yet. Beyond that, anyone who doesn't think the corporate media has particular biases and tells half-truths and lies to bolster these biases isn't a fully aware human being. There's no conspiracy -- it's in full view. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You're soapboxing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.94.139 (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of waiting until the pledged delegates are in later today or early tomorrow I don't see the need to rush listing her as 'presumptive'. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Only in the "Beyond that" portion. The first part is a statement of fact. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Associated Press is, along with the other networks confirming their call yesterday, are reputable media outlets. There is no "corporate media lie" going on here. There is simple fact. Anything else is superfluous speculation which is far below the objective standard of encyclopedic content. As it stands, Clinton has received the clear majority of votes, the clear plurality of pledged delegates, a majority of the states, and the overwhelming majority of superdelegates. Each of these together are sufficient, along with the reporting by the AP, to establish Clinton as the presumptive nominee. Sanders has won fewer states, far fewer votes (only 42%) and fewer pledged delegates. The idea that she cannot be called the presumptive nominee, by an encyclopedic standard, does not pass the simple common-sense test and wanders into the realm of opinion and bias.   Spartan7W §   13:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

1) Sanders has not conceded; 2) Superdelegates are not secured until they vote at the convention; 3) Any media outlet saying a superdelegate is secured today is stating an opinion, not a fact. 4) No candidate has achieved a majority with secured pledged delegates at this point. Whether the media is intentionally lying or not isn't the point, but they are telling an effective lie because the definition of 'presumptive' is not met as of now. What if reliable sources defining 'presumptive' don't match up with media declarations? Isn't that at least a quandary? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, the popular votes statement is bogus as it doesn't include direct votes at a number of caucuses. Without those, one doesn't know the true proportions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry man but you're just pushing an agenda. Clinton has enough pledged delegates and superdelegate support to get over half of the available delegates. This alone makes her the presumptive nominee. Will you make the case that she's not the presumptive nominee once the voting is done tonight because the supers don't vote until July? I highly doubt it. So quit your soapboxing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

My agenda is as an encyclopedist wanting an encyclopedia to stick to the facts. See the "Key quote" below from a reliable source. The DNC is saying NOT to count superdelegates. Now, if Clinton gets a majority in pledged delegates after today, you will have a point. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The DNC will count the superdelegates at the convention, so your point is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it is obviously not moot. The DNC itself is saying to the media to not count them at this point. They are not secured until they vote, as they are free to change their minds between now and the convention. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Again not Wiki's job to report the narrative the DNC is feeding the media. It's Wiki's job to report the facts, and the facts are that she has over 2383 delegates (majority) and the supers will be counted in that vote. That the DNC is trying to establish outside of its own rules when their support matters or not is not something this site should feed into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a CBC source, about Sanders rejection of multiple medias declaring Clinton the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Key quote: "For that reason, the Democratic National Committee has echoed the Sanders campaign, saying the superdelegates should not be counted until they vote at the convention in Philadelphia." Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote statement is not bogus. She has won 1812 bound delegates out of the 3337 so far allocated. Simple division comes out to 54.3% of delegates in a primary scheme which allocates delegates in a proportional manner. Was Mitt Romney not the presumptive nominee at this point in 2012 even though Ron Paul did not concede until the convention ended? Of course not. The mere existence of an opponent does not negate the facts. The AP has reported that Clinton has a sufficient delegate count to be the presumptive nominee, she is at 2,383 out of 2,383. It is not up to you to use your own personal opinion ripped right out of the Sanders campaign playbook to challenge simple reporting. The fact is all these superdelegates have endorsed and pledged themselves to her. She has clearly won a majority of votes cast, between 54-55% of them. Bernie Sanders is not even close to this number. She has won a clear majority of pledged delegates so far cast. Unlike 2008 when Clinton received a plurality of the popular vote and lost the nomination, she has won a clear and decisive majority of the votes thus far cast. The idea that the superdelegates will all turn around and elect a candidate who has won fewer states, fewer pledged delegates, and nearly 13 points fewer popular votes is preposterous. It is your opinion and the same opinion that the Sanders campaign has when it clearly has an agenda to continue to the convention. If she's indicted and they go to Sanders, a potential outcome in this scenario, then she ceases to be the presumptive nominee obviously. But she is the presumptive nominee because she has the simple majority of delegates needed to clinch. Even if Sanders' rule change to bind superdelegates to their jurisdiction outcome happens, she still wins. Stop passing off the Sanders campaign playbook as encyclopedic fact.   Spartan7W §   14:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

See Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 where it states in a note about the popular votes count: "Does not include popular vote totals from Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Washington, Wyoming, or non-binding primaries". If that doesn't show the popular vote proportions is bogus, I don't know what will. As for the rest of your reply, I'll just say I will stand behind my previous statements. I don't see a point for saying the same things over and over again. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Do the math, man Stevie is the man!. Just do the math. 3 million votes is insurmountable. To give Sanders the nomination is to betray the voices of the American people. Even if all 719 of the delegates are given to Sanders, he will not reach 2,383. I reckon if you're a Sanders supporter, but you can't go this way, not in Wikipedia, really.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 14:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominations are not decided by the popular vote, and the point I made is that we don't know the true proportions of it. Clinton may well still be ahead in popular votes -- we just don't know by how much. Also, I am a supporter of the whole facts while I'm editing in the Wikipedia. Who I support in this political race is none of your concern, and does not color my view of how we present facts here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about popular votes. Even if you use the pledged delegate count, 300 delegate is insurmountable. Again, as you said, the fact is the fact, and you can't deny the fact that AP had declared Clintan a presumptive nominee. If you want to brag about it, confront AP. The fact is, AP did that, regardless what the DNC said. AP did that today. You can't just say it didn't happen. If you are a supporter of 'whole facts' here, this is a fact. Not a rumour. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, we had the same scenario in 2008, where Obama only crossed the threshold to presumptive nominee by counting superdelegates. Since we have articles calling him the presumptive nominee well before the convention, we should do the same here. Mizike (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to show my work, I'm talking about articles like this one and this oneMizike (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Clinton withdrew in 2008 when Obama became presumptive nominee by virtue of superdelegates. The idea that Hillary has not won the most popular votes is preposterous and not based in fact. If you've won 54% of delegates in a purely proportional allocation scheme, you've won about the same amount of the people's votes.   Spartan7W §   14:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry if you are a Sanders supporter but the reliable sources are what we go on, if they had announced that he had the numbers we would be calling him the "presumptive nominee". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Patience. It's better to be right than first. Objective3000 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact we are both the first and the right ones.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we're the first, that's a WP:OR violation.:) Objective3000 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait what? Per WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Sources that exist are calling her the "presumptive nominee", in no way is this WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, this is the fact, not rumour, allegations, etc. AP is a reliable, valid source, for they are not a tabloid journalism news outlet.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 16:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if she were short there is no way that Clinton is not going to pick up additional pledged delegates today. The pledged delegates earned are going to reduce her needed superdelegates so that even if a few do change their minds she would still be in good shape. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

New Jersey will declare it in the next few hours. She's already insurmountable.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Compromise: Wait until Conventions

These related discussons, should be moved to the Rfc-in-question. Furthermore, things haven't settled down yet, at the intro to the Hillary Clinton article, concerning this matter. Perhaps it's best that we don't include anybody in the infobox, until they're actually nominated. This would leave Gary Johnson & William Weld as the sole entries, until late July. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No. We have to write the whole story. Because it is from AP, not from us. Not our own opinion. We have to write the AP declaring her a presumptive nominee, Sanders rejection and everything. Write it all because it is a fact that happened. Really happened in real life this morning.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Squid, we should include the fact that sources are saying that Clinton & Trump are the presumptive nominees with neutral wording explaining the situation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 is right. We should write: "according to AP, the nominee is..." and then followed by other news outlets, such as CNN, FOX News, LA Times. Because it's their words. not ours.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You both are in agreement then, that Clinton & Trump belong in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There isn't an easy choice here, if we don't include them in the info-box then it shows that we are against the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources say Trump and Clinton. So should we. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Very well :) GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to us.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 16:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If we look at the whole picture and go by actual facts via reliable sources, some of which counter the corporate media 'presumptive' narrative (and I don't see a need to list them all again here), we shouldn't show Clinton as 'presumptive' at this point. However, this publication relies very heavily on these "reliable" sources, and as a compromise, if a preponderance of these sources are showing Clinton as 'presumptive', we as encyclopedists need to ensure that in addition to showing Clinton as 'presumptive', we are bringing in other reliably sourced material that disputes this determination. It exists, and we cannot ignore it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, it's just conceding to the factually incorrect position of the Sanders campaign. There is now a presumptive nominee. — Red XIV ^(talk) 21:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to decide how to define "presumptive nominee". It's up to reliable sources, all of agree that Clinton is the Democrats' presumptive nominee. Furthermore, we're under no obligation to give undue weight to denial from hard-line Sanders supporters just because that denial exists, as per WP:FRINGE. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. These denials of facts aren't healthy. It's silly to keep arguing about this. We shouldn't contradict relible sources just because a few users disagree about them. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I only said that I wanted to wait until we know for sure before we had Hillary as the presumptive nominee, but a lot has happened since yesterday. We know for sure. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this proposal. A lead in pledged delegates is clearly sufficient, as indicated by reliable sources. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Green Party Gains Access in Nevada

The Green Party of Nevada has obtained ballot access in Nevada. Source: http://www.jill2016.com/stein_green_party_submit_petitions_in_nevada_to_be_on_november_ballot 2601:283:8300:A75A:0:0:0:AD7B (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a better source? I don't think a candidate's website counts as a reliable source. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

They are in the process of getting ballot Access. The petition has been submitted, but not yet confirmed , to my knowledge. Chandler (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be correct. The sources I can find about this just say that the Green Party is in the process of getting ballot access in Nevada. If they do get ballot access there, Green Party Watch and other sources will cover it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

Please remove Hillary Clinton from the presumptive nominee space. She has not earned enough non-superdelegate votes to be the nominee. Super delegates can change their support up to the day of the convention.

Thank you. Asuarez2 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Asuarez2 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: First, there's no consensus to remove. Second, the term is being used by RS across the board. We go by what sources say, not "WP:TRUTH" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There is not and has never been a requirement in the Democratic Party that the nomination be secured with only non-superdelegate votes. Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee, as has been unanimously reported by every major news outlet. — Red XIV ^(talk) 21:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Major News outlets are not reliable sources, as many of them have corporate interests in pushing certain agendas for their own benefit. This means that any Media that receives any advertising revenue is biased, and not a reliable source. AvRand (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. If you truly wish to debate the reliability of mainstream news outlets, go to WP:RSN EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so you are aware. Your sentence is in exact oppose to the very policy that Wikipedia runs on. Reliable sources are things with editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. Ergo, major news outlets. So I really wouldn't go to RSN and try to fight that as you would be trying to change one of the very foundations that Wikipedia is built on. Not really something you should waste your time on. --Majora (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

I have moved Trump to the left on the sidebar, so that he is in line with Gary Johnson. This makes it so that the two TBD slots, the Democrats and Greens, are above in line with each other, and makes it so that the Sidebar is less wide, so as not to leave to comically huge white spaces where the Democratic and Green party candidate pictures would be. If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know. AvRand (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do have a problem and I have moved it back. See #Order of the list of candidates in the infobox. Consensus is pretty clearly for the traditional method of ordering where the incumbent party goes in the upper left until after the election and then the box is reorganized by winner. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove Clinton from the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Avrand6, I see by scrolling down your user page that you're a Bernie supporter. That's all well and good, but I remind you to follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS regarding Hillary being named the presumptive nominee. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu If we were to consider a neutral standpoint on the issue, we would not put someone who does not have enough pledged delegates to be nominee as the presumptive nominee. As it's in dispute between the two Democratic Party frontrunners, the more neutral thing to do would be to continue to keep it at TBD until either Clinton reaches the threshold of pledged delegates, or until the convention. Choosing the standpoint of one candidate and a standpoint without consensus makes the article biased towards one candidate. AvRand (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't decide what's right or wrong. We go by reliable sources per WP:V & so far, reliable sources say that Clinton is the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee. Thus we include her in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Leaving out the superdelegates and focusing only on the pledged delegates is biasing this page towards Bernie, as opposed to maintaining WP:V. (BTW I caucused for Bernie myself, which I only mention so you know I'm not saying any of this as a hardcore Hillary supporter.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well we can't have two sidebars. The more neutral thing would be to continue it at 'TBD' until a certain candidate reaches the amount of pledged delegates required. Adding in super-delegates is simply ignoring how the process works, as they do not vote until July, and may change their opinion at any time. A footnote could be added to explain that some news outlets believe that Clinton is the presumptive nominee AvRand (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No. We must neutrally reflect what reliable sources say and give due weight to how those sources present a topics. Literally every news outlet is calling Clinton the presumptive nominee (see Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Use_of_presumptive_by_RS for list and links). We cannot create our own rules for when a candidate is considered the "presumptive nominee". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just leave the slots alone, of all the things to try to improve this shouldn't be an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to depend on reliable sources, then you should quote them accurately and say that the reliable sources have cited an AP poll which concluded that she's the presumptive nominee. Most of the RSs don't directly call her the presumptive nominee without attribution. Call her, "Presumptive nominee according to the Associated Press." Don't just call her, "Presumptive nominee."--Nbauman (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Evergreen answered you in the other article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone must know that the Democratic Party allows the superdelegates to be included in the tally since 1980s. So, if someone like AvRand says: "The more neutral thing would be to continue it at 'TBD' until a certain candidate reaches the amount of pledged delegates required. Adding in super-delegates is simply ignoring how the process works, as they do not vote until July, and may change their opinion at any time." Not only being disobedient to the party's rules, but also creating your own rules. Superdelegates counts. It is right there since Gary Hart and Walter Mondale.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 00:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We go by the reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We must. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 00:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson's photo

Gary Johnson in 2009

Gary Johnson in 2016

Gary Johnson's photo keeps getting switched between the two at right. The top photo is quite old as it was taken in 2009, while the bottom one is from March 2016. I strongly feel that we should use a photograph that reflects his current appearance. The bottom photo happens to be the only suitable one taken within the last four years that we have on Commons. If we find another recent photo we like, that would be fine, but we should avoid using a seven-year-old photo. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Use the 2016 photo. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Just between these two photos, his appearance doesn't seem to have changed much in the last seven years. Also, I think in the 2009 photo he has a more positive/neutral expression, whereas he looks somewhat angry/confrontational in the 2016 photo. Is there a more recent photo we can use that's better than this 2016 photo? Zeldafanjtl (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Use the 2016 photo. Much more recent. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It is best to use a contemporaneous image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

+1 for the 2016 image. I don't see it as particularly confrontational. That said, we could source a better one - it wouldn't be beyond our capacity to contact Gary Johnson's team and ask them to release a photo: they'd need to give us the name of the photographer and confirmation that they are happy for it to be shared. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

First election in a long time where all candidates are not officeholders?

Did a quick skim going back over the elections of the past 100 years or so, couldn't find any election where at least one of the candidates wasn't in office at the time of the election. Maybe this is already mentioned in the article, but 2016 is the same, none of the candidates are in office currently/. Worth adding? Jzema 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As with everything, it is worth adding only if it is mentioned by reliable sources. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I second what Abjiklam said, Jzema. What you're describing sounds like original research. We should only include this factoid if reliable sources talk about it, and even then it sounds a bit trivial. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is original research, but Jzema, if you're interested, I think the last time when both major party candidates were not current officeholders was 1908. Bryan, the Democrat, was a former Congressman. Taft, the Republican, was the former Secretary of War. But Taft only resigned in June 1908 so he was out of office during the election but hadn't been out for long. To find an election where both candidates were out of office during the campaign I think you'd go back to 1896. Bryan was again the Democrat, and again still a former Congressman. McKinley left office as governor of Ohio in January 1896, so I think that qualifies as being out of office during the campaign. But still that's original research, since it was me doing the research. Earthscent (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And if you like trivia and original research I'd point out that Trump is the first nominee since 1956 to have never held any elected office before running for president. And if he became president, he'd the be the first president to have never held elected office, been in the cabinet, or been a general. All but 4 had been elected to something before becoming president, and 3 of those 4 had been generals, and the 4th (Hoover) had been in the Cabinet. Earthscent (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can really count candidates resigning their current positions to focus on the election; it's far from unheard of in American politics. Bob Dole is one example that comes to mind. He resigned his Senate seat during the 1996 election. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also the first election, in which both major parties will be nominating senior citizens for president - Trump turns 70 this month & Clinton turns 69 in October. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump is the first nominee of either major party to not be a general or elected official since Wendell Willkie in 1940.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016

No Information available for green party. Jill Stein is the candidate and should be placed on this page Tacurtin (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that prove Stein is the Green's presumptive presidential nominee? GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Marking not done, did not cite a ref, WP:CRYSTAL. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I happened to be reading this interview with Dr. Stein when I was closing this tab... http://www.salon.com/2016/05/31/i_am_not_cool_with_donald_trump_and_i_am_not_cool_with_hillary_clinton_jill_stein_unloads_on_both_parties_a_rigged_system_and_dems_bernie_sabotage/ Stein is actually a candidate, and may be chosen at the convention in August (http://gpus.org/committees/presidential-campaign-support/2016-recognized-candidates/). Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No one denies that she's a candidate for the Green Party nomination, the issue is that she's not the presumptive nominee yet. It is very likely that she will be the nominee, but that's not the same thing. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; my tone didn't come across properly. She is a candidate, not the nominee - who'll be chosen at the convention. She's obviously much more visible but I've seen no evidence she is the 'presumptive nominee' per se. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• [5] KTOE: "Their 2012 candidate Jill Stein is the presumptive nominee."
• [6] Rolling Stone: "...presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein...
• [7] NYtimes: "The presumptive Green Party nominee..."
• [8] truth-out.org: "Jill Stein, the presumptive nominee of the Green Party."
• [9] The Harvard Crimson: "As the presumptive candidate from the Green Party, Stein’s presidential campaign faces..."
• [10] Village Voice: "The presumptive Green Party candidate for president, Stein..."
• [11] Arizona Capitol Times: "Jill Stein, who won the Arizona primary in March, is the presumptive nominee."

75.172.181.80 (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

Please add Jill Stein as the "likely" nominee for the Green Party on this Wikipedia article covering the 2016 Presidential Election. It is more than likely that she will be rewarded the required delegates to clinch her party's nomination. TheDonald566 (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: See section immediately above. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that an official icon? Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)