Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016 Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016 Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018 Articles for deletionDeleted

Kennedy appears to now have 270 electoral votes

Kennedy appears now has enough ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots to get 270. (Which you can see on the visualization I made on the left.) @ GreatCaesarsGhost:.

This graphic shows which have been certified by the state or official bid on third-party ballot (yellow) and counties (red). You can see it here.

He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait"... but he has approximately ~270 electoral votes at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria. (He easily meets >270 if you include states with write-in voting.)

As @ GreatCaesarsGhost: noted above: this is a foregone conclusion at this point. KlayCax ( talk) 02:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Kennedy doesn't isn't counted in NYT's representation of Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida because they apparently don't count "party" access as access. But I think that's wrong.
For all intents and purposes the requirements of the RFC are passed or it's WP: WIKILAWYERING at this point. Since all we're waiting for in many of these states is a fait accompli certification. KlayCax ( talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I continue to oppose including Kennedy in the top infobox & believe it's time to place a six-month moratorium on this topic. GoodDay ( talk) 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

A six-month moratorium places it past the election. The agreed upon criteria was ballot access in states with a combined 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. Both appear to be now met. KlayCax ( talk) 03:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We've been through this multiple times. RFK won't have a chance of qualifying until he's certified. End of story. Consistently bringing this up seems to qualify under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
Write-in access does not count! David O. Johnson ( talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This isn't write-in access. This is certified ballot access or a nomination on a ticket that has access within the state, @ David O. Johnson:. KlayCax ( talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Your constant push to put Kennedy into the top infobox, is becoming worrisome. GoodDay ( talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
He now meets the criteria for inclusion. KlayCax ( talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
He doesn't.
The Arizona ref you linked says,
"Kennedy is running as an independent. The group supporting him, America Values 2024, said it collected enough signatures for Kennedy Jr. to make the ballot. The group still needs to submit the signatures to the state's election office for approval."
They haven't even been certified yet. David O. Johnson ( talk) 03:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The counties have certified. The same in Indiana. Meaning it's just a formality at this point. Unless something like a lawsuit occurs... but I highly doubt it'll prevent 270 from happening. KlayCax ( talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And that was an error citation on my part because there were so many states to cite. That was a fault on my end. Apologies. KlayCax ( talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
In, California, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Delaware, which add up to 270 electoral votes, he has either ballot access through a certified independent run or a nomination or a party that has given access to the state. KlayCax ( talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Please stop? GoodDay ( talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Per the RFC he qualifies. I think, as GreatCaesarsGhost noted above, I think the time to add has come once we're past the RFC requirements, which appears either now or immediately. He's met the ballot access requirement and met the polling requirement. KlayCax ( talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
So you're not going to stop pushing for Kennedy's inclusion, ever. GoodDay ( talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That's my longstanding personal opinion, yes, and once he meets the RFC requirement (w/Indiana & Arizona certifying) I'd support editors adding it. We're a week or two away at most. KlayCax ( talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Going to wait until it's indisputable but qualification under the RFC guidelines is definitely imminent. KlayCax ( talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I disagree that we have met the RFC's standard for "ballot access to 270." In addition to the issues you note with TX, GA, and IA, I cannot find good sources for CA, AZ, MI, & TN. The links you provided are largely claims, not confirmations. You did omit one though: Oklahoma. - - I separately believe that we should read the tone of the comments in that RFC, rather than just its closing comment. In my estimation, the majority of opposition centered on the expectation that RFK would fade into irrelevance. That has not occurred, and I think it makes sense to reevaluate. I also think we are going to have a hard time citing ballot access; there are some funky ways it gets reported. HOWEVER, we have now raised the issue and given opportunity for editors to come to our way of thinking. They have not, so the issue should be dropped. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The Kennedy campaign article does list California, Michigan, and Tennessee with the following sources: CA: 1, 2; MI: A cite error and 2; TN: 1
The campaign article should obviously not be used as a source of verification. ~ I see now on the CA SoS site where AIP does have ballot access, so that one is good. TN presents a problem because we don't know the state will come back and say YES or NO, or that anyone will write an article about it. I'm trying to avoid WP:OR, but I think we need to acknowledge that our standard is going to be complicated to enact. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yep, it is going to be a problem. Though, some of it might be resolvable by the Secretary of State in those locations where they show who is on the ballot. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it's best to wait on SOS certifications, as those would be hard evidence, rather than claims of ballot access. David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That sounds reasonable to me. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 02:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Additionally, I did some more searching and CBS News also lists him as qualifying in Tennessee, so it seems to check out. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 19:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi, could you update the ref on the page where the CA SOS has certified the AIP?
I found an LA Times source here [1] that stated that it still had to be certified, but that was back in April.
I changed RFK's status in California to pending certification based on that, but if you find otherwise, please feel free to revert.
Thanks, David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It should be noted though that the campaign article only lists Kennedy as certified for 184 out of 538 electors. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Putting Harris in the infobox as presumed Democratic nominee

Harris has the endorsement of President Biden, and multiple big names in the party. On top of this, she has also secured pledged delegates, furthermore, nobody has challenged her and its unlikely they will.

I am aware some of these factors I have listed can change within a second, but I am proposing that if no challenge appears within the coming days, she is listed in the infobox as presumed nominee, just as Biden was before his withdrawal. Obviously feel free to give your input and start a discussion. Cheers. Aryan Persaud ( talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

When the sources call her the presumptive nominee, then we can add her. Until then, the infobox would have to be blank. Maybe once a majority of delegates say they will vote for her, then we can add her? It will depend on how the sources handle the situation. Prcc27 ( talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with this. I understand the argument for including her, but it has to be supported by reliable sources. So far, the situation is still being seen as undecided, even if Harris is the clear favorite. Gust Justice ( talk) 17:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It looks likely that it will be her, but we don't know that for sure. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Prcc27 Majority of the delegates have just been secured 66.129.217.85 ( talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The ap put something out
https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9 Char3290 ( talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
She does have one challenger, a woman, can’t remember her name. 86.31.178.164 ( talk) 18:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Marianne Williamson? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I would wait until the convention, unless there is an actual public commitment made by a number of convention delegates sufficient to guarantee the nomination. Anything can still happen. BD2412 T 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think you just expressed the two sides of this argument. We probably WILL see a public commitment of some kind, and there is a question of whether this group will accept it. I would just say we are in unprecedented times (for WP's lifespan), so no one should be invoking tangential precedence. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Aryan Persaud: Thank you for bringing this here - it's a great demonstration of collaboration & respect for consensus. Echoing what others have stated, while it may seem like this nomination is Kamala's to lose, we can't be for certain. There's still the possibility the DNC delegates will vote for somebody different altogether. BOTTO ( T• C) 18:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Best to wait for sources. For all we know, the delegates may vote for Biden, which they still can. GoodDay ( talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I would say give it at least a few days minimum and wait for sources to call her the presumptive nominee. If no one relevant enters the race by the end of the week (or publicly expresses interest in attending the convention as an on-the-floor option), than it'd be fair to call Kamala Harris the presumptive nominee. RickStrate2029 ( talk) 23:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support, as many news organizations have called her the presumptive nominee. Rushtheeditor ( talk) 09:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Harris Should Be Considered Presumptive Nominee WHEN the AP Delegate Tracker Shows Her Earning a Majority

Here is the link to the AP delegate support tracker. She should be considered the presumptive nominee when she inevitably surpasses the required 1,976 delegates needed. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/ap-dnc-delegate-survey/ Trajan1 ( talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The survey is an unofficial tally, as Democratic delegates are free to vote for the candidate of their choice when the party picks its new nominee. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Nothing is ever official until the delegates actually vote. But if the AP indicates a majority of delegates will be voting for Harris, I think that is sufficient for declaring her the “presumptive nominee” (assuming the reliable sources also concur with that). Prcc27 ( talk) 00:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think we should call her the "presumptive" nominee until RS do. And the AP counter isn't sufficient. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree. If the delegates were polled two weeks ago, this is not the answer they would have given, and we can't say for sure this is the answer they would give two weeks from now. It's a good guess, but the situation is dynamic. We should at least wait long enough to see if anyone else challenges Harris for the nomination, and whether there is any reaction to that. BD2412 T 01:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This doesn't change the fact that she is the presumptive nominee, and that the pages have listed presumptive nominees before. Presumptive nominees have always been able to change and they have been included nevertheless. Pledged delegates are pledged delegates EpochPirate ( talk) 01:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"Pledged delegates are pledged delegates" is meaningless here. There are no "pledged delegates" since they are pledged to Biden, and Biden has dropped out. As long as Biden was the nominee they were bound to vote for him in the first round. Now they are not bound to vote for anyone, even if they declare an intent at this point to do so. BD2412 T 01:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think we should say she's the presumptive nominee. Until there's anything to challenge that, for all intents and purposes, she's the presumptive nominee. That's what the media is calling her. I think we should follow suit, there's no point in pretending like we don't know when we all know who it's gonna be. BazingaFountain42 ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
AP Tracker has her over the top now, and are calling her presumptive https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share. That's sufficient for an RS in my opinion. WanukeX ( talk) 01:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
“the Associated Press is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee”. Unless other sources decide to call Harris “presumptive”, she should stay out of the infobox. Prcc27 ( talk) 01:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, had missed that line. Yeah, WP:CRYSTAL. WanukeX ( talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Here's a Bloomberg article calling her the presumptive nominee [2]. David O. Johnson ( talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I now support including her in the infobox per Bloomberg and because it only makes sense that the person with a majority of delegates should be considered the “presumptive nominee”. Prcc27 ( talk) 02:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
NYT now calling her the “de facto nominee” Dingers5Days ( talk) 02:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Bloomberg is calling her now the presumptive candidate. Harris Crosses Delegate Threshold in Sign Nomination Is Hers - Bloomberg - Harris sealed her status as the presumptive nominee Monday night after crossing the magic number of 1,976 pledged delegates.
Since Bloomberg is another well reputable source per WP:RSN, this should satisfy it now to update it. Raladic ( talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose - The delegates referenced in the sources mentioned here are unbound, unlike Biden (who had bound delegates) there can be no presumption that Kamala is the nominee until the voting actually occurs, because the delegates are free to vote however they please at the actual convention. For NPOV purposes, if Kamala is added at this juncture RFK Jr would have to be added as well since he has submitted more than 270 electors worth of ballot access petitions that are unchallenged and thus presumed to be valid at this juncture. XavierGreen ( talk) 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Just to ask, since when did Biden have bound delegates? All he had were unpledged delegates to my understanding. (This sentence amended at 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC))
Additionally, while these delegates are unbounded, these delegates have made statements of support to Harris being the party's nominee. Enough of them have declared their support of Harris to reach the majority in a first round vote, which is why reliable sources have reported her as the presumptive nominee.
Furthermore, Kennedy has been discussed enough for an FAQ to be created. In short, Kennedy hasn't been said to have gotten to 270 in reliable sources yet. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, but reliable sources clearly state that he has submitted petitions to enough states for well more than 270 delectors. Since he has submitted unchallenged petitions to over 270 electors, it can be presumed that he in fact has ballot access to at least 270. That is literally the same logical equivalent to including Kamala in the infobox at this juncture. All she has is a list of folks who said that they will vote for her, that doesn't actually translate into real votes until the voting actually occurs. To include Kamala but not RFK, Jr. at this juncture therefore leads to an NPOV violation. XavierGreen ( talk) 03:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This is a rehash of the other four discussions on here and it isn't the same. The Democratic Party is eligible for all 538 electoral votes. Kennedy is eligible for 99 electoral votes at the moment according to reliable sources. It isn't an NPOV violation to report that she is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and to say that Kennedy has not been announced to have secured eligibility for enough electoral votes. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose -Kamala has no bound delegates and shouldn't be added until after. Magical Golden Whip ( talk) 03:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support - particularly given VP Harris has just released a statement titled “Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for President”. By its very nature, being the ‘presumptive’ nominee indicates a formalisation which is yet to take place but it is essentially a foregone conclusion at this stage. The campaign is referring to her as the presumptive nominee, most of the media are referring to her as the presumptive nominee, and this page should too. Ted86 ( talk) 03:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose - she is not the nominee either officially, nor presumptively as she has no bound delegates. Should be left blank until the DNC. Statements from the Harris campaign are self-proclamations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and just because some media outlets are calling her the presumptive nominee does not mean it reflects reality. User:WoodElf 03:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not how Wikipedia works. we don't consider our own original thoughts. We report what reliable sources cite and we now have multiple very reliable sources that have said as much. The word wikt:en:presumptive means that it is Based on presumption or conjecture; inferred, likely, presumed, which is now supported by the polling of the delegates which have pledged their support for her. Raladic ( talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Should be left blank until the DNC. Definitely not. The roll call results should be completed by the August 7th deadline. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support - According to multiple RS, Harris can now be considered the presumptive nominee. She should be referred in this article as the new presumptive nominee, but first and foremost the infobox must be updated so that the state of the race is visible. Pledged vs unpledged delegates are not relevant here as we evaluate RS. CrazyPredictor ( talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support - Enough reliable sources are calling her the presumptive nominee, so she should be added to the infobox. Potentially we could add a note stating the AP line that the "delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice" as a compromise. Rogl94 ( talk) 04:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support - Multiple reliable sources, including ABC News, Bloomberg, and New York magazine, recognize Harris as having become the presumptive nominee, due to her having gaining endorsement from the majority of delegates. Additionally, as mentioned above, Harris' campaign has itself issued a statement recognizing Harris as the presumptive nominee. — Jamie Eilat ( talk) 04:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - What is the point of the bounded/pledged versus unbounded/unpledged delegates anyways? Biden had unpledged delegates from the primaries and Harris has unpledged delegates from endorsements. What is the actual difference? -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support, most RSes are already referring to her as presumptive nominee. - Shivertimbers433 ( talk) 04:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support only because sources have begun to call her the presumptive nominee. Yeoutie ( talk) 05:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose: No true reliable way of saying "I think person X will become candidate" before they become a candidate. Donald Trump almost died while being listed as presumptive here, so let's avoid a potential repeat of that. Only add Kamela when she gets the nomination officially. We don't list presumptive Oscar winners, so we shouldn't do it for presidential nominees Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 09:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: In the meantime time, can we avoid edit warring over the info box? Thanks. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 09:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support Per Raladic above, it seems the oppose votes are confused about what the term presumptive means. She is unquestionably the presumptive nominee. There are no other credible candidates even running. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you think the Associated Press is also confused about what the term means? Still, the AP is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee. That’s because the convention delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice [3] Endwise ( talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
100%, they most certainly are. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That one organization has chosen apply this meaning to their own reporting does not change the ordinarily understood dictionary definition of a term, nor its usage employed by everyone else. Please see our article on the subject. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose, the delegates are unbound (regardless of whether or not Harris receives state endorsements). The delegates are unbound until the convention. State parties could endorse Harris and then change their view upon the entry of another relevant candidate. Or, "draft" movements could spawn for candidates who are popular but don't wish to enter the race for the nomination. Calling Harris the presumptive nominee at any point would be ridiculous. RickStrate2029 ( talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support: Per the Associated Press, Harris now has enough pledged delegates to be considered the presumptive nominee. As the editor who first placed the in-line notation for waiting until we had clarity, I am on board with having her named in the infobox. Proceed. BOTTO ( T• C) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The delegates are unbound, they are free to vote for anyone. XavierGreen ( talk) 14:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And reliable sources say they will vote for Harris. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Good thing we're saying "presumptive", then. BOTTO ( T• C) 15:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Same with Biden, but we listed him. I don't see the difference here. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 22:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment:
-- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
(you dropped this comment in the wrong discussion section) That is fine, obviously you can restore. But just out of curiosity, what is the virtue of having something like that but masking it with the arrows? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Trump's current potrait

The image is over a year old and has him facing at an angle, which makes it look akward against Harris' straight looking potrait, I suggest we replace it with a more recent image 72.183.112.131 ( talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

On a slightly humorous note the yellow tie on Trump really throws me off. I support whatever picture for Trump so long as it includes a red tie for my sanity. BootsED ( talk) 02:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think the yellow tie pic was an improvement. The current Trump pic is just awful (slanted pose, weird facial expression, etc.) Prcc27 ( talk) 02:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that the yellow tie image is an improvement. It has him looking directly at the camera to match Harris' pose, and is a more recent image. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 02:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg is a much better option then either of the above, giving Trump is facing the camera, is also from June 2024, but is wearing a red tie like usual. Hopefully that suffices concerns! -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You did not allow anyone to give a second opinion before making the change. Trump's image should be discussed more thoroughly instead of you alone changing the picture because you think it looks better. For example had you put it up for discussion I would be rather opposed to the image you changed it to as his facial expression is rather awkward, as well as him looking quite sweaty in the photo. TheFellaVB ( talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree on the first part, but I think this photo is much better than the other one. I support the change. Dingers5Days ( talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I really think we should look at more options beyond the one MarioProtIV changed it too, there are certainly many more pictures of Trump that are public domain and would suit the article better. TheFellaVB ( talk) 09:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I support this option, though I can understand if someone doesn't like the uneven shoulders, the facial expression or the lighting. Have read a bunch of similar talks and seen these points considered too. Nursultan Malik( talk) 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg
He's not looking directly at the camera in that image, he's looking off to the left. File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg is the most recent image of him looking straight ahead (or as close to it as we can get) with squared shoulders. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I like that image on principle, but seeing Trump with a yellow tie really feels weird. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
His facial expression is quite odd, can't tell if he's smirking or bemused. I prefer this image from the same day with a neutral expression. GhulamIslam ( talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
File:Donald Trump June 2024.jpg
Trump's portrait should just be his from 2017 as president. It's not THAT old, and it's quite official, unlike the other ones that have been used Trajan1 ( talk) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
7 years is quite old, actually. Prcc27 ( talk) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
There is consensus to use a more recent image. Main reason being what Prcc27 said. GhulamIslam ( talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

On Multiple States RFK is listed to be part of Multiple parties

Multiple states such as California, North Carolina, Illinois, Colorado and more have RFK listed as different parties such as The American Independent Party, Natural Law, which dissolved in 2004, We The people and more. Makhnoid ( talk) 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Natural Law: [...] [T]he national headquarters of the Natural Law Party closed effective on April 30, 2004 [...] Entities using the name are still active in some states. [...] Only the Michigan and Mississippi Natural Law parties remained as ballot-qualified parties. As noted in a discussion above, Kennedy is the candidate for the Michigan Natural Law party. It also covers the other six or so parties that Kennedy is a candidate for. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 02:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh Ok thank for clarifying. Makhnoid ( talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"Republican efforts to disrupt election"

Where did that section go? soibangla ( talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

1RR reminder

Just an FYI, this article is under the WP:1RR restriction. David O. Johnson ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

restore Republican efforts to disrupt election

XavierGreen, you mentioned only one paragraph but removed three.

Please restore all the content. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1236136875 soibangla ( talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Mentioning the activities of Republican county party officers is entirely undue there are literally thousands of counties and nearly all of them have a republican committee made up of multiple officers adding over 10,000 bytes prose on a minor topic without gaining any consensus to do so is also undue. XavierGreen ( talk) 03:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
you mention only one element of a broader topic that encompasses several aspects, yet you remove the entire section. this is improper. restore all of it. soibangla ( talk) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
If coverage of a topic is too lengthy, we truncated it. Removing it all together is highly inappropriate. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That is two users who want the content restored, and I will add myself as a third pending discussion. Can you please restore it, XavierGreen? -- Super Goku V ( talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks pretty undue for this article. I'm okay with the see also mention, but not here. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's left-wing bias on abortion

WP:NOTAFORUM. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On almost every page that I read on Wikipedia, abortion is framed as "abortion rights", while pro-life topics like personhood of an unborn child are minimized or absent. To me, this is clearly a bias from Wikipedia, and I notice this with many left-wing topics. It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media. If Wikipedia cares about balance, there should be two photos in this article, one for and one against abortion. Also, any politician talking about personhood or related topics should be properly cited, instead of using terms such as "against abortion rights" or "anti-women". It was easier when "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were the common terms. In any event, please present the topic fairly. LABcrabs ( talk) 10:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia cares about neutrality, that doesn't mean that 2 opposing sides get to be evenly represented, that's an inherently flawed philosophy for which Wikipedia has rules with WP:GEVAL. A group of people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't mean we have to dedicate half of that article to that believe. This is why we have WP:UNDUE. None of the phrases you take issue with are on this page (and as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia unless that is specifically the topic of the article/section) so there is no point of raising this issue here in the first place. And just to be clear: none of these phrases are biased language either. Being anti-abortion is not a popular opinion and as such, Wikipedia reflects that. Your own word usage here already shows you have your own biases, which is fine, but that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. YannickFran ( talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia" I have been using the English language as a second language since I was 9 or 10-years-old, and I have English-language certifications from the University of Cambridge and the University of Michigan. I have never heard of the term "anti-women", the term is misogyny or (for persons) misogynists. Dimadick ( talk) 12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false. Our article on the American abortion debate gives roughly equal weight to both sides. Note that about about half of Americans describe themselves as "pro-life" and half describe themselves as "pro-choice", and the vast majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion in some cases and not others. Endwise ( talk) 12:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false." ...yes... that's what I said. Having said that, being "pro-choice" or against it isn't the same thing as being against abortion in general, and that divide is much broader, which the article you link also goes on to talk about. YannickFran ( talk) 08:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You said we don't give equal weight to the "anti-abortion" viewpoint (because it is not a "popular opinion"), just as we don't give equal weight to flat Earthers. I was just saying that that's incorrect, because we typically do give equal weight to the anti-abortion viewpoint when the issue comes up in these contexts, unlike flat Earth. And I don't really know what you mean in your new comment being "against abortion in general"; most people who would be described as "anti-abortion" also support exceptions, for example for the health of the mother. Endwise ( talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
“Wikipedia cares about neutrality but we will admit straight up in the same sentence that we actually don’t care about neutrality” 2600:8801:1194:8D00:D98B:7EE7:88E1:DC98 ( talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Neutrality does not mean evenly representing all opinions, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality is accurately reflecting the weight views and opinions are given in independent sources. — Czello ( music) 09:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
even as someone who’s pro choice I’m going to say just admit you have a bias here towards one side. Because if that’s going to be your response there’s no reason to hide it anymore. 2600:8801:1194:8D00:DDF5:3459:2395:2EBC ( talk) 20:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, it is referred to as abortion rights in reliable sources. And anyway, that's pretty neutral. You can agree or disagree on whether or not abortion should be a right. Personisinsterest ( talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
On Wikipedia we decided to go with the " abortion-rights" and " anti-abortion" movements, which I agree is neutral. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are biased towards their respective sides. None of that is in contravention with this article though so I see no issue. Endwise ( talk) 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media." So Wikipedia is working as it should. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources say, and left-wing legacy media are reliable sources. Dimadick ( talk) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I do think it is unnecessary to say “abortion rights” when we can use a more neutral term like “the abortion debate”. We absolutely should be using “pro-choice” and “pro-life”; those are the common terms. Finally, why only a pro-choice picture in the abortion section? Are there any images of protests in front of the SCOTUS building with both pro-choice and pro-life protesters? Prcc27 ( talk) 15:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The language of "abortion rights" is kind of preposterous anyway since the idea of a right to an abortion in the U.S. was nullified by Dobbs. "Abortion rights" is activist language much like how "pro-life" was twisted into "anti-abortion" because it sounds harsher and more negative. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 09:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Pro-life is itself a euphemistic self-applied term. It only very tangentially relates to what this group advocates for, which is making/keeping abortion a criminal offense. "Anti-abortion" is a much more accurate description of the actual policy position. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We probably shouldn't re-litigate the issue on this page if it has been subject to more robust discussion elsewhere, but I personally find "debate" to be a non-neutral. It implies a discussion or deliberation of facts, which does not apply here. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dimadick Last time I checked, no legacy media, including both left and right wing sources, are a reliable source of information. JohseTheUnknown ( talk) 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
They are. See RSP with GREL for some of them. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 22:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with User:GreatCaesarsGhost that this is too narrow a forum to address an issue of sitewide concern. With respect to "debate" perhaps the question to be addressed—in a more appropriate forum—is whether this should be called the "abortion rights debate". BD2412 T 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Picture of Nicole Shanahan, RFK's VP has been added to Wikipedia

I noticed that a picture of RFK Jr.'s running mate, Nicole Shanahan has been added to Wikipedia. You can then add it to the ticket under their campaign: [[File:Nicole Shanahan in March 2024.png]] Leikstjórinn ( talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done I do not see any indication on the image source that it is actually under the claimed license. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 16:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think that's been the main issue; Shanahan images keep getting uploaded that don't meet Wikipedia standards. I'm certain one of them in the past did have a CC license... David O. Johnson ( talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any creative commons licensing on that file, so I have proposed it for deletion as a copyright violation. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nevada should be characterized as Grey/Gray on the Election Map

Nevada is a swing state, and giving it to democrats as a 50-55% (expected) is not true.

Source: https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/president/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

I couldn't find any sources for Kamala Harris, but it should be expected that it would be relatively similar or slightly beneficial to Democrats. Even with this taken into account it should still be characterized as a swing state.

108.20.37.25 ( talk) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The legend indicates that the "shading of each state denotes the winner's two-party vote share, averaged between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections." It is not a rendering of any pundit's predictions for 2024. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860."

@ RaySwifty18 "Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860." You mean one full term right? Alexysun ( talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Theoretically speaking

Theoretically speaking there is no way to know whether Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee, because she said she got enough delegates to agree to vote for her at the convention, but that's her own words. She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. So essentially Biden's old delegates don't need to vote for her, and there's no way to know if her own claims are fully true. Alexysun ( talk) 03:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It's still an open nomination at the convention at the end of the day. Alexysun ( talk) 03:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It will not be a nomination at the convention. “We will deliver a presidential nominee by Aug. 7 of this year,” The problem is an Ohio law that only takes effect on September 1st. However, Ohio Democrats were pushing their party to pick a candidate sooner via a virtual roll call vote. That’s because Ohio voted to move the deadline for candidates to make the ballot from Aug. 7 to Sept. 1 to accommodate Democrats’ mid-August convention in Chicago. That law takes effect on Sept. 1. So the DNC will be doing a virtual roll call with all the delegates sometime in the next two weeks. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"But that's her own words" There are sources corroborating Harris' claims; media organizations have pages to track her delegates. Here's one from The Hill, for example: [5]. There are more that are sourced in the 2024 Democratic National Convention#Pre-convention delegate count subsection of that article, as well. David O. Johnson ( talk) 04:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh interesting. Alexysun ( talk) 04:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. How is that different from Biden? They were not locked in for him either. Biden could have won all 50 states and still have not gotten the nomination due to delegates voting for someone else. In both cases, the delegates are unpledged. So I am still baffled why this is a major issue for Harris, but didn't seem to be an issue for Biden.
Additionally, it isn't her claims. The delegates have made statements to endorse Harris that have added up to her having enough to win the first round vote. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Edit warring

@ Magical Golden Whip despite the presence of a comment right above the infobox asking for discussion to finish before adding a candidate to the infobox, you have decided to reinstate an edit that has been opposed twice now. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 12:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The discussion is currently 10-6 in favor. Why is the default to remove rather than add? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We are adding new content, so there needs to be a consensus around it being added if it is removed, as per the revert-discuss cycle. As opposed to digging in, edit warring and avoiding discussion altogether. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 12:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
If you can find WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, you can scroll to the next section and read WP:NOTBURO. And perhaps take a gander at WP:SNOWBALL. The consensus of both editors on this page and the media and people living in reality is that she is the nominee. The only counter argument is that the AP has chosen not to update their priors to deal with an unprecedented situation. Their internal bureaucracy is making them look foolish. Luckily, we have policies in place to ignore bureaucracy when it threatens the quality of the project. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
In WP:NOTBURO it quite literally says "disagreements are resolved through consensus based discussion". A 10-6 is by no means an avalanche. If anything, you are using bureaucracy to push forward a candidate that may win a nomination, when there is no reliable source saying 'its obvious Harris is gonna win'. None of those voting for the next Democratic Party leader are bound to vote Harris either. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 15:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but consensus is established based on a reading of our guidelines and policies and the arguments in favor of inclusion here strongly favor our guidelines about supporting what a majority of WP:RS is reporting. We don't generally consider the original thoughts of editors that are opposed to the inclusion if their arguments are not supported by Wikipedia's guidelines. You may be interested in the essay about status quo stonewalling. Raladic ( talk) 16:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And who are you exactly to decide the consensus, considering you have participated in the discussion yourself? Just because some sources say 'it is likely' doesn't mean it's a guarantee. For almost any other article, we do not include the candidate that is most likely to win the nomination. For example, for the recent 2024 United Kingdom general election, we didn't add a 'presumptive' winning candidate for a constituency simply based off polls

You may be interested in the essay about status quo stonewalling.

For your own sake, I'll ignore your little remark here. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 17:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have read the arguments. It's not just that some sources say 'it is likely' - we have multiple respected reliable sources using the specific word "presumptive", but it's definition in the English language.
Also, as for your last sentence, please avoid to WP:THREATEN other editors. I simply linked to an explanatory essay about reversions on status quo during a discussion if the arguments brought don't favor it based on our guidelines and policies. Raladic ( talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This has been going back and fourth by several users adding and re adding her in for a few days. Since my last warning I just reverted back to the way it was before with her picture there. In seriousness you need to make up your minds on adding her or just waiting until the DNC. Magical Golden Whip ( talk) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "I have read the arguments"

You have participated in the discussion in favour of including the image. This is like being the prosecutor and the judge at the same time.

  • "We have multiple respected sources"

And? We didn't add 'Succeeded by: Keir Starmer (presumptive)' to the infobox of ex-Prime Minster Rishi Sunak despite Labour being predicted to have a landslide before the 2024 United Kingdom general election. WP:CRYSTAL needs to be taken into account here and I would rather leave putting down a candidate for the Democratic party until the DNC. Then it is undisputable and there is no maybes or buts about it.

  • "Avoid WP:THREATEN"

Highly ironic you put this down after being quite WP:UNCIVIL by implying that I am "stonewalling" because I disagree with you.

If you want my position on this, I would rather wait to the Democratic National Congress before adding a candidate, because one thing Wikipedia is certainly not is a poll tracker. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And what does the WP:OTHERCONTENT British election have to do with the US election that has a specific use for presumptive candidate, not winner, candidate. After the DNC (though current news based, likely within the next few days based on a virtual roll call before August 7th) she won't be the presumptive, but the confirmed candidate.
I didn't imply anything, please remember to WP:AGF when interacting with other editors. I simply linked to a useful explanatory essay on when and when we may not remove content that is being discussed when a certain outcome appears to be currently favored during the discussion, such is the case here.
I then simply reminded you to please avoid to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Raladic ( talk) 18:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You don't know what will happen at the DNC though, and nobody does accurately. There are plenty of things that could happen to Harris between now and August 7th, and a source isn't going to predict that.

  • "I didn't imply anything"
Textbook WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour. If you didn't imply anything, I wouldn't have flagged it. At this point I have shown full WP:AGF and never accused you yourself of casting aspersions, throughout the discussion, as opposed to you stating I am exhibiting status quo stonewalling, so i will now ask again what authority do you have in ruling on a consensus after clearly expressing support for one side?

  • "US election that has a specific use for presumptive candidate, not winner, candidate"
Where is this specific use from? Name the policy.
I don't think you have really got what I am trying to push across to you from this discussion, so here is a simple question: Is Harris the current Democratic Party leader, even in a de facto capacity? If yes, how? What about candidates such as Michelle Obama getting higher approval ratings against Trump [6]? There are so many things here that could change and making this page like a poll tracker is going to open up a massive can of worms that could be bypassed by simply waiting for the DNC to confirm. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Perhaps this should be brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? We're getting a lot of hot collars and are at an impasse. BOTTO ( T• C) 21:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Probably. I did take this to RFPP the other day and the user who reviewed didn't think it was to the level of requiring FULL, plus there are good edits being made outside of the infobox situation. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 22:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
While I don't believe the article should be Goldlocked, we should at least semi-protect the talk page to prevent IPs from talking since they are adding too many sections that contain pointless topics in them. Qutlooker ( talk) 23:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Trivial superlatives in the lede

We are continuing to see trivial superlatives added to the lede. The latest notes this is the first election since 1976 to not feature one of the members of three entirely distinct families. Biden appearing on a ballot is not connected to George Bush appearing on a ballot in any way, such that the absence of both is not worthy of note. Trivia in general does not belong in an encyclopedia. Superlatives are fine, but when you start adding multiple qualifiers, the relevance drops off very quickly. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Are Swing States trivia?

I added swing states to the lead, someone with a potential conflict of interest in the article removed it, saying the matter of swing states is 'trivia'. Are swing states a key aspect of the election or are they trivia? Tom B ( talk) 14:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It is my understanding that they are key. 86.31.178.164 ( talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It was unsourced content; all claims on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. There is general agreement on some states being “swing”, but also some disagreement. For example, some forecasts say Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada are tossups, while others say they are lean R. Regardless, it is common practice on Wikipedia to add information to the body before we even consider adding it to the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Prcc27 ( talk) 18:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wordiness

Any good editor knows that “led to a series of events that resulted in” means “led to”. 86.31.178.164 ( talk) 17:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You are correct, and I deleted those seven unnecessary words. Brevity is the soul of wit. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1236502269"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016 Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016 Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018 Articles for deletionDeleted

Kennedy appears to now have 270 electoral votes

Kennedy appears now has enough ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots to get 270. (Which you can see on the visualization I made on the left.) @ GreatCaesarsGhost:.

This graphic shows which have been certified by the state or official bid on third-party ballot (yellow) and counties (red). You can see it here.

He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait"... but he has approximately ~270 electoral votes at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria. (He easily meets >270 if you include states with write-in voting.)

As @ GreatCaesarsGhost: noted above: this is a foregone conclusion at this point. KlayCax ( talk) 02:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Kennedy doesn't isn't counted in NYT's representation of Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida because they apparently don't count "party" access as access. But I think that's wrong.
For all intents and purposes the requirements of the RFC are passed or it's WP: WIKILAWYERING at this point. Since all we're waiting for in many of these states is a fait accompli certification. KlayCax ( talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I continue to oppose including Kennedy in the top infobox & believe it's time to place a six-month moratorium on this topic. GoodDay ( talk) 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

A six-month moratorium places it past the election. The agreed upon criteria was ballot access in states with a combined 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. Both appear to be now met. KlayCax ( talk) 03:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We've been through this multiple times. RFK won't have a chance of qualifying until he's certified. End of story. Consistently bringing this up seems to qualify under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
Write-in access does not count! David O. Johnson ( talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This isn't write-in access. This is certified ballot access or a nomination on a ticket that has access within the state, @ David O. Johnson:. KlayCax ( talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Your constant push to put Kennedy into the top infobox, is becoming worrisome. GoodDay ( talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
He now meets the criteria for inclusion. KlayCax ( talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
He doesn't.
The Arizona ref you linked says,
"Kennedy is running as an independent. The group supporting him, America Values 2024, said it collected enough signatures for Kennedy Jr. to make the ballot. The group still needs to submit the signatures to the state's election office for approval."
They haven't even been certified yet. David O. Johnson ( talk) 03:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The counties have certified. The same in Indiana. Meaning it's just a formality at this point. Unless something like a lawsuit occurs... but I highly doubt it'll prevent 270 from happening. KlayCax ( talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And that was an error citation on my part because there were so many states to cite. That was a fault on my end. Apologies. KlayCax ( talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
In, California, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Delaware, which add up to 270 electoral votes, he has either ballot access through a certified independent run or a nomination or a party that has given access to the state. KlayCax ( talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Please stop? GoodDay ( talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Per the RFC he qualifies. I think, as GreatCaesarsGhost noted above, I think the time to add has come once we're past the RFC requirements, which appears either now or immediately. He's met the ballot access requirement and met the polling requirement. KlayCax ( talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
So you're not going to stop pushing for Kennedy's inclusion, ever. GoodDay ( talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That's my longstanding personal opinion, yes, and once he meets the RFC requirement (w/Indiana & Arizona certifying) I'd support editors adding it. We're a week or two away at most. KlayCax ( talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Going to wait until it's indisputable but qualification under the RFC guidelines is definitely imminent. KlayCax ( talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I disagree that we have met the RFC's standard for "ballot access to 270." In addition to the issues you note with TX, GA, and IA, I cannot find good sources for CA, AZ, MI, & TN. The links you provided are largely claims, not confirmations. You did omit one though: Oklahoma. - - I separately believe that we should read the tone of the comments in that RFC, rather than just its closing comment. In my estimation, the majority of opposition centered on the expectation that RFK would fade into irrelevance. That has not occurred, and I think it makes sense to reevaluate. I also think we are going to have a hard time citing ballot access; there are some funky ways it gets reported. HOWEVER, we have now raised the issue and given opportunity for editors to come to our way of thinking. They have not, so the issue should be dropped. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The Kennedy campaign article does list California, Michigan, and Tennessee with the following sources: CA: 1, 2; MI: A cite error and 2; TN: 1
The campaign article should obviously not be used as a source of verification. ~ I see now on the CA SoS site where AIP does have ballot access, so that one is good. TN presents a problem because we don't know the state will come back and say YES or NO, or that anyone will write an article about it. I'm trying to avoid WP:OR, but I think we need to acknowledge that our standard is going to be complicated to enact. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yep, it is going to be a problem. Though, some of it might be resolvable by the Secretary of State in those locations where they show who is on the ballot. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it's best to wait on SOS certifications, as those would be hard evidence, rather than claims of ballot access. David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That sounds reasonable to me. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 02:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Additionally, I did some more searching and CBS News also lists him as qualifying in Tennessee, so it seems to check out. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 19:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi, could you update the ref on the page where the CA SOS has certified the AIP?
I found an LA Times source here [1] that stated that it still had to be certified, but that was back in April.
I changed RFK's status in California to pending certification based on that, but if you find otherwise, please feel free to revert.
Thanks, David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It should be noted though that the campaign article only lists Kennedy as certified for 184 out of 538 electors. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Putting Harris in the infobox as presumed Democratic nominee

Harris has the endorsement of President Biden, and multiple big names in the party. On top of this, she has also secured pledged delegates, furthermore, nobody has challenged her and its unlikely they will.

I am aware some of these factors I have listed can change within a second, but I am proposing that if no challenge appears within the coming days, she is listed in the infobox as presumed nominee, just as Biden was before his withdrawal. Obviously feel free to give your input and start a discussion. Cheers. Aryan Persaud ( talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

When the sources call her the presumptive nominee, then we can add her. Until then, the infobox would have to be blank. Maybe once a majority of delegates say they will vote for her, then we can add her? It will depend on how the sources handle the situation. Prcc27 ( talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with this. I understand the argument for including her, but it has to be supported by reliable sources. So far, the situation is still being seen as undecided, even if Harris is the clear favorite. Gust Justice ( talk) 17:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It looks likely that it will be her, but we don't know that for sure. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Prcc27 Majority of the delegates have just been secured 66.129.217.85 ( talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The ap put something out
https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9 Char3290 ( talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
She does have one challenger, a woman, can’t remember her name. 86.31.178.164 ( talk) 18:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Marianne Williamson? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I would wait until the convention, unless there is an actual public commitment made by a number of convention delegates sufficient to guarantee the nomination. Anything can still happen. BD2412 T 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think you just expressed the two sides of this argument. We probably WILL see a public commitment of some kind, and there is a question of whether this group will accept it. I would just say we are in unprecedented times (for WP's lifespan), so no one should be invoking tangential precedence. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Aryan Persaud: Thank you for bringing this here - it's a great demonstration of collaboration & respect for consensus. Echoing what others have stated, while it may seem like this nomination is Kamala's to lose, we can't be for certain. There's still the possibility the DNC delegates will vote for somebody different altogether. BOTTO ( T• C) 18:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Best to wait for sources. For all we know, the delegates may vote for Biden, which they still can. GoodDay ( talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I would say give it at least a few days minimum and wait for sources to call her the presumptive nominee. If no one relevant enters the race by the end of the week (or publicly expresses interest in attending the convention as an on-the-floor option), than it'd be fair to call Kamala Harris the presumptive nominee. RickStrate2029 ( talk) 23:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support, as many news organizations have called her the presumptive nominee. Rushtheeditor ( talk) 09:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Harris Should Be Considered Presumptive Nominee WHEN the AP Delegate Tracker Shows Her Earning a Majority

Here is the link to the AP delegate support tracker. She should be considered the presumptive nominee when she inevitably surpasses the required 1,976 delegates needed. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/ap-dnc-delegate-survey/ Trajan1 ( talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The survey is an unofficial tally, as Democratic delegates are free to vote for the candidate of their choice when the party picks its new nominee. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Nothing is ever official until the delegates actually vote. But if the AP indicates a majority of delegates will be voting for Harris, I think that is sufficient for declaring her the “presumptive nominee” (assuming the reliable sources also concur with that). Prcc27 ( talk) 00:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think we should call her the "presumptive" nominee until RS do. And the AP counter isn't sufficient. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree. If the delegates were polled two weeks ago, this is not the answer they would have given, and we can't say for sure this is the answer they would give two weeks from now. It's a good guess, but the situation is dynamic. We should at least wait long enough to see if anyone else challenges Harris for the nomination, and whether there is any reaction to that. BD2412 T 01:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This doesn't change the fact that she is the presumptive nominee, and that the pages have listed presumptive nominees before. Presumptive nominees have always been able to change and they have been included nevertheless. Pledged delegates are pledged delegates EpochPirate ( talk) 01:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"Pledged delegates are pledged delegates" is meaningless here. There are no "pledged delegates" since they are pledged to Biden, and Biden has dropped out. As long as Biden was the nominee they were bound to vote for him in the first round. Now they are not bound to vote for anyone, even if they declare an intent at this point to do so. BD2412 T 01:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think we should say she's the presumptive nominee. Until there's anything to challenge that, for all intents and purposes, she's the presumptive nominee. That's what the media is calling her. I think we should follow suit, there's no point in pretending like we don't know when we all know who it's gonna be. BazingaFountain42 ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
AP Tracker has her over the top now, and are calling her presumptive https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share. That's sufficient for an RS in my opinion. WanukeX ( talk) 01:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
“the Associated Press is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee”. Unless other sources decide to call Harris “presumptive”, she should stay out of the infobox. Prcc27 ( talk) 01:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, had missed that line. Yeah, WP:CRYSTAL. WanukeX ( talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Here's a Bloomberg article calling her the presumptive nominee [2]. David O. Johnson ( talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I now support including her in the infobox per Bloomberg and because it only makes sense that the person with a majority of delegates should be considered the “presumptive nominee”. Prcc27 ( talk) 02:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
NYT now calling her the “de facto nominee” Dingers5Days ( talk) 02:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Bloomberg is calling her now the presumptive candidate. Harris Crosses Delegate Threshold in Sign Nomination Is Hers - Bloomberg - Harris sealed her status as the presumptive nominee Monday night after crossing the magic number of 1,976 pledged delegates.
Since Bloomberg is another well reputable source per WP:RSN, this should satisfy it now to update it. Raladic ( talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose - The delegates referenced in the sources mentioned here are unbound, unlike Biden (who had bound delegates) there can be no presumption that Kamala is the nominee until the voting actually occurs, because the delegates are free to vote however they please at the actual convention. For NPOV purposes, if Kamala is added at this juncture RFK Jr would have to be added as well since he has submitted more than 270 electors worth of ballot access petitions that are unchallenged and thus presumed to be valid at this juncture. XavierGreen ( talk) 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Just to ask, since when did Biden have bound delegates? All he had were unpledged delegates to my understanding. (This sentence amended at 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC))
Additionally, while these delegates are unbounded, these delegates have made statements of support to Harris being the party's nominee. Enough of them have declared their support of Harris to reach the majority in a first round vote, which is why reliable sources have reported her as the presumptive nominee.
Furthermore, Kennedy has been discussed enough for an FAQ to be created. In short, Kennedy hasn't been said to have gotten to 270 in reliable sources yet. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, but reliable sources clearly state that he has submitted petitions to enough states for well more than 270 delectors. Since he has submitted unchallenged petitions to over 270 electors, it can be presumed that he in fact has ballot access to at least 270. That is literally the same logical equivalent to including Kamala in the infobox at this juncture. All she has is a list of folks who said that they will vote for her, that doesn't actually translate into real votes until the voting actually occurs. To include Kamala but not RFK, Jr. at this juncture therefore leads to an NPOV violation. XavierGreen ( talk) 03:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This is a rehash of the other four discussions on here and it isn't the same. The Democratic Party is eligible for all 538 electoral votes. Kennedy is eligible for 99 electoral votes at the moment according to reliable sources. It isn't an NPOV violation to report that she is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and to say that Kennedy has not been announced to have secured eligibility for enough electoral votes. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose -Kamala has no bound delegates and shouldn't be added until after. Magical Golden Whip ( talk) 03:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support - particularly given VP Harris has just released a statement titled “Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for President”. By its very nature, being the ‘presumptive’ nominee indicates a formalisation which is yet to take place but it is essentially a foregone conclusion at this stage. The campaign is referring to her as the presumptive nominee, most of the media are referring to her as the presumptive nominee, and this page should too. Ted86 ( talk) 03:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose - she is not the nominee either officially, nor presumptively as she has no bound delegates. Should be left blank until the DNC. Statements from the Harris campaign are self-proclamations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and just because some media outlets are calling her the presumptive nominee does not mean it reflects reality. User:WoodElf 03:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not how Wikipedia works. we don't consider our own original thoughts. We report what reliable sources cite and we now have multiple very reliable sources that have said as much. The word wikt:en:presumptive means that it is Based on presumption or conjecture; inferred, likely, presumed, which is now supported by the polling of the delegates which have pledged their support for her. Raladic ( talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Should be left blank until the DNC. Definitely not. The roll call results should be completed by the August 7th deadline. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support - According to multiple RS, Harris can now be considered the presumptive nominee. She should be referred in this article as the new presumptive nominee, but first and foremost the infobox must be updated so that the state of the race is visible. Pledged vs unpledged delegates are not relevant here as we evaluate RS. CrazyPredictor ( talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support - Enough reliable sources are calling her the presumptive nominee, so she should be added to the infobox. Potentially we could add a note stating the AP line that the "delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice" as a compromise. Rogl94 ( talk) 04:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support - Multiple reliable sources, including ABC News, Bloomberg, and New York magazine, recognize Harris as having become the presumptive nominee, due to her having gaining endorsement from the majority of delegates. Additionally, as mentioned above, Harris' campaign has itself issued a statement recognizing Harris as the presumptive nominee. — Jamie Eilat ( talk) 04:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - What is the point of the bounded/pledged versus unbounded/unpledged delegates anyways? Biden had unpledged delegates from the primaries and Harris has unpledged delegates from endorsements. What is the actual difference? -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support, most RSes are already referring to her as presumptive nominee. - Shivertimbers433 ( talk) 04:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support only because sources have begun to call her the presumptive nominee. Yeoutie ( talk) 05:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose: No true reliable way of saying "I think person X will become candidate" before they become a candidate. Donald Trump almost died while being listed as presumptive here, so let's avoid a potential repeat of that. Only add Kamela when she gets the nomination officially. We don't list presumptive Oscar winners, so we shouldn't do it for presidential nominees Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 09:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: In the meantime time, can we avoid edit warring over the info box? Thanks. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 09:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support Per Raladic above, it seems the oppose votes are confused about what the term presumptive means. She is unquestionably the presumptive nominee. There are no other credible candidates even running. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you think the Associated Press is also confused about what the term means? Still, the AP is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee. That’s because the convention delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice [3] Endwise ( talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
100%, they most certainly are. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That one organization has chosen apply this meaning to their own reporting does not change the ordinarily understood dictionary definition of a term, nor its usage employed by everyone else. Please see our article on the subject. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose, the delegates are unbound (regardless of whether or not Harris receives state endorsements). The delegates are unbound until the convention. State parties could endorse Harris and then change their view upon the entry of another relevant candidate. Or, "draft" movements could spawn for candidates who are popular but don't wish to enter the race for the nomination. Calling Harris the presumptive nominee at any point would be ridiculous. RickStrate2029 ( talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support: Per the Associated Press, Harris now has enough pledged delegates to be considered the presumptive nominee. As the editor who first placed the in-line notation for waiting until we had clarity, I am on board with having her named in the infobox. Proceed. BOTTO ( T• C) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The delegates are unbound, they are free to vote for anyone. XavierGreen ( talk) 14:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And reliable sources say they will vote for Harris. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Good thing we're saying "presumptive", then. BOTTO ( T• C) 15:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Same with Biden, but we listed him. I don't see the difference here. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 22:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment:
-- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
(you dropped this comment in the wrong discussion section) That is fine, obviously you can restore. But just out of curiosity, what is the virtue of having something like that but masking it with the arrows? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Trump's current potrait

The image is over a year old and has him facing at an angle, which makes it look akward against Harris' straight looking potrait, I suggest we replace it with a more recent image 72.183.112.131 ( talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

On a slightly humorous note the yellow tie on Trump really throws me off. I support whatever picture for Trump so long as it includes a red tie for my sanity. BootsED ( talk) 02:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think the yellow tie pic was an improvement. The current Trump pic is just awful (slanted pose, weird facial expression, etc.) Prcc27 ( talk) 02:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that the yellow tie image is an improvement. It has him looking directly at the camera to match Harris' pose, and is a more recent image. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 02:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg is a much better option then either of the above, giving Trump is facing the camera, is also from June 2024, but is wearing a red tie like usual. Hopefully that suffices concerns! -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You did not allow anyone to give a second opinion before making the change. Trump's image should be discussed more thoroughly instead of you alone changing the picture because you think it looks better. For example had you put it up for discussion I would be rather opposed to the image you changed it to as his facial expression is rather awkward, as well as him looking quite sweaty in the photo. TheFellaVB ( talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree on the first part, but I think this photo is much better than the other one. I support the change. Dingers5Days ( talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I really think we should look at more options beyond the one MarioProtIV changed it too, there are certainly many more pictures of Trump that are public domain and would suit the article better. TheFellaVB ( talk) 09:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I support this option, though I can understand if someone doesn't like the uneven shoulders, the facial expression or the lighting. Have read a bunch of similar talks and seen these points considered too. Nursultan Malik( talk) 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg
He's not looking directly at the camera in that image, he's looking off to the left. File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg is the most recent image of him looking straight ahead (or as close to it as we can get) with squared shoulders. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I like that image on principle, but seeing Trump with a yellow tie really feels weird. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
His facial expression is quite odd, can't tell if he's smirking or bemused. I prefer this image from the same day with a neutral expression. GhulamIslam ( talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
File:Donald Trump June 2024.jpg
Trump's portrait should just be his from 2017 as president. It's not THAT old, and it's quite official, unlike the other ones that have been used Trajan1 ( talk) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
7 years is quite old, actually. Prcc27 ( talk) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
There is consensus to use a more recent image. Main reason being what Prcc27 said. GhulamIslam ( talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

On Multiple States RFK is listed to be part of Multiple parties

Multiple states such as California, North Carolina, Illinois, Colorado and more have RFK listed as different parties such as The American Independent Party, Natural Law, which dissolved in 2004, We The people and more. Makhnoid ( talk) 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Natural Law: [...] [T]he national headquarters of the Natural Law Party closed effective on April 30, 2004 [...] Entities using the name are still active in some states. [...] Only the Michigan and Mississippi Natural Law parties remained as ballot-qualified parties. As noted in a discussion above, Kennedy is the candidate for the Michigan Natural Law party. It also covers the other six or so parties that Kennedy is a candidate for. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 02:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh Ok thank for clarifying. Makhnoid ( talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"Republican efforts to disrupt election"

Where did that section go? soibangla ( talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

1RR reminder

Just an FYI, this article is under the WP:1RR restriction. David O. Johnson ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

restore Republican efforts to disrupt election

XavierGreen, you mentioned only one paragraph but removed three.

Please restore all the content. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1236136875 soibangla ( talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Mentioning the activities of Republican county party officers is entirely undue there are literally thousands of counties and nearly all of them have a republican committee made up of multiple officers adding over 10,000 bytes prose on a minor topic without gaining any consensus to do so is also undue. XavierGreen ( talk) 03:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
you mention only one element of a broader topic that encompasses several aspects, yet you remove the entire section. this is improper. restore all of it. soibangla ( talk) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
If coverage of a topic is too lengthy, we truncated it. Removing it all together is highly inappropriate. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
That is two users who want the content restored, and I will add myself as a third pending discussion. Can you please restore it, XavierGreen? -- Super Goku V ( talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Looks pretty undue for this article. I'm okay with the see also mention, but not here. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's left-wing bias on abortion

WP:NOTAFORUM. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On almost every page that I read on Wikipedia, abortion is framed as "abortion rights", while pro-life topics like personhood of an unborn child are minimized or absent. To me, this is clearly a bias from Wikipedia, and I notice this with many left-wing topics. It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media. If Wikipedia cares about balance, there should be two photos in this article, one for and one against abortion. Also, any politician talking about personhood or related topics should be properly cited, instead of using terms such as "against abortion rights" or "anti-women". It was easier when "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were the common terms. In any event, please present the topic fairly. LABcrabs ( talk) 10:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia cares about neutrality, that doesn't mean that 2 opposing sides get to be evenly represented, that's an inherently flawed philosophy for which Wikipedia has rules with WP:GEVAL. A group of people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't mean we have to dedicate half of that article to that believe. This is why we have WP:UNDUE. None of the phrases you take issue with are on this page (and as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia unless that is specifically the topic of the article/section) so there is no point of raising this issue here in the first place. And just to be clear: none of these phrases are biased language either. Being anti-abortion is not a popular opinion and as such, Wikipedia reflects that. Your own word usage here already shows you have your own biases, which is fine, but that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. YannickFran ( talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia" I have been using the English language as a second language since I was 9 or 10-years-old, and I have English-language certifications from the University of Cambridge and the University of Michigan. I have never heard of the term "anti-women", the term is misogyny or (for persons) misogynists. Dimadick ( talk) 12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false. Our article on the American abortion debate gives roughly equal weight to both sides. Note that about about half of Americans describe themselves as "pro-life" and half describe themselves as "pro-choice", and the vast majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion in some cases and not others. Endwise ( talk) 12:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false." ...yes... that's what I said. Having said that, being "pro-choice" or against it isn't the same thing as being against abortion in general, and that divide is much broader, which the article you link also goes on to talk about. YannickFran ( talk) 08:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You said we don't give equal weight to the "anti-abortion" viewpoint (because it is not a "popular opinion"), just as we don't give equal weight to flat Earthers. I was just saying that that's incorrect, because we typically do give equal weight to the anti-abortion viewpoint when the issue comes up in these contexts, unlike flat Earth. And I don't really know what you mean in your new comment being "against abortion in general"; most people who would be described as "anti-abortion" also support exceptions, for example for the health of the mother. Endwise ( talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
“Wikipedia cares about neutrality but we will admit straight up in the same sentence that we actually don’t care about neutrality” 2600:8801:1194:8D00:D98B:7EE7:88E1:DC98 ( talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Neutrality does not mean evenly representing all opinions, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality is accurately reflecting the weight views and opinions are given in independent sources. — Czello ( music) 09:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
even as someone who’s pro choice I’m going to say just admit you have a bias here towards one side. Because if that’s going to be your response there’s no reason to hide it anymore. 2600:8801:1194:8D00:DDF5:3459:2395:2EBC ( talk) 20:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, it is referred to as abortion rights in reliable sources. And anyway, that's pretty neutral. You can agree or disagree on whether or not abortion should be a right. Personisinsterest ( talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
On Wikipedia we decided to go with the " abortion-rights" and " anti-abortion" movements, which I agree is neutral. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are biased towards their respective sides. None of that is in contravention with this article though so I see no issue. Endwise ( talk) 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media." So Wikipedia is working as it should. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources say, and left-wing legacy media are reliable sources. Dimadick ( talk) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I do think it is unnecessary to say “abortion rights” when we can use a more neutral term like “the abortion debate”. We absolutely should be using “pro-choice” and “pro-life”; those are the common terms. Finally, why only a pro-choice picture in the abortion section? Are there any images of protests in front of the SCOTUS building with both pro-choice and pro-life protesters? Prcc27 ( talk) 15:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The language of "abortion rights" is kind of preposterous anyway since the idea of a right to an abortion in the U.S. was nullified by Dobbs. "Abortion rights" is activist language much like how "pro-life" was twisted into "anti-abortion" because it sounds harsher and more negative. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 09:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Pro-life is itself a euphemistic self-applied term. It only very tangentially relates to what this group advocates for, which is making/keeping abortion a criminal offense. "Anti-abortion" is a much more accurate description of the actual policy position. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We probably shouldn't re-litigate the issue on this page if it has been subject to more robust discussion elsewhere, but I personally find "debate" to be a non-neutral. It implies a discussion or deliberation of facts, which does not apply here. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dimadick Last time I checked, no legacy media, including both left and right wing sources, are a reliable source of information. JohseTheUnknown ( talk) 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
They are. See RSP with GREL for some of them. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 22:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with User:GreatCaesarsGhost that this is too narrow a forum to address an issue of sitewide concern. With respect to "debate" perhaps the question to be addressed—in a more appropriate forum—is whether this should be called the "abortion rights debate". BD2412 T 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Picture of Nicole Shanahan, RFK's VP has been added to Wikipedia

I noticed that a picture of RFK Jr.'s running mate, Nicole Shanahan has been added to Wikipedia. You can then add it to the ticket under their campaign: [[File:Nicole Shanahan in March 2024.png]] Leikstjórinn ( talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done I do not see any indication on the image source that it is actually under the claimed license. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 16:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think that's been the main issue; Shanahan images keep getting uploaded that don't meet Wikipedia standards. I'm certain one of them in the past did have a CC license... David O. Johnson ( talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any creative commons licensing on that file, so I have proposed it for deletion as a copyright violation. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nevada should be characterized as Grey/Gray on the Election Map

Nevada is a swing state, and giving it to democrats as a 50-55% (expected) is not true.

Source: https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/president/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

I couldn't find any sources for Kamala Harris, but it should be expected that it would be relatively similar or slightly beneficial to Democrats. Even with this taken into account it should still be characterized as a swing state.

108.20.37.25 ( talk) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The legend indicates that the "shading of each state denotes the winner's two-party vote share, averaged between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections." It is not a rendering of any pundit's predictions for 2024. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860."

@ RaySwifty18 "Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860." You mean one full term right? Alexysun ( talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Theoretically speaking

Theoretically speaking there is no way to know whether Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee, because she said she got enough delegates to agree to vote for her at the convention, but that's her own words. She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. So essentially Biden's old delegates don't need to vote for her, and there's no way to know if her own claims are fully true. Alexysun ( talk) 03:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It's still an open nomination at the convention at the end of the day. Alexysun ( talk) 03:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It will not be a nomination at the convention. “We will deliver a presidential nominee by Aug. 7 of this year,” The problem is an Ohio law that only takes effect on September 1st. However, Ohio Democrats were pushing their party to pick a candidate sooner via a virtual roll call vote. That’s because Ohio voted to move the deadline for candidates to make the ballot from Aug. 7 to Sept. 1 to accommodate Democrats’ mid-August convention in Chicago. That law takes effect on Sept. 1. So the DNC will be doing a virtual roll call with all the delegates sometime in the next two weeks. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"But that's her own words" There are sources corroborating Harris' claims; media organizations have pages to track her delegates. Here's one from The Hill, for example: [5]. There are more that are sourced in the 2024 Democratic National Convention#Pre-convention delegate count subsection of that article, as well. David O. Johnson ( talk) 04:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh interesting. Alexysun ( talk) 04:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. How is that different from Biden? They were not locked in for him either. Biden could have won all 50 states and still have not gotten the nomination due to delegates voting for someone else. In both cases, the delegates are unpledged. So I am still baffled why this is a major issue for Harris, but didn't seem to be an issue for Biden.
Additionally, it isn't her claims. The delegates have made statements to endorse Harris that have added up to her having enough to win the first round vote. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Edit warring

@ Magical Golden Whip despite the presence of a comment right above the infobox asking for discussion to finish before adding a candidate to the infobox, you have decided to reinstate an edit that has been opposed twice now. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 12:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The discussion is currently 10-6 in favor. Why is the default to remove rather than add? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We are adding new content, so there needs to be a consensus around it being added if it is removed, as per the revert-discuss cycle. As opposed to digging in, edit warring and avoiding discussion altogether. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 12:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
If you can find WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, you can scroll to the next section and read WP:NOTBURO. And perhaps take a gander at WP:SNOWBALL. The consensus of both editors on this page and the media and people living in reality is that she is the nominee. The only counter argument is that the AP has chosen not to update their priors to deal with an unprecedented situation. Their internal bureaucracy is making them look foolish. Luckily, we have policies in place to ignore bureaucracy when it threatens the quality of the project. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
In WP:NOTBURO it quite literally says "disagreements are resolved through consensus based discussion". A 10-6 is by no means an avalanche. If anything, you are using bureaucracy to push forward a candidate that may win a nomination, when there is no reliable source saying 'its obvious Harris is gonna win'. None of those voting for the next Democratic Party leader are bound to vote Harris either. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 15:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but consensus is established based on a reading of our guidelines and policies and the arguments in favor of inclusion here strongly favor our guidelines about supporting what a majority of WP:RS is reporting. We don't generally consider the original thoughts of editors that are opposed to the inclusion if their arguments are not supported by Wikipedia's guidelines. You may be interested in the essay about status quo stonewalling. Raladic ( talk) 16:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And who are you exactly to decide the consensus, considering you have participated in the discussion yourself? Just because some sources say 'it is likely' doesn't mean it's a guarantee. For almost any other article, we do not include the candidate that is most likely to win the nomination. For example, for the recent 2024 United Kingdom general election, we didn't add a 'presumptive' winning candidate for a constituency simply based off polls

You may be interested in the essay about status quo stonewalling.

For your own sake, I'll ignore your little remark here. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 17:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have read the arguments. It's not just that some sources say 'it is likely' - we have multiple respected reliable sources using the specific word "presumptive", but it's definition in the English language.
Also, as for your last sentence, please avoid to WP:THREATEN other editors. I simply linked to an explanatory essay about reversions on status quo during a discussion if the arguments brought don't favor it based on our guidelines and policies. Raladic ( talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This has been going back and fourth by several users adding and re adding her in for a few days. Since my last warning I just reverted back to the way it was before with her picture there. In seriousness you need to make up your minds on adding her or just waiting until the DNC. Magical Golden Whip ( talk) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "I have read the arguments"

You have participated in the discussion in favour of including the image. This is like being the prosecutor and the judge at the same time.

  • "We have multiple respected sources"

And? We didn't add 'Succeeded by: Keir Starmer (presumptive)' to the infobox of ex-Prime Minster Rishi Sunak despite Labour being predicted to have a landslide before the 2024 United Kingdom general election. WP:CRYSTAL needs to be taken into account here and I would rather leave putting down a candidate for the Democratic party until the DNC. Then it is undisputable and there is no maybes or buts about it.

  • "Avoid WP:THREATEN"

Highly ironic you put this down after being quite WP:UNCIVIL by implying that I am "stonewalling" because I disagree with you.

If you want my position on this, I would rather wait to the Democratic National Congress before adding a candidate, because one thing Wikipedia is certainly not is a poll tracker. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And what does the WP:OTHERCONTENT British election have to do with the US election that has a specific use for presumptive candidate, not winner, candidate. After the DNC (though current news based, likely within the next few days based on a virtual roll call before August 7th) she won't be the presumptive, but the confirmed candidate.
I didn't imply anything, please remember to WP:AGF when interacting with other editors. I simply linked to a useful explanatory essay on when and when we may not remove content that is being discussed when a certain outcome appears to be currently favored during the discussion, such is the case here.
I then simply reminded you to please avoid to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Raladic ( talk) 18:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You don't know what will happen at the DNC though, and nobody does accurately. There are plenty of things that could happen to Harris between now and August 7th, and a source isn't going to predict that.

  • "I didn't imply anything"
Textbook WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour. If you didn't imply anything, I wouldn't have flagged it. At this point I have shown full WP:AGF and never accused you yourself of casting aspersions, throughout the discussion, as opposed to you stating I am exhibiting status quo stonewalling, so i will now ask again what authority do you have in ruling on a consensus after clearly expressing support for one side?

  • "US election that has a specific use for presumptive candidate, not winner, candidate"
Where is this specific use from? Name the policy.
I don't think you have really got what I am trying to push across to you from this discussion, so here is a simple question: Is Harris the current Democratic Party leader, even in a de facto capacity? If yes, how? What about candidates such as Michelle Obama getting higher approval ratings against Trump [6]? There are so many things here that could change and making this page like a poll tracker is going to open up a massive can of worms that could be bypassed by simply waiting for the DNC to confirm. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Perhaps this should be brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? We're getting a lot of hot collars and are at an impasse. BOTTO ( T• C) 21:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Probably. I did take this to RFPP the other day and the user who reviewed didn't think it was to the level of requiring FULL, plus there are good edits being made outside of the infobox situation. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 22:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
While I don't believe the article should be Goldlocked, we should at least semi-protect the talk page to prevent IPs from talking since they are adding too many sections that contain pointless topics in them. Qutlooker ( talk) 23:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Trivial superlatives in the lede

We are continuing to see trivial superlatives added to the lede. The latest notes this is the first election since 1976 to not feature one of the members of three entirely distinct families. Biden appearing on a ballot is not connected to George Bush appearing on a ballot in any way, such that the absence of both is not worthy of note. Trivia in general does not belong in an encyclopedia. Superlatives are fine, but when you start adding multiple qualifiers, the relevance drops off very quickly. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Are Swing States trivia?

I added swing states to the lead, someone with a potential conflict of interest in the article removed it, saying the matter of swing states is 'trivia'. Are swing states a key aspect of the election or are they trivia? Tom B ( talk) 14:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It is my understanding that they are key. 86.31.178.164 ( talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It was unsourced content; all claims on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. There is general agreement on some states being “swing”, but also some disagreement. For example, some forecasts say Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada are tossups, while others say they are lean R. Regardless, it is common practice on Wikipedia to add information to the body before we even consider adding it to the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Prcc27 ( talk) 18:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wordiness

Any good editor knows that “led to a series of events that resulted in” means “led to”. 86.31.178.164 ( talk) 17:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You are correct, and I deleted those seven unnecessary words. Brevity is the soul of wit. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1236502269"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE