Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018Articles for deletionDeleted

Bias in lead once again

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

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

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

Kamala doesn't support genocide, so that shouldn't be included because no RS will say that she does. Andre🚐 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claims about Trump are very well sourced, as is required in Wikipedia. Did you look at the sources? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, extremely well sourced statements about Trump. Andre🚐 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I can find just as many sources criticizing her for her positions on inflation, the border, and Gaza. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of source matters here, not quantity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. See my previous discussion about this. We should at least shorten this and make a policy paragraph. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just think about this from an outsiders point of view. When they read that paragraph, they will not think Wikipedia is neutral. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's an outsider? I'm Australian. Does that count? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An American undecided swing state voter who can't make up their mind, who will either think Wikipedia is bias or will be convinced to vote for Kamala. They should be convinced on who to vote for based on the policy and issues, which is well discussed here. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a politician lying not an issue to you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it is an issue worthy of being mentioned in the lead, unless the extent of Trump’s lies are unprecedented (which arguably they are). Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but it might be productive to have a separate paragraph about these types of criticisms, rather than in the general discussion. The indictments should be kept, as should the election denial stuff, but the other parts should be moved to a separate paragraph. Yavneh (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong...but most politicians lie. Vice-President Harris has lied before as well, as has her campaign, yet you might notice there is no mention of "The Harris campaign has had many false and misleading statements". Despite her now saying Mr Trump is a fascist who is a threat to democracy (this would be fearmongering), there's no "engaged in fearmongering", either. Nor "promoted conspiracy theories" (despite Ms Harris and her campaign often citing attack stories against Trump that have no evidence or corroboration). Yet, again, that isn't part of the Democrat paragraph even though it would be easy to source. Is VP Harris lying not an issue to voters? If Trump lying is, one would think Harris lying would be as well. So why is that not in her paragraph? The OBVIOUS REASON: Because the writers and the people who have left that on the page are biased. Again, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Renathras (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The extent of Trump's lies have been absolutely unprecedented, and Harris' lies aren't even barely close. Harris hasn't lied about migrants the extent Trump has. Harris hasn't lied about the election being stolen. Here is a reliable source, where it was shown that just in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 alone, not even counting the years after that when Trump's lies have only increased, he made over 30,000 false and misleading statements.[Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/] EarthDude (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read it and think it's blatantly biased. I don't generally edit Reddit pages (never, actually, after my very first attempt), and I don't think I've ever posted on a talk page. That paragraph is TERRIBLY biased. The Democrat paragraph is written in neutral tone, the Republican one seems like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. Something can have sources AND BE BIASED at the same time, and just a cursory reading of that paragraph would lead any neutral person to thinking wikipedia is biased. It led me to that conclusion. I don't want to read any of the rest of the article because I can't imagine with a lead like that the rest would be neutral or fair at all. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for this. Renathras (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am European and this article is the most biased article I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia. I have ctrl+F Kamala and there's nothing about her. Whole article is solely about Trump and mostly consists of stretched comparisons with Hitler. How is this allowed? B.fly87 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Trump has engaged in absolutely the same shit Hitler was in. Spreading extreme libels against Minorites (blood libel, Springfield pet-eating hoax, etc.), extreme hatemongering and fearmongering, wating to deport millions of millions to "purify" the country, which is exactly the same as the Madagascar Plan. He says he'll be dictator on day one. He even praised Hitler openly. I want Wikipedia to be neutral but facts are anti-Trump EarthDude (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-American who dislikes most American politicians, IE as an outsider, I have to say that if the Republicans didn't want their nomination of a convicted criminal for president to draw attention they maybe should have started by not nominating a convicted criminal for president. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the TONE is not neutral and reporting at all. I read the Democrat paragraph and was thinking "Sounds about right", then was shocked with the first few lines of the Trump one. This seems like something written by the Harris campaign, not something deserving of the title Humanity's encyclopedia. Something can be well sourced AND BE BLATANTLY BIASED at the same time. Renathras (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me one sentence, with sources, that you'd like to add to the lead about Harris' campaign. The border, inflation, and Gaza are not it, but if you have anything else, let us know. Andre🚐 01:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if, instead of putting the criticism specifically in his paragraph, extend the paragraph about issues to go more in depth and keep this Personisinsterest (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She very much does, but very little news sources ever bring that up as they are often pro-Harris. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, we reflect the weight and focus of what reliable sources as a whole say. If you believe one particular source is biased and is being given too much weigh, that is something that can be discussed and corrected; but if you believe the media as a whole is biased, then Wikipedia is ultimately going to reflect that bias, because we're an encyclopedia (meaning we summarize the best available sources), rather than a publisher of original stuff. We're not the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in terms of "correcting" media bias or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She fully backs Israel and their apparent right to defend themselves. I'm sure I can find a RS that will cover this but of course Wikipedia will remove it because it does have so much bias. Your personal views here are not needed Apeholder (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will put the relevant information in the lead. And we have. We summarize[d] the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It cannot be helped that a political party and their candidate for office had a number of prominent controversies since the last election. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although controversial, since the article is detailed in detail, it would be better to summarize the introduction, which is overly critical of a specific candidate and takes up more than half of the entire introduction. This is to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality by attempting to gloss over the controversies doesn't seem like a workable path, but if you want to suggest something than I will review it. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you will review it? Do you have some sort of special sway or influence at Wikipedia? Do you know Jimmy Wales!? Apeholder (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your objection is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our role as an encyclopedia is to summarize what the sources say; if they're overwhelmingly negative about something, then our coverage must be overwhelmingly negative as well - it is not appropriate for us to "put our finger on the scale" to correct what we consider an imbalance in the sources themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree it needs to be removed, I was pretty concerned while I was reading this page that there was so much bias here.
I've read a couple of arguments above, let me answer to all of those. I've cited in italics some points of the Wikipedia rules.
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." I don't see either neutrality nor fairness.
"Even when material is sourced, editors must ensure that its inclusion follows Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and is written to give appropriate weight to the views." Are we sure this is followed? Doesn't look like it from my side.
Adding to this, anyways, the introduction isn't really the space for that, is it? It almost looked like the editor was so impatient to write those things aye? Wikipedia is not the place to share opinions or attract votes to a side or another.
Finally,
"Articles must be fair and balanced in their coverage, and must not contain unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons, even if it is accurate."
You can consider the sources as reliable as you want but even reliably sourced negative claims should be handled carefully to ensure they don't come across as defamatory or disproportionate. 93.36.176.195 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources You removed the rest of the sentence after that, which states in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. It also further states, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
2. I can't find this statement in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Where did you get it from? Even if it is included, appropriate weight is given to the sources.
3. Again, I can't find this sentence in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Where did you get it from? Either way, the sentence is sourced and not poorly sourced. BootsED (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please talk about my proposal instead now? Personisinsterest (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a hardcore Kamala supporter myself…sheesh this is harsh for Wikipedia. Maybe cut down on some of the "fascism" parts as that's being thrown around a lot, like how Trump calls Kamala a communist (and we all know Wikipedia should be better than Trump). Authoritarian and populist I'll take. Maybe we should include some criticism of Kamala too, like indecisiveness about the Gaza conflict.
RidgelantRL (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your clearly biased towards Trump. Also, Kamala never said anything about supporting what’s happening in Gaza Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What???? Mate just because I think we should rewrite part of an article doesn't mean I'm pro Trump. I never said anything about Kamala supporting Israel in Gaza anyways, I said they should write stuff to include that there's some backlash from younger voters about that (should've worded it better I admit). Do I really need to prove to people online my political opinions online?
RidgelantRL (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea to include a few sentences similar to what's on there for the Trump campaign (e.g., "The Harris campaign has been noted for ..."). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of RS about the controversy surrounding her nomination without a Primary vote. Still, there are articles from major news organizations about the controversy surrounding her record as a California prosecutor (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/harris-prosecutor-scrutiny-invs/index.html) and her positions on contentious issues (or lack thereof early on - one voter called her an "empty vessel" in this article because she had little to no campaign platform at the time: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/slice-voters-explain-wavering-harris-trump-rcna178535), including her support for continuing to arm Israel's genocide in Gaza (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/us/politics/harris-israel-arms-embargo.html) and fracking (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmarkind/2024/11/05/will-fracking-determine-the-next-president/; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-11/kamala-harris-and-fracking-her-position-on-the-controversial-practice). These policies have made her less popular among certain groups, especially young voters (https://english.elpais.com/usa/elections/2024-10-29/young-voters-on-the-left-reject-kamala-harris-she-has-made-it-clear-that-she-doesnt-value-my-vote.html). Keep the Trump stuff, but add Harris stuff as well. Perhaps there hasn't been as much coverage, but there has certainly been some, so a sentence or two would be appropriate. AwesomePorcupine (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This I’m fine with. I just felt like we needed something to balance it out??? Also you're much better at explaining the stuff I said (or more accuracy tried to say) lol.
RidgelantRL (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took me about half an hour to write all that and find sources. Then I realized some of these things are already mentioned and sourced in the main text, so finding new sources was not really necessary. haha AwesomePorcupine (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lead is biased, bt there is no need to dig up the dirt about everbody. This sort of thing is strictly for the "Controversies" section of their page. Also, the "genocide" that you refer to is in itself a hotly debated topic. To add it to the page would be a further violation of NPOV. The best solutio would be to just remove it all. 23emr (talk | contributions) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Or (4), WP:WEIGHT determines whether space should be given to a particular topic. — Czello (music) 11:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And with that implication that Kamala has no noteworthy negatives, Czello has put themself firmly in the (2) category. Polls suggest the majority of voting Americans disagree with that “weighting”. This article is bias. 2404:4408:831D:4100:81BF:3502:EA68:9C41 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make the case that there are noteworthy negatives about Kamala that deserve listing on this article, please go ahead. You'll need to demonstrate that the prominence of criticism is reflected in reliable sources. — Czello (music) 20:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has called her opponent a fascist and a threat to democracy, which is fearmongering. Clearly, that was worth including in the Trump paragraph, thus it must be worth including in the Harris paragraph. I could go on, but just like that, I've already defeated your position. Renathras (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Renathrax: I'm personally biased here, but considering the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the several things he has said or done and the people he has associated himself with, I feel as if that's a fair statement coming from Harris. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Harris, it's still very much fearmongering. Due to by personal preference for Harris than Trump, it's justified fearmongering to me, but fearmongering nonetheless. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Personisinsterest: It's likely you'll not get a (required) consensus for your edit proposals. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah Personisinsterest (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Personisinsterest:
Please suggest the example about "practical updated lead part" to be reviewed, we can then update the required part after discussion with other editors for this article. I understand that we can not get 100% meet the WP:NOPV however, I also think that current lead part is biased. If you can suggest some lead parts to be updated, and other editors (including myself), will suggest the next to improve the lead part of the article to be more fair and reasonable. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should improve the lead section of the article with a newly created section before user:Personisinsterest suggests an updated section/suggestion.discussion: it is the updated discussion for this topic.[[1]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to find ways to improve the article by choosing one of several topics, including economic issues. For example, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry poses risks to both candidates in the US-China dominance race. [[2]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But coverage of that aspect is marginal compared to what's already in the lead; trying to give additional weight to it in order to water down criticism of Trump (which is essentially the rationale you gave above) would be both WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you want to argue that the balance of the article is off, you need to demonstrate that there isn't that much criticism of Trump in mainstream coverage - ie. you have to argue that we're giving it undue weight relative to its prominence in sources. Do you believe that mainstream coverage is precisely balanced in how critical it is of the two candidates? Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it reflects not just the content but the weight of mainstream coverage; if coverage is overwhelmingly more concerned about one candidate than the other, then the weight of our articles are going to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Aquillion. Many of the stuff proposed is small potatoes. Harris has the advantage of running as a clean state having been the VP which is basically a ceremonial role. while Trump was president for 4 years. (did that really happen or was it a dream?) Andre🚐 19:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many users have raised the issue of improving bias, such as recording positive and negative opinions about Harris, but in order to record them, users must agree on the relevant part, and I understand that it has not been recorded yet because there has been no agreement on this yet. Regarding the opinion that it was recorded biasedly about Trump, there is related content in the link below,
[[3]], so You can write a proposal to ask users for their opinions and reach an agreement by referring to the relevant part in the relevant section, which is a neutral improvement of biased content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Billionten, regarding your previous suggestion, If time permits, please suggest how you can improve the original proposal you suggested. This talk subject, which is directly related to your request, was created early, but has not been resolved yet, so I think it should be resolved as soon as possible.
Your original proposal: Come on, the third paragraph is just "trump sucks he's so hateful and racist and wrong and makes conspiracy theories" to the point it might actually genuinely influence the election. I would shorten the third paragraph and also simply state that they are generally considered as wrong and not just directly saying it, maybe move that stuff to later in the article. Nothing criticizing the democrats aside from the first debate and Biden, and even that's a stretch. AT LEAST add . It's not the writing that's the problem, it's the fact that it's in a "neutral" encyclopedia that's the problem. I would edit if the article wasn't extended confirmed protected. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User:Personisinsterest,Kafkasmurat , User:Catboy69,User:Earl of Arundel, User:PackMecEng,User:DuneEnjoyer333,GoodDay, HAL333,User:Billionten, User:Spf121188
As per the many users' concerns and suggestions, a Political POV was placed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns over interference in US elections by POV-pushing of FALSEBALANCE

Can someone please reinsert the template:

at the beginning of the article? This was deleted by a user who does not follow WP:BRD, emphasizing the POV and created the WP:FALSEBALANCE, At least 9 users have raised the issue of the political neutrality of this Article, and the election interference concern has been ignored without consensus of many users.

[[4]] Template removal criteria - All three criteria are not met: 1)Consensus through discussion, 2)neutrality concerns are satisfactorily resolved, and 3)there was no existing talk on the issue. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is consensus. 2) The neutrality concerns have been addressed per WP:FALSEBALANCE explanations. 3) This has been discussed extensively. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Can you post the link(s) of the consensus? I don't think there's RfC for this. From my understanding, If there are problems of WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should see the previous discussions. In summary of Wikipedia's policy NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by the editor consensus.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

"Trump" appears 648 times, "Kamala" appears 45 times, this article is missing lots of information, those who know about it should contribute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I8TheCompetition (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Harris" appears 207 times, you're using the wrong search term. 207 is still significantly smaller than 648 - possibly lower than it should be - but there has certainly been a significantly greater focus on Trump than Harris in this election. It makes sense he would have many more mentions in this. Michaelofg (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article shows signs of democratic bias

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

Regarding the picture or graph part you mentioned,
I thought that the "rigged election statistics" and "classified document" graphics were related to the relevant content in the text, so I thought they were relevant to the main body. However, could you explain a little more about why these are not the proper information delivered picture or graphics? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically, higher educational attainment has a very strong correlation with higher support for the Democratic Party. Would you like a graphic for that? Perhaps Wikipedia editors are just better educated. Don't blame us for writing the lead in NPOV. According to a UNU-Merit study, the educational attainment of Wikipedia editors is as follows: Primary: 9%; Secondary: 30%; Undergraduate: 35%; Masters: 18%; PhD: 8%. If you read my user page, you can find out which category I'm in.
Side-note: I wrote most of the content for the educational composition in the Demographics sections for the Republican Party and Democratic Party articles.
Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/10/10/the-harris-trump-matchup/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your feedback but I am unsure why Wikipedia editors's educational background was related to "rigged election statistics" and "classified document" graphics . can you please let me know a bit more for this? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are many other sections for expressing this Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think the article needs heavy rewriting. The stuff that Trump has done bad is spelled out clearly while Kamalas is barly mentioned. Im not huge into politicts not wikipedia but this comes off so biased id argue its kinda unreliable.
But the real question is will anything be done? It kinda seems like whoever runs these wikipages doesnt like Trump, even when someone has a good source to balance it out with an anti kamala fact. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I can think of many reputable sources that criticize how Kamala was kinda just handed the democratic nomination but that isnt even mentioned in the lead; meanwhile that is super important to how the election progressed. If it wasnt for that, Joe would be running. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least in a way where it isnt whitewashed for Kamala DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share those sources then. I genuinely do want to see them as there is a lot of stuff to criticize her for. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I agree, this article is clearly biased to the left like most articles about the topic and U.S. politics in general. There are multiple paragraphs dedicated to how Trump is "Violent, dehumanizing, authoritarian, fascist, blah blah blah...." and its written with so much confidence and modality, it's almost as if this article has clear conflict of interest. This defamation of not just Trump, but the Republican Party as a whole is evident prejudice and should immediately be removed. Ztimes3 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
most of wikipedia is biased for the democrats at this point there are so many editors that just dump democratic propaganda from what they call 'reliable' sources that are known to be liberal networks or lean left Shooboo23 (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there are many other sections for expressing this"

It is difficult to understand exactly what this content mean"s. What does it mean specifically? Is this content relevant? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in, we have to
Bias in lead once again
Trump vs. Harris details in the lead
and multiple other places where these comments could have been inserted, most of which are now archived. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your opinion now. I think the reason is that the users who actually participate in Wikipedia have different views on what is biased. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Turtletennisfogwheat, User:DuneEnjoyer333,
To answer your suggestion, there are a lot of reliable sources where stated the long list the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates.
Here is the previous suggestion which was supported by other users: GoodDay, HAL333
Interesting that the complaining editors are new. DuneEnjoyer333 has less than 50 edits. Not surprising they don't understand our policies. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is a logical fallacy as your attacking me instead of my argument DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Kamala Harris, there is controversy over her ability to formulate and implement specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigration, in her performance as Vice President. [1] [2] [3] However, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, The United States experienced the fastest job growth ever, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

[4] [5] [6]

Meanwhile, looking at the performance of the US economy during the four years of Trump's presidency, as of February 2020, it showed the lowest unemployment rate in the past 50 years at 3.5%. [7]

References

  1. ^ "Kamala Harris one year: Where did it go wrong for her?". BBC News. January 20, 2022.
  2. ^ "New poll goes deep on Kamala Harris' liabilities and strengths as a potential president". politico.com. June 12, 2024.
  3. ^ "US 2020 election: The Kamala Harris Problem". TheAtlantic.com News. Oct 10, 2023.
  4. ^ "Is US economy better or worse now than under Trump?". BBC.com. September 3, 2024.
  5. ^ "Kamala Harris's strengths — and vulnerabilities — explained". VOX. com. July 22, 2024.
  6. ^ "Kamala Harris's Strengths and Weaknesses". NYtimes.com. July 22, 2024.
  7. ^ "US 2020 election: The economy under Trump in six charts". BBC News. November 3, 2020.

Incorrect rendering; accessibility issue

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

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

If someone adds it on Sunday, I will remove it. Should not go up until Tuesday. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to fix the technical issues. Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support waiting until Tuesday, and will probably add it before 8 AM ET. I deleted my earlier ill-advised post, though I still like the song. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, what text is invisible? Can you post the text that is visible? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With my phone's font size set as small as possible, it reads "This article documents a current election. Information may change rapidly as the election progresses until". If I set the font size to the largest size that doesn't require opening accessibility settings, it reads "This article documents a current election. Information may change". I can highlight more text than that, but it's invisible. McYeee (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another look on my Mac and noticed that the bolding is also missing on iOS and so is the image of the ballot box. McYeee (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, this bug does not happen in article space. It's still an issue in talk space. McYeee (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Proposal: Trump claims that he can immediately end the ongoing wars between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Iran, etc. if he is elected as the 47th president of the United States, and claims that he is the first president in modern American history who has not started a war. However, in fact, since Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, Trump is the first person to not expand new military operations, so Trump's claim is false.[1]


  • The above content can be summarized even more.
  • Summary of the basis and research analyzed by Reuters Fact Check:
  • It is difficult to make a black-and-white judgment on whether Trump is the first president in modern American history who has not started a war, as the definitions of war and military operations are different. Since World War II, among the 13 presidents who served between 1945 and 2020, Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States, and Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, have not expanded the war, as they have started the Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars. For verification, the results of USA Today and Newsweek were additionally verified.
  • According to Reuters Fact Check,
  • Because the definitions of war and military operations are different, it is impossible to tell in black and white whether Trump is the first president in modern American history who has not started a war.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Here's the link to Reuters.[5] Doug Weller talk 15:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is correct link. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What war did Biden start..? Prcc27 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Trump not starting a war have to do with the idea that he could immediately stop foreign wars? The proposed text, given that it is fixed, might be relevant on Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign or Presidency of Donald Trump, but it seems tangential here
How about writing a general outline of Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign and summarizing it in a sentence or two here?Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-first-president-since-jimmy-carter-not-enter-us-troops-new-conflict-1549037

Lead sentence wording discussion

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

I see the changes and it is better than now. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results page?

Should we make a results page for detailed results (similar to Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives), Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election, etc)? Schestos (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD? I don't see how creation of that page would be opposed unless you're making it now (WP:TOOSOON). We should probably have that page when the complete results are out. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. The 2020 United States presidential election is probably way too long, but the results subpage is probably not long enough to split into a new page. Unless you plan to go into much farther detail per state. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should make the results page once the 2024 US election starts or after the election is over is when I think is a suitable time to create an article on the results. If it is now, please bear in mind WP:TOOSOON. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Draft:Results of the 2024 United States presidential election. I would advise against moving it to the mainspace without some sort of consensus Esolo5002 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Schestos (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting immediate removal of mention of Putin's endorsement of Harris in Russian interference section

The mention is grossly WP:UNDUE, and fails WP:PROPORTION and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do not mention endorsements of candidates by individuals on this page. Mentioning this "endorsement" and the discussion over whether or not it is "trolling" creates a false impression that it is somehow reputable, and that there is "debate" over whether or not it was sincere. There is no such debate among reliable sources. They overwhelmingly state that the endorsement was made in jest. The Kremlin confirmed that the endorsement was a joke as per this article. We should not mention a "debate" over this endorsement, as that is WP:OR. There is no debate. Mentioning this endorsement is WP:UNDUE.

There is a consensus AGAINST including this endorsement as discussed on this talk page. I am at my 1RR and am requesting that another user immediately revert this edit. BootsED (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the placement of this section with the editorializing "however" right after RS state that Russia prefers Trump over Harris, which is widely reported on by intelligence agencies and reliable sources, casts doubt on the conclusion of the prior reliable sources, which is wholly original research not stated by the provided sources at hand. BootsED (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manual undone per WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Likely would have qualified under point 8 of the WP:3RRNO as exception to your limit. Raladic (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May we wait to put up the current elections banner?

I know we all want to add it now, but can we wait until it’s midnight on the East Coast? Qutlooker (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not all want to add it now. The banner is for a page undergoing major changes, which will not be the case on this page until results come in. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the special edit-notice about not calling election results fall under point 7 of the WP:3RRNO exemptions

I'm just predicting that some editors may miss the Template:Editnotices/Page/2024_United_States_presidential_election edit notice not to call the election and it may require rapid reversions, that could leave editors using their reversion and since the page is under a strict WP:1RR I figured it might be worth asking the question now preemptively before someone accidentally makes a second reversion and then gets dragged to ANI over it? So would reversion of this fall under point 7 of the WP:3RRNO exceptions (Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.)? Raladic (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone adds a state that isn’t unanimously projected, and that puts a candidate over 270 even if no media source projected the national winner yet, that would clearly fall under “unsourced” and “contentious”. Unfortunately, I am not sure if other cases of premature adding would be a 1RR exemption. Prcc27 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is just an occasional problem, then an editor who would cross 1RR can bring it up in a discussion here and attempt to have the other editor self-revert or another editor could revert it themselves.
If it becomes a significant problem, then the article might end up needing full protection since it is already at extended confirmed. Hopefully, editors read the edit notice and we don't have to go to RFPP. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do both candidates already have 3 electoral votes?

In the infobox both Harris and Trump are shown to have already won 3 electoral votes. Where does this come from? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Associated Press is reporting 3 votes each in NH and we report those in the infobox. They were added by @Prcc27 in this edit here. Raladic (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it might be better to wait until 7pm Eastern Time to start reporting on votes for both candidates, but maybe this will be the only hiccup regarding it. As an aside, it might be best to create a footnote to clarify that the votes are from Dixville Township. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For such an important source, it probably shouldn't be a Bare URL. I don't have Extended confirmation myself. Tolozen (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done diff. Raladic (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's popular vote, not electoral college vote. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 07:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three votes were at Dixville Notch. See CNN coverage here: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/05/politics/dixville-notch-new-hampshire-2024-results/index.html ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 07:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed the tallies to 0 without explanation. I hope the user will self-revert or that it will be re-added by another user. Prcc27 (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and removed the popular vote figure. As I explained in the exit summary, I think it is more confusing than it is useful to include it, as for many users it will not be apparent why each candidate has 3 votes unless they know about New Hampshire midnight voting. In my view the national popular vote should be shown, at earliest, once the first polling places close. I.e. 23:00 UTC for Indiana and Kentucky. Gust Justice (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just add a footnote explaining that the results are midnight voting results? Prcc27 (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this for what Proc27 said above, if the information is valid and true, why remove it? A footnote would be fine if you're removing confusion Chewsterchew (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to see them back in. Technically, the current vote total is 3-3, and I think it's worthwhile to indicate that (with a note). -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal. The results of this clown show are trivial and don't deserve such prominent promotion. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the 2020 United States presidential election article, you'll see that Dixville Notch is not mentioned in the article. I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion in this article either. Those Dixville Notch votes will be added to the vote totals of the candidates when New Hampshire as a whole officially reports its results. Until then, let's leave the popular vote totals as TBD. JasonMacker (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initial votes being released is a clown show..? Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tens of millions of votes have been cast; publicly announcing 6 of them is not the release of initial votes. It's performance art. It's something irrelevant to look at rather than what is actually happening. Like...a clown show. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion, these are already listed by AP on its own election results page. There is no reason not to include popular vote totals as the day progresses Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP is reporting it as part of the popular vote in New Hampshire, but as far as I can tell, it is not yet reporting the national popular vote. So I don't see how it is the basis for including that data. Gust Justice (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i agree i dont think popular vote should be updated until Indiana/Kentucky's polls close Alkazar9999 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBC is reporting it as 3 votes to 3 votes in the national popular vote tally. Either way, adding those votes is allowed per WP:CALC. Prcc27 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axios has their national tally at 0-0 but also reporting the 6 votes cast in NH in their interactive map. Same with CNN. At this point, I'm fine with either choice (keeping the national tally at 0-0 or making it 3-3). This really only matters for the next 6 hours or so. JasonMacker (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gust Justice I agree with waiting for polls to close atleast, it's not like Wikipedia is supposed to be giving live news coverage anyway. Would help avoid unnecessary errors or changes after misreporting. Dasein (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s reported by AP and kinda cool. I say include. Leave a note saying it’s from NH R. G. Checkers talk 20:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nbc has called vermont for harris Realpala (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, this section is about the votes in New Hampshire, not Vermont. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oops Realpala (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024 United States presidential election B addition

Shjunpei created this section to talk about this diff, which was illegible as a section heading. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created a template for the info box so it can be used on other pages where necessary. It was removed because it was unprotected. Can someone request this to be protected? thanks. - shJunpei :3 13:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested protection, and it's been given protection. Probably should update the template to have parity with the current state of the infobox though (and maybe make a new discussion section here seeking some consensus if you want the article to use that template as the infobox?) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a bit cumbersome to have to edit the template and the page to match counts once the results are coming in as its then effectively two edits instead of one, so I'm not entirely convinced on the benefit of it. Raladic (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When should we create the article for the 2028 election?

I have checked this article's creation date, which was in 2015. I believe creating it that early was extreme, but there is not yet any article for a 2028 election, despite the presence of some news coverage on the topic throughout this year. Is there a bright line rule to create an article on the next election after the upcoming election results are counted and a winner is declared? Mr. Holup (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good bet would be no earlier than tomorrow, based on the current protection settings put in place by @JPxG in August. Raladic (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: There is a draft article for the 2028 election which will likely be moved to the mainspace very soon. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the next election's articles can be created when, well, it's the next election. So tomorrow, assuming there are any useful sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until there are actual candidates declared for 2028 would be my opinion. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2028 isn't coming any faster... no need to rush Qutlooker (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose WP:TOOSOON is relevant, but I'm sure it will come into the mainspace soon Lazesusdasiru (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good rule of thumb: is there anything material to say? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for almost a year after polls. This will help upcoming candidates to declare. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to update the clock if no actual data has changed

Hey @BarntToust - there's no need to update ([6],[7]...) the last_updated clock every few minutes if there hasn't actually been any counting updates - the clock is there for when reporting numbers changed. That being said, someone should please revert this change by @HistorianL as the counting will continue into the next few days, so we do need the date back in there. (I've used a revert in the last 24hrs, so can't do it myself). Raladic (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly pissed with myself that I missed 4:20... well, ashes to ashes. I'll add back the little system to append the clock count with the date. BarntToust 21:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note here that I have hidden the reporting and last update parameters since users are only editing it without any actual reporting data despite the hidden text to update the time "when making updates to the reporting numbers." It is a bit silly to be just making edits to the clock to keep it on the current hour when we don't have any voting results outside of six votes from a single NH township. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I will add here that I plan to remove my edit at Midnight UTC when the polls close in at least one area.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust and 52Timer: BarntToust, you were asked above to not update the clock until the reporting numbers changed. Since it was still being changed by multiple editors, I hid it with the hidden parameters. Since even that has not stopped the edits, I have removed it. Please do not restore the parameters until after the first reporting numbers come in. That is my request to you both. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V, you would do very well to observe I was told me changing the clock was tedious and that I was frankly wasting my time updating it, not that this action was contested or disallowed. It was a "you know you have better things to do than sit around twiddling your thumb, BarntToust" since the simple changing hurts nothing, nor does it disrupt editing. I don't ever want to see you take a warning tone with anybody, much less me, unless it comes behind an actual pressing concern about the integrity of the project, not "me just being tedious for no reason". But since my changing it was indeed pointless beyond a personal OCD satisfaction, on the merit that you've seriously asked me not to, I'm going to quit doing that.
On another note... Yeah, other people will probably continue to do that same thing. It's been changed by others before, and I think it's smart to just hide it. But how do you know your removal won't be reverted before 8 tonight? I mean, you'll remove the parameter, but who's to say it won't just be added back unless something formal discussion comes on? For less than two hours? Not happening. Starting a contention discussion about removing the clock? that would be as tedious as me changing it constantly! lol
Honestly though, thanks for working to help the project, it's peeps like you that make wiki work how it does. BarntToust 23:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if it was still going to be there without poll turn-ins, I was going to be editing it, since its existence was about as meaningful as me changing it to update constantly. I was honestly confused why it was there, and just why it had a manual value beside the hidden clock template. So it's gone until like 8:00, that's good. BarntToust 23:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While such an edit does visually change the article, without any actual reporting numbers coming in it is effectively useless to adjust. I would say it is a borderline unconstructive edit as there is little to no usefulness in the edit. But how do you know your removal won't be reverted before 8 tonight? I don't, hence why I made a request. If it had been reverted, I would have just waited to see what would happen. Also, Midnight UTC is 7pm Eastern Time, not 8pm Eastern Time so I am about to revert myself unless it has already been restored since some states have ended voting. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is not serious

A third of the lead, a mega paragraph, is just a Trump bad rant. This is unencyclopedic, and also not particularly consistent with MOS:LEAD. Reads like a propaganda piece by Democrat partisans. Stuff like this really erodes the credibility of the project. At least try to remain semi-neutral. JDiala (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a factual summary of the events of the past few years and completely encyclopedic and fully sourced. "Facts don't care about your feelings".  Nixinova   T   C   23:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the section called #Bias in lead once again. This section appears to be a duplicate of that. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the FAQ says, the following need a consensus before the article displays a projection of a winner for a state: ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC

But, it doesn't have links to their results, and I didn't see them on the talkpage. I thought I'd list them here for convenience:

ABC AP CBS CNN NBC

As of right now, all 5 of them are projecting Trump as the winner of Kentucky and Indiana, and Harris as the winner of Vermont. JasonMacker (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this refers to the related map File:ElectoralCollege2024.svg. If so, then I will mention here that any issues can also be discussed at File talk:ElectoralCollege2024.svg. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. But it also refers to bolding the winner in the state election articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. I failed to consider that. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All 5 have now called it for Trump. Jacket2018 (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox tally is wrong

The inbox tally is wrong. Should be 80 Trump to 24 Harris if we use EVs projected only unanimously by ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC. Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That ain't recentism, though. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a discuss tag. The tally is against consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tally should be 95-24. Users are going against consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Oudomo who has been updating the tally - please note that you should NOT update the tally only from AP, only when all 5 networks and outlined in the big bold edit notice have unanimously called a state should it be updated.
Please stop updating just from AP as it's violating page policies. Raladic (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, ill just focus on poll closings. Oudomo (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now pinging @BaseballFanatic1 - same as above. Please cease updating only based on AP, we need consensus between ALL 5 networks. Raladic (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Fajarpa7 due to their edits to the infobox. Similar to the above, plus the election has not been called so could you re-flip the candidates? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fajarpa7 and @Scribetastic - Please do not report wrong numbers, we only report once we have consensus from all 5 sources per the bold edit notice on the page, please see below table for consensus updates. Raladic (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another @Scu ba - please self-revert, the AP have not called Georgia, please see the bold edit notice and table below. Raladic (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another - @Ahri Boy - please see above. Raladic (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude - please see above and below table. We only update on consensus of all 5. Please self-revert. Raladic (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry, my bad, imma revert then EarthDude (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next one, pinging @JoshRamirez29 - please don't update numbers just from AP - see below table for consensus numbers instead only after all 5 sources have unanimously reported. Raladic (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt anyone is actually going to listen unless banhammer. I highly doubt that most of the English Wikipedia who didn't participate in the WP:DRAMABOARD discussion will actually care.
Sorry to be the messenger, but it is what it is. Unless history-searching for who is doing it and blocks are implemented, these talk-page complaints do jack. having said that, a few admins need to be working extra tonight/today because of this.
Hindsight bias or not, everyone saw this coming. BarntToust 01:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If disruption is an issue, then WP:RFPP would be better. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
27 is a step on the right direction, but should be 24 since AP has not projected DC AFAIK? Or maybe I missed it. MO has not been projected by AP either. Prcc27 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that you are correct. I will revise. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone already reverted it to 70+, so I will take this a different path. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I knew people weren’t going to respect consensus. I need to take a break and a breather. Anyone else want to update the map in my absence? I just can’t. Prcc27 (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27, it literally doesn't matter. the means will sort themselves out into the ends soon. Ultimately, the results will out by tomorrow minus some mail-ins. Seriously, we live in clown world, there's nothing to be taken serious about any of this. relax. learning to just say "whatever" helps a lot. BarntToust 01:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...clown world? Really? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU, notice "skibidi toilet", "hawk tuah", and all the other stupid brainrot crap that dominates the media nowadays? Obviously everything is a silly joke and in observation of this, life should be conducted as carefree as possible. In short, everything is brainrot, nothing needs to be taken seriously. Including flagrantly unaware editors disregarding consensus. BarntToust 02:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just block 'em. No catastrophising. that's my conclusion. to stop caring, and just lay the banhammer down. BarntToust 02:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but to do that we need some admins! BarntToust 02:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, skibidi sigma in Ohio is nonsense. But "clown world" is a far-right thing. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU, while it's terrible regarding most of their policies about people who aren't gender-conformist and heterosexual, the far-right have got it down about the confusing, stupid state our world is in. Now, the nitty-gritty details are subjective, but the concept of everything simply being a dumb joke is (alt-)right on.
which is really why Wikipedia editors need to just stop caring so much about stuff like this. Truth will out in a day or so. Editors doing stuff against the grain just aren't worth the migraine/panic attack/existentialist breakdown. BarntToust 02:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The far-right hasn't got anything down. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU it looks like they have the popular vote and the electoral college down, for some bizarre reason. And while I personally dislike their ideology, the thinking that everything is just a silly joke is largely right.
They think we live in clown world for one reason, I think we live in clown world because of the Acute Stupidity Disorder (ASD) that the media is infected with. And I mean, Trump pretty much won. that's clown world enough lol.
Okay, I've been trying to twist this into any way that constitutes discussion of this election in the context of Wikipedia, but I can't. time to get back to business! BarntToust 11:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting here: Admin watching this page, due to alert from RFPP. I really don't want to have to fully protect a page that is reasonably expected to change minute-by-minute, BUT... It's essentially impossible, without links to the calls by the media organizations, to figure out which states have and have not met the criteria for "being called". Maybe make up a chart here on the talk page with media organization horizontally, state vertically, and insert links to each organization as they publish their call for the state? Risker (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a good idea. Also opposed to full protection. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, AP might say 17 for Harris, 95 for Trump, but CBS will say 86 for Harris, 45 for Trump, so what do we do? Find the lowest total count for each? this damn "consensus" always fails to account for the dozens of ways the situation can be interpreted. Don't full protect this page, oh no. BarntToust 02:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for posting this here as I was about to mention what you suggested. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a table below, if people can help fill it in, then we get a picture of what's reported. Raladic (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Table for tallying

Please fill below from if the respective outlet has called the state for Harris/Trump/another candidate. Sources:ABC, AP, CBS, and NBC, CNN

State EC ABC AP CBS NBC CNN Harris EC Trump EC
Alabama 9 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 9
Alaska 3 Trump 0 0
Arizona 11 0 0
Arkansas 6 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 6
California 54 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 54 0
Colorado 10 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 10 0
Connecticut 7 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 7 0
Delaware 3 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 3 0
Florida 30 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 30
Georgia 16 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 16
Hawaii 4 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 4 0
Idaho 4 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 4
Illinois 19 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 19 0
Indiana 11 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 11
Iowa 6 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 6
Kansas 6 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 6
Kentucky 8 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 8
Louisiana 8 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 8
Maine 2 0 0
Maine 1st 1 Harris Harris Harris 0 0
Maine 2nd 1 Trump 0 0
Maryland 10 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 10 0
Massachusetts 11 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 11 0
Michigan 15 0 0
Minnesota 10 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 10 0
Mississippi 6 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 6
Missouri 10 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 10
Montana 4 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 4
Nebraska 2 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 2
Nebraska 1st 1 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 1
Nebraska 2nd 1 Harris Harris Harris Harris 0 0
Nebraska 3rd 1 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 1
Nevada 6 0 0
New Hampshire 4 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 4 0
New Jersey 14 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 14 0
New Mexico 5 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 5 0
New York 28 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 28 0
North Carolina 16 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 16
North Dakota 3 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 3
Ohio 17 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 17
Oklahoma 7 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 7
Oregon 8 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 8 0
Pennsylvania 19 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 19
Rhode Island 4 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 4 0
South Carolina 9 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 9
South Dakota 3 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 3
Tennessee 11 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 11
Texas 40 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 40
Utah 6 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 6
Vermont 3 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 3 0
Virginia 13 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 13 0
Washington 12 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 12 0
Washington, D.C. 3 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris 3 0
West Virginia 4 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 4
Wisconsin 10 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 10
Wyoming 3 Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump 0 3
Total 538 (40
remaining)		 222 276

With all 5 networks calling Wisconsin for Trump, all 5 networks are projecting Trump with over 270 votes and thus the President-elect of the United States. I'd like to request an admin edit the infobox in the main article (and wherever else they see fit) to be in line with these sources.--JasonMacker (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 United States elections, 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, 2024 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, First presidential transition of Donald Trump (potentially), JD Vance, Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign, Planned presidential transition of Kamala Harris, Second presidential transition of Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump (also likely needs a rename per Presidencies of Grover Cleveland), Tim Walz, Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency, etc., and whatever I didn't think of that likely is linked to by Template:US 2024 presidential elections series. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most to all of those should not need an admin edit, though. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does the light blue mean?

What does the light blue mean? It should be added in the key. CavDan24 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light blue where? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
shown in Connecticut and Washington, DC. CavDan24 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Wanted to make sure you were not referring to the table in the middle of the article for some reason. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CavDan24: It's in the note: light blue for states where only a majority of these sources have projected a win. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. CavDan24 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maine and Nebraska

Is there a reason for Maine and Nebraska not showing their congressional district special voting? Is the reason just because they’re undeclared so far? LittlePenguinHaveFun (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consult the table in the talk section above you, it simply hasn't been called by the sources deemed reliable by wikipedia. Scuba 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DC

Harris is the projected winner. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 03:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not nationwide, specifically DC. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 03:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been in the map and the infobox for a while.... Scuba 06:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has won

Trump has won against Harris according to multiple sources. - shJunpei :3 07:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as of now, DDHQ and Fox have declared Trump the winner, and CNN and MSNBC have Trump only a few EVs away.Atrix20 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just now, NBC news declared Trump won Pennsylvania. Hence, the election is over. M.Karelin (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump, according to NBC news, has 266 without Alaska. M.Karelin (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's basically over. This is genuinely quite shocking though. According to the AP, the majority of all counties in the country had a rightward shift EarthDude (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the FAQ at the top of this page, this article only relies on ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC for projections.
NBC still has Trump at 266 EVs. So NBC has not projected that Trump has won the presidency quite yet (but at this point it does seem inevitable), JasonMacker (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
266 without Alaska !! M.Karelin (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but unfortunately for Trump, even with Alaska's 3 electoral votes, that would only bring him up to 269, just shy of being able to allow NBC to project a president. JasonMacker (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be 266, not 267 for Trump as it currently says TWM03 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. M.Karelin (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its stilll a bit early to say for certain as sites like the AP haven't called it yet. It's an inevitability but we still have to wait.  Nixinova   T   C   08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Trump is the projected President-Elect, even if you ignore Fox News (thanks to DecisionDeskHQ). But per WP:NOTNEWS, we should wait for unanimous projections from the major 5 sources before declaring him the winner in wikivoice. Wikipedia is in no rush to get ahead of the vast majority of our sources. Prcc27 (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, NBC, ABC, AP, and CBS just called the election for Trump. VBLby9 (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this should be reflected in the article Jacket2018 (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it is. Is there some other change we need? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
trump seems to only have won 279 by ap, the others are saying 276 Realpala (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right... The reason this got locked down in the first place. Fixing. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or I could wait one more minute for someone to adjust it instead. Which is a good thing as I now recall doing a fix already before the full protection went through, so I cannot revert again for another 16 hours or so. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's picture

Someone plz move Trump's picture to the left - he has won, and it is a fact now. M.Karelin (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least he is leading, why Kamala is on the left side ?? M.Karelin (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't switch based on lead. The candidate on the left is of the incumbent party. Until all 5 news sources have unanimously declared a winner, we won't and thus also don't flip flop sides. Raladic (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

266

Both ABC and NBC say Trump has 266. Plz correct it. M.Karelin (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why 265 ?? What's the source ?? M.Karelin (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CBS says Trump is currently at 265, so we'll have to wait. I think that electoral vote's from Maine? Not completely sure. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ABC and NBC say 266. M.Karelin (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one of Nebraska's votes? I see one source that says NE-3 has 0% reporting TWM03 (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually CBS is now saying Trump has 266, so it should be changed to 266. TWM03 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Associated Press he won 2 + 1 + 1 votes from Nebraska. ABC News seems to concur (click on Nebraska to see the numbers). Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 3 hours

This article is fully protected for 3 hours; I assume that's about the length of time it will take for the 5 reliable sources to call the election. I will be available for the next hour or so to make updates to the tallies, and will try to line up another admin to monitor and ensure that EC protection is reinstated following that time. Please make edit requests below. Risker (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Could you change Harris' number back to 194? That's what we're able to confirm at the moment per the table above. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Risker (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker: Minnesota has been called by CNN for Harris (all five sources now concur on this). Could you please update the number to 204? Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Risker (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker: New Jersey has been called for Harris by all five sources now. Her number is currently at 218. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done although at the rate the article page is saving, you'll see this before it's done. Risker (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Ah, figured out why it's taking so long. Enormous page, too many readers. There were 1.2 million page views on November 5 (UTC times) and that was before the results started coming in. We've probably had twice that many in the last 12 hours. Risker (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there's a bot, Protection Helper Bot, that will restore the previous protection when the temporary protection expires. SilverLocust 💬 08:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you apply that? There was no editorial activity justifying full protection. Tvx1 08:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the #Infobox tally is wrong discussion, particularly in the last hour. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that, SilverLocust. Nonetheless, this is an important article that is getting a lot of views, and it's best that someone is actively watching it to make sure the bot does the right thing at the right time. Let's hope things work out the way they're supposed to.

For the information of other administrators, not only is this a contentious topic, there was an ongoing edit war with the infobox happening, that directly relates to whether or not the election is called. Risker (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the edit history again and I really think you are overstating the edit war. There were a number of edits, but there was no heat nor bad emotions. The discussion also develop in a positive colleborative atmosphere. Full protection is an overreaction. Tvx1 09:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be heat to be an edit war. The same content was being changed repeatedly by a wide range of users over a short period. Given the article is on 1RR, it doesn't take a lot to push it into edit war territory. Risker (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker The major news outlets just called Wisconsin and the election for Trump. Article needs updating. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Donald Trump page be given a similar 3 hour full protection? It might be a bit of a hassle if the extended confirmed protection has to be reapplied manually, but it may be worth it. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I'm only one person and I'm planning to log off before the protection ends here. If that article is having similar issues (I really don't know, I haven't looked), the place to go is requests for page protection. Risker (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all sources have called the race, so the protection could probably be rescinded. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Shouldn’t be any controversial edit wars regarding who won. BastianMAT (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I have lifted full protection and restored to the previous EC protection. Thanks to everyone for your hard work on this article, which has been viewed by around 3 million people in the last 36 hours. Risker (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volodymyr Zelenskyy congratulates Trump on his victory

https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1854073411904938032 VBLby9 (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Pm Ulf Kristersson and Israeli PM Nethanyahu has congratulated Trump too; I would add it but the page is fully protected for 3 hours so we will have to wait BastianMAT (talk)
There's nothing to stop people from starting to draft the paragraph on this topic right here on the talk page, so it is ready to go once the election is called or the full protection expires. Probably also want to draft a paragraph about Trump's media appearance that is probably still happening as I write. Risker (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the paragraph on international reactions indicates that the congratulatory messages came before the election had been called. This should be edited to indicate that the congratulatory messages came after one news agency called the election for Trump. Fox called the election after projecting that Trump won Wisconsin, while other news agencies have not projected a winner for Wisconsin. The coverage from news agencies that haven't officially called the election (e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS) acknowledge that Harris' path to victory is very slim. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you see my point. Now is the time to start drafting the paragraphs that will replace what's there. Sources, links, etc. Drafting before editing is a good thing for contentious topics and high-view articles. Risker (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose using wikivoice at this stage to say Trump won. Fox News is not reliable according to Wikipedia, and DecisionDeskHQ is not one of our 5 major sources, even though I do think they are reliable and we can give some WP:WEIGHT to them. We can say leaders perceive he won, but the media sources right now have not officially called it. Prcc27 (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change "The first politicians to congratulate Donald Trump before the election had been called from abroad was"... to "The first politicians from abroad to congratulate Donald Trump before the election had been called, but after the Fox News projecction, from abroad was"... The Fox News projection is mentioned prior to this paragraph, so I don't believe any further clarification is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiffy sperry (talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but Fox News was not the first media outlet to call the race, DecisionDeskHQ was; so that paragraph is wrong. I am neutral about mentioning the Fox projection in the body. Prcc27 (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't use Reply due to the unsigned message, but I did get a source that could work with a rewrite of the above per Prcc27; LA Times: But NewsNation, which used data from Decision Desk HQ, called the race for Trump at 1:22 a.m. Eastern after giving the Republican 19 electoral votes from Pennsylvania and three from Alaska. Fox News followed at 1:47 a.m. Eastern after awarding Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes to Trump. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters, which is viewed as a highly reliable source per WP:RS puts more weight on FoxNews projection than DecisionDeskHQ,[9] I believe we should go from what reliable sources says in this matter. Using this article from Reuters I believe we can add in more congratulatory leaders. Draft: "Congratulatory messages were shortly after sent from all over the world to Trump, including President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of India,Narenda Modi, President of France, Emmanuel Macron, President of Turkey,Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, President of the Phillipines, Bongbong Marcos, former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Dick Schoof, Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, Chancellor of Austria, Karl Nehammer, Prime Minister of Czech Republic, Petr Fiala, Prime Minister of Romania, Marcel Ciolacu, Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre, and President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen." [10] BastianMAT (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really going to list all congratulatory messages? It holds little long-term value and presumably no one is going to read it (in particular because it is all blue text). Dajasj (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The results section

The results section seems to be left uncompleted after the page got fully protected, an admin should probably fix that. Xoocit (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What results do you want to include? You can start drafting it here. Risker (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State map error

What happened to the big “i” dot, and the feature where you could click on a state, and it would direct you to a state’s article? Prcc27 (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It probably disappeared when full protection was enabled. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into it. The infobox parameter looks incorrect. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found the edit, but it looks like we are good. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed. SilverLocust 💬 09:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the article

I still don’t understand why it hasn’t been fixed after many complaints. There is text in the article that criticizes Donald Trump, such as 34 felony cases or whatever, but not any text against Kamala Harris. I don’t support either candidate, but I think it also has to be mentioned that both of them support the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Hadjnix 10:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because saying "they support the ongoing genocide in Gaza" is a clear POV violation. — Czello (music) 10:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect

Donald Trump is now considered to be the winner per ABC, AP, CBS, NBC, and CNN (the five sources listed above). Please update his number to 276 per the tally above. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Am also lifting the full protection and returning to EC protection. And then going to bed, so if further admin assistance is required, please post at the appropriate page. Thanks to everyone for your hard work on this article. Risker (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for helping. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated results

From what I can tell, the electoral votes have changed from those listed in the infobox of this article, according to all the sources used in determining what the count is. Hence, this article should be updated. ButterCashier (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell it was announced within the last 15 minutes by all five major sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RCP

Some editors did unjustice to RCP, obviously. Governor Sheng (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my review of the prior discussion, I think it still is fair to remove. RCP is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as 'should be avoided' and has a no consensus on reliability. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has 277 electoral votes just say that he won.

Trump has 277 electoral votes just say that he won. Alexysun (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(First paragraph of lede) Most major news outlets have called the election for Donald Trump. Republican former president Donald Trump and Ohio senator JD Vance defeated the incumbent Democratic vice president Kamala Harris, and Minnesota governor Tim Walz.
(Fourth paragraph of lede) Donald Trump and JD Vance were projected by major media outlets as the next 47th president and 50th vice president of the United States, respectively. Trump received congratulatory messages from politicians all over the world. They are scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2025.
(Infobox) Trump is on the left side, with text bolded and with 276 EVs.
Not sure what I am missing. What are you seeing that indicates otherwise? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because I changed the First paragraph of lede to that. Alexysun (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of bomb threats in the Russian interference section?

Feels like there should be mention of the bomb threats called in to polling locations. Not sure whether it should be under threats of political violence or Russian interference—the FBI said many of them "appear to originate from Russian email domains." ThePurrletariat (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this should be included.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fake-bomb-threats-linked-russia-briefly-close-georgia-polling-locations-2024-11-05/
Reuters is a fairly reputable source, as is the FBI. Kai robert (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1255749408"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy