Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018Articles for deletionDeleted

Biden and Trump pictures

I think we should make a decision on what pictures we use in the infobox. Using previous rematches as a precedent, there was no change in the pictures used in 1952 & 1956, both images were changed from 1896 & 1900, & only Cleveland's picture was updated from 1888 to 1892. This gives us options of what we think is best for this page. Seeing as Trump's official portrait has already been used twice I think it's best we use an updated photo as it's been 7 years since his portrait was taken. As for Biden I think we should do what we did for Trump and use his official portrait.

However whichever candidate wins we would obviously update their picture to whatever their official portrait is. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there is no WP on election pictures, this is basically just an unspoken rule. Lukt64 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. He’s not changed physically that much but it’s an obvious need for trump. A 7 year old portrait is odd, especially for someone who is known by nearly if not all people in the USA, and well known around the world. Biden too, a talk page was created below this giving good pictures for Biden. Option 5 personally is best in my opinion. May be 2 yrs old, but it’s still the most official and presidential. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the 7-year-old official portrait for Trump. He tends not to photograph well due to his haphazardly applied-bronzer and high maintenance comb-over. The infobox photo need only look representative, and the official is close enough to his current appearance. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, considering that the age and cognitive functions of both candidates are a concern among voters, the images should be relatively recent to represent that concern. 7 years is too long ago and Trump's apparently lost a significant amount of weight recently.[1][2] I think there's also an argument to be made against using his official portrait as he will not be the incumbent at the time of the election. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want pictures of them drooling? C'mon. We don't push agendas and we don't intentionally post pictures that make the candidates look bad when there are acceptable alternatives. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest any of that, I'm saying with how often age-related concerns are covered in news sources it's important that in the image of Trump, for instance, he's closer to 80 (he'll be 78 in June) than he is to 70 (when he was inaugurated). This photo is only from last year. Even if they were drooling all the time or you think Trump's fake tan is "haphazardly applied", the fact is we're not their propaganda arm and the onus is not on us to represent them any better than they represent themselves. GhulamIslam (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to have a picture of candidate Trump (recent) and the official portrait of President Biden, in 2020 it should have been the reverse, and that article should be edited. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OCNative, could you please participate in the discussion here instead of making edits on your own accord? If you think the 7 year old photo of Trump should be used then please give your case as to why. Way I see it we've never used the same photo three times in a row for Presidential elections. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to be fair there hasn’t been a 3 time major candidate for presidency, but u are right. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been multiple, Nixon, FDR, Cleveland, Bryan, Jackson, Jefferson, & Clay. In all cases the same picture isn't used throughout all their candidacies TheFellaVB (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I did not know there was a discussion going on here. However, it seems moot since there's no picture now at all. OCNative (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Trump photo should be a recent one, like this one, rather than his official presidential portrait since it would be more closer to his current appearance and he isn't the incumbent president Punker85 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for reasons already stated. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that choice. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for those reasons. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for reasons you stated. It doesn't seem like there's any disagreement, when should we make the change? TheFellaVB (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change should be made 7 days after the last person made an opinion in the section, which currently mean it would be made on March 21, to see if any other people want to contribute to the question
I also think that Trump picture should be changed accordingly in the Republican ticket table Punker85 (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures are perfect right now, Candidate Trump vs President Biden, it should be the reverse in 2020. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they perfect now? The Trump picture is 7 years old TheFellaVB (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was made BEFORE the edit, they're terrible now. I stated Candidate Trump (2024) vs President Biden (2021) which was what it was for a small time, and I also believe it should be the reverse in 2020.
68.189.2.14 (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consequentially everyone here seems to agree it should be Candidate Trump (the 2024 photo) vs President Biden (the 2021 photo), I don't know why it got reverted.
~~ ::::: 68.189.2.14 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has lost a significant amount of weight and is no longer the incumbent president. This photo is neither reflective of his appearance nor appropriate within the context. I believe we should revert back to the suggested change being made. PizzaSliced (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far it's been 6 days since anyone has said anything, can we make the change now? TheFellaVB (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see 6 users wanting the change, 1 leaning for it, 1 against the change and 1 leaning against it. I think we can call that a consensus for changing Trump picture, so, yes, I think the change can be made. Here are the pictures for the infobox and for the Republican ticket table since it make sense that they both have the same picture of Trump Punker85 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy in infobox

I do not believe that Kennedy should be featured in the infobox. He does not have substantial support in the way Trump or Biden do. Is there rules for this? (Aricmfergie (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I Support him being in the infobox, due to him polling above 5%, which is WP:5%. He is also gaining ballot access very quickly, and now has it in 7-8 states. Lukt64 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.
WP:5% rule should be the end of the discussion. This has already been addressed in previous RFC's. As NYMag notes
: The general election is now projected to be a three-way race between Biden, Trump, and their mutual, Kennedy, with a cluster of less popular third-party candidates filling out the constellation.. Editors who say that the infobox inclusion requires a substantive (which I'm assuming is 20% or more) chance of winning are violating the rule.
Considering previous consensus, precedent, and the present polling, this shouldn't even be a controversy. The guideline's are clear. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly Support.
People have used any argument they could to keep him off the infobox, but suddenly now without Trump or Biden getting their conventional nominations, or without requiring the pledge delegate threshold, suddenly it's that far out of the question to include a guy that's polled at Ross Perot levels? Definitely violation of the five-percent rule and Neutral Point of View to be saying that Kennedy shouldn't be up there.
There was no consensus before putting Biden and Trump up there, despite the flagrantly premature decision to do so, but it's premature to put him RFK Jr up there? What gives? Borifjiufchu (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose as the 5% rule only applies to actual results. Not just potential polling numbers. The 5% rule comes into play from the national threshold needed to get matching funds for party presidential campaigns, but even within our guidelines, it would not need to apply until actual results came in, as has been seen in every other page with election results present in the United States. Tipsyfishing (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tipsyfishing Support: The 5% rule as clearly defined in text doesn't specify rather if it is for election results or all. By default, it seems to refer to all.
I don't think we should do what SCOTUS constantly likes doing which is make up or use outside sources and say a law means something else when the law says nothing on it, which is lazy. 2600:100B:B13E:D56B:68C7:7A6:67CD:755 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to just who get to be on the infobox by the actual results, then why put any candidate's name on the infobox until results come in on Election Day (when they are published by polling stations and news outlets)? We don't even know if Trump or Biden will still be the candidates come election day, they're just merely presumptive. And if the counter-argument is "well obviously they'll get more than 5%", then you have to look at polls to do so, which we are doing for Kennedy. Therefore I Support RFK being in the infobox 2600:1700:3A40:4800:68BD:F98A:5791:775F (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s what it truly means why aren’t you taking down Jorge Álvarez Máynez from the Mexican presidential info box? His election isn’t in 3 months and he’s polling numbers far bellow RFK here.
frankly, keeping RFK off the United States presidential infobox is only furthering biased reporting that’s trying to down play his campaign’s credibility. AfricanAlGore (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) AfricanAlGore (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support he meets the polling requirements the guy may be a nut which is why people don’t want to put him up there but the rules don’t care about our opinions he meets the wiki requirements to be up there 2600:8801:1187:7F00:25D3:B97C:DDCA:F27C (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose Kennedy's inclusion in the infobox, as well as the descriptors in the opening paragraphs characterizing him as a major 3rd party candidate and the first since Ross Perot--too early to make such a claim. He may be a serious contender, but that is yet to be seen, him polling in the high single digits well before July/August conventions does not warrant treating him this way. For the moment, the race should be treated as a two-way rematch between Biden and Trump until we have more evidence that Kennedy can continue to remain relevant and pull significant support--especially after Biden and Trump are confirmed as their parties' nominees. If, even after that, Kennedy is polling at 10% or more (aggregated), then I think he would be worth mentioning. JUBJUBBB (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose bringing RFK Jr. into infobox. I suggest waiting until July to see if his average poll numbers can get above 10. Vuvietanh6204 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed. (Provided that Biden and Trump are additionally excluded.) There was never a consensus to include anything in the infobox for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support because the 5% rule is clearly applicable here and he was considered a serious contender in the dem primary. Notwithstanding, He has already received serious and significant media coverage, way more than Johnson got in 2016 Cannolorosa (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support Kennedy to be included in the infobox. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aricmfergie I think it's about time we put this as an official vote. 170.10.51.116 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Kennedy from the infobox, until a consensus is reached to include him. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy consistently polls at 5%+. I don't expect him to win the election (or even a state) but that's not the criteria of inclusion. , and others all show candidates who received 5% of the vote. It's widely expected that Kennedy Jr. will obtain this. I haven't seen an argument against inclusion that doesn't go against precedent and previous RFC's.
He should be included, as @
WP: OR to do otherwise). KlayCax (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

My major concern here, is that there's no edit-warring over this. BTW - If it's decided to include Kennedy? Please adjust the images (downsize from 200px to 160px), so that they don't make the infobox too wide & thus squash the written intro into the left side of the page. The 1992 & 1996 prez election pages, are a good guide. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works with me. KlayCax (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there is no such thing as a 5% rule. That is the name given to an information page that attempts to summarize prior discussions the subject, and generalize conclusions that do not appear in the discussions themselves. Wikipedia does not have rules; we have

policies and and guidelines and this is neither. In any case, most prior discussions concerning a 5% threshold for inclusion in the were about election vote totals, not polling numbers. Those that do concern polling are about exclusion, not inclusion, of those candidates with ballot access. For example, Jo Jorgensen had ballot access, but some wanted to exclude her due to polling numbers. A larger issue is those discussions (like this one) concern very specific contemporary scenarios such that editors are commenting on the specific race and not the 5% principle more generally. There has never been a consensus on including a candidate without ballot access polling above 5%. And frankly, because the scenarios are so different, forcing a phony rule on the proceedings is unnecessary. It makes sense to evaluate each event separately. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose 5% does not apply to polling. Gary Johnson in 2016 had a few polls that hit 10%, but was never included on the infobox. Ballot access is irrelevant as well. Kennedy's ballot access in 7-8 states is nothing compared to historical Libertarian access (typically all 50 states). If Kennedy is included in the debate or something similar, then there is a real case to include him in the infobox. Currently, there is none. Burger1018 (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But getting above ten per cent in the opinion polls makes Kennedy a significant candidate, and there is a big problem with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For consistency, the most relevant WP precedents to look at are the infoboxes of the previous elections in 1912, 1924, 1948, 1980, 1992, and 1996. Going against all precedent gives an impression of partisan bias. Moonraker (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those elections has third party candidates that obtained more then 5% in the actual, final results, hence why those were included.
I'm all for 5% being the benchmark when it comes to actual, final election results. But not when it comes to polling. Tipsyfishing (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We include "systematic opposition" candidates in Russian presidential elections that get 3-8% of the vote, are widely regarded as kooky, and absolutely have no chance of winning. It's inconsistent and goes against precedent if we exclude Kennedy Jr. but include them. There's no good argument against exclusion. CrackTheJack (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC) CrackTheJack (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As the users you've responded to have emphasized, though, that's about actual election results, not polls. We don't know what % of the vote RFK Jr will get. There's not even a lot of high quality polling data yet--you could make a stronger case for RFK in the infobox if he's polling at 10%+ in June or July when more Americans are paying attention and more polls are being done/aggregated. Right now, it feels super premature.
Arguably, isn't their inclusion in Russia's case quite different? They have sham elections, Putin has no real opposition (unlike Biden and Trump) so documenting the silly, sham candidates that are put up against Putin is important context? I'm not sure why we would use the same standard for entirely different electoral systems and levels of institutional legitimacy. JUBJUBBB (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right.
And unlike the Russian candidates, Kennedy Jr. has a chance of actually competing, unlike Vladislav Davankov or Nikolay Kharitonov We don't know what percentage of the vote any candidate in this race will get.
The sources agree that Kennedy Jr. will likely get over 10% of the vote. New York Magazine labels him a major candidate. He routinely polls in the mid-20s. Only listing two candidates (and then hypothetically waiting until November) isn't neutral. It's tilting the scales to include Biden and Trump while excluding Kennedy Jr. CrackTheJack (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC) CrackTheJack (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I agree he *could be* a major candidate, and I agree editors should not wait until November if he continues to poll significant support. But the singular NYMag article calling him a major candidate doesn't feel very convincing to me (nor the idea we can know 8 months in advance he'll get 10%), is major candidate a technical term? What does it mean? Do other outlets call him thus and continue to? I also do not put much stock in current polling--of which there is not a lot and even less of great quality. But more of the electorate will be tuned in and there will be more relevant polling 3+ months from now, but still before the election. JUBJUBBB (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes? It's 5% in the general. The evidence is overwhelming that Kennedy Jr. will obtain that. He's listed as such by multiple citations, and even pollsters skeptical of his campaign's vitality believe he'll almost certainly obtain it. We wouldn't exclude Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996 from the infobox at this stage. The same should apply to Kennedy Jr. Only including two candidates gives an implicit bias of its own. The majority here is right. He deserves to be included in the infobox.
It's a double standard to include members of the Russian "systematic opposition" while excluding Kennedy Jr. If we adopt the same standard for Russian elections, then we should simply exclude anyone other than Putin, as Kennedy Jr. has an infinitely higher chance of becoming president than any of them.
Either we're consistent and exclude every candidate until the nominating convention or we include Trump, Biden, or Kennedy, anything else in my view gives a significant bias, as other editors have already expounded upon. CrackTheJack (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) CrackTheJack (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
He does not "routinely polls in the mid-20s". RCP has him maxxing out at 22, and only hitting that 16% of the time. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those candidates that you listed have actual election results though. Not just polling. I'm pretty sure everyone here is in agreement that any candidate that actually gets 5% of the vote would be included in the infobox. I'm in favor of that too, that's what we currently do with election results. However, polling is not election results.
Rags saying that he "might" get 10% of the vote doesn't mean anything.
If Kennedy gets on enough state ballots to reach 270 in the electoral college, then we can re-discuss. Till then, I will stay opposed. Tipsyfishing (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonraker Tbh, WP:FALSEBALANCE should be more limited in its appliance to political articles as it can result in accidental bias caused by our selected "Reliable Sources" 2600:100B:B13E:D56B:68C7:7A6:67CD:755 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Why is Kennedy excluded from the infobox if he's being called a major candidate in multiple sources? Even wacky Russian candidates with no chance of winning are displayed before the Russian presidential "election" results are "announced. Yet, Kennedy Jr., who is consistently polling in the double digits, is getting removed by certain editors. What gives?

I don't like the guy but like others here I immediately noticed the bias. If we replaced "Kennedy Jr." with "Perot" in 1996... Would editors still exclude him? Seems much of the opposition is based on him being a kook rather than the data. CrackTheJack (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC) CrackTheJack (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP did not exist during the '96 campaign, so we cannot speculate about how we would have treated Perot at a similar time in the campaign. That said, Perot received 19% of the vote in the previous presidential election, where RFK has not. No one is arguing that Kennedy should never be added to the Infobox, only that he be held to a similar standard as the others shown there. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:'s proposal to exclude the infobox until either 1.) A majority of delegates are obtained for both 2.) The convention floor is the best course of action. @CrackTheJack: and @Moonraker: have expressed similar sentiments.
The essay of
WP:NOTNP is apt here. Can someone revert every name from the infobox for the time being? There was no consensus to add it KlayCax (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Putting these two debates together makes sense: delay B/T as long as reasonable, and we can punt the RFK discussion to a point where we will have a greater sense of his credibility. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. It would save editors hundreds of hours debating whether "Kennedy should be in the infobox" and whether "Trump and Biden are the nominees yet".
We all know it's coming otherwise. I was initially in favor of including Trump, Biden, and Kennedy in the infobox, but after the debate on here, the opinion I leaned towards reversed. It's still too early in my view.
If Kennedy Jr. however remains at current polling levels: I agree he should be included in the infobox. But let's punt that question for a few months. KlayCax (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article you linked calls him a "major candidate." The closest is this section: "At this point, all that’s clear is that no one has any idea what will happen between now and November 2024 or how to respond to the threat Kennedy poses to the Biden-Trump binary. As it is, Kennedy is in some cases polling not far behind either likely major-party nominee and in all cases polling well enough that, were the election held today, his presence in the race would define what the next chapter of American history looks like." That's very tentative. It recognizes that at this stage we have no way of knowing anything. What we should be looking for is articles that are about the election generally talking about him as if he's a factor, rather than articles about him. --Jfhutson (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he has been polling above 10% for months.. Lukt64 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others have pointed out 5% only applies to results. I think RFK should be added to the infobox in one of two scenarios: he garners over 5% in the actual results in November or he is treated as a major candidate by: a clear consensus of sources treating him as such, invited to the major national debates, etc. Yeoutie (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already enough of a consensus of sources treating him as major third-party contender that could even qualify for debates. We are lenient with other countries when it comes to candidates consistently hitting 10%+, but suddenly because it's an American election and you see a lot of reactionary behavior towards a third-party candidate, you get a lot of biases thrown around to exclude him.
Why should what one source say what is a major candidate be a major stepping stone anyways? That's heavily subjective. There is enough raw numbers and data as is, and precedent in certainly more than one country for what qualifies other candidates for infoboxes. Seems to be the American-bias in articles speaking more so than actual Wikipedia precedent and policy when it comes to people that Oppose him. But this goalposting in opposition is nothing short of, well, unfortunately baffling. Borifjiufchu (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we know what his ballot access looks like. Then I have no problem if his polling is still strong. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat regarding existing consensus. I believe there is already consensus on this issue that candidates should be included if they poll over 5% and have ballot access in sufficient states to win 270 electoral votes. Naturally, the nominees of both parties have automatic ballot access in sufficient states. However, my understanding is that RFK Jr. does not have sufficient ballot access yet because a number of states require a vice presidential running mate to be granted access. With that in mind, we should reconsider whether Donald Trump will be added to the infobox upon his declaration as presumptive nominee by the Republican National Committee, or whether he must also choose a running mate and thereby gain ballot access to be added. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that Trump has been added despite my outstanding questions regarding his ballot access. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a moot point until he secures ballot access in enough states to actually win the presidency, after which a polling threshold is sufficient to determine his inclusion in the infobox. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has had write-in candidates for many state elections, but ballot access is now a threshold? That part I don't get. There were a lot of candidates that had specific regional support or didn't have sufficient ballot access or nationwide representation, but still get represented in parliamentary or congressional elections. This sort of line of thinking is what Ballotpedia has, but it's not something that's consistent with Wikipedia. Borifjiufchu (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good but even counting states where he's eligible as a registered write-in that only brings him up to 122 delegates. We're not at a point where he can yet reach 270 and actually win. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Evidence speaks for itself. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't to say he doesn't post relevancy and ignored what I said. 5% rule and relevancy are likely to be in order, although even when he does inevitably cross eligibility for 270 (like any third-party candidate polling above 3% typically has), people will find yet another goalpost to make-up. He has the percent, and sources to back him up as a relevant candidate, which is what matters most - in consistency with other nation's elections, which are applied far more lenient standards than what you see here in U.S. election infoboxes. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Until he has ballot access in 50 states & if he's still at or above 5% in the polls. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I support, however i believe that as a matter of compromise we should wait until he gains ballot access that gives him the ability to get 270 electoral votesCompromise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannolorosa (talkcontribs) 15:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Clearly meets the criteria. He's polling at 15%. American exceptionalist arguments from editors don't hold water. HickTheStick (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) HickTheStick (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support Would be prejudice against Kennedy Jr. if he was not included. Echoing what others have stated. He's a major candidate. Roadtruck (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Roadtruck (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

By my count, that now makes three new SPAs created to support Kennedy in this discussion, all with bold accusations and claims.
WP:NEWBIES are welcome, but this tone is a little suspicious. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Why are we attacking the person? They brought up their own points. That's like if I were to go around attacking people because of blatantly pro-Democrat influences on their profile/talk page, then going towards their social media page, and finding out the amount of parroted stuff from the media that makes its way onto here without much independent thought or understanding in Wiki-historicism and precedent (remember the Gary Johnson debate?). I'm not advocating people to do that, but that is something you will easily find on the background of other users if one is to play the superficial context game of ad hominem 'kill the messenger', in which case, why shouldn't we be talking about the 'message'?
So again, what relevance does this have? Because in that case we can use that logic to say we should be suspicious of people that have been here long enough yet continue to indulge in echochambers and faux populi sentiments to deny candidates on rather systematic overtures of "American exceptionalism" when discussing sensitive elections. As you may be able to note that there are people here using the talk page to express their like/dislikeness for candidates. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We expect editors to contribute to improving the project, not advocate for their personal politics. The consensus has held that RFK has not yet demonstrated the relevancy to be added to the infobox. That we now see the opposing argument gaining significant support from IPs and and accounts created specifically for this discussion is clearly suggestive of
sockpuppetry. KlayCax has made edits to the article citing support of these socks as rationale, and that is a mistake that needs to be avoided. It is difficult to recognize SOCK when it supports your own position, but it is incumbent upon a good wikipedian to do so. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I assume that falls on the jurisprudence of Wikipedia. But I am more skeptical of people that advocate for personal politics and let their biases get in the way, I would ignore these sockpuppets either way when it comes to any argument, as again, proper moderation would have the means to filter and deal out with such accounts, as they seem to work on both sides and lower the common denomination of the discussion - which seems better worth ignoring. Which is the habit that I follow - as indulging in them isn't generally worth the average user's time nor responsibility. Borifjiufchu (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, until he gets more ballot access. At his current polling numbers, it's really not a question that Kennedy should be included. However, he isn't going to get 5% of the vote if he's only on the ballot in 8 states (which he's only at now). Once he reaches 25 states, or if the Libertarian party nominates him which has been speculated, I think this discussion can be reopened. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really silly way to shut down a conversation, we already know the Libertarian party shut down this stuff if you were paying attention to the news, and that most of it was just speculatory media indulgence.
    Then you go on to assume 'however he isn't going to get 5% of the vote if he's only in the ballot' which are two major leaps in assumptions. Then you say he needs ballot access, in which case, if we look at that track record you have the Constitution Party and multiple Nader candidacies. When in any other country this polling would be equivalent to act as a third way alignment in contrast to major parties (pre-coalition). And then more goalposting, and saying the conversation isn't worth talking about until they fulfill your criteria. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may have to go to a RFC. It's presently 55-45%/60-40% in favor of Kennedy, but a mere numerical majority isn't how the process works, and editors on both sides have given good arguments. There's no present consensus for either removing or including him in the infobox. We're going to have to take a (temporary: which could change) side in the next day or two. I personally favor inclusion, however. KlayCax (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If he gets on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes, then maybe I would see the argument. 3rd party candidates always poll higher than they actually perform. CoryJosh (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Because of the electoral college, that's not how the United States presidential elections work. Even a candidate with 50 electoral college votes can have immense influence. (This was Strom Thurmond's goal as a Dixiecrat in 1948)
2.) Third party candidates do not usually perform anywhere near this well. Kennedy's polling around 1992 Perot numbers.
3.) Kennedy Jr. doesn't have to win to merit inclusion in the infobox. He just has to get 5%. He's polling that way and
WP: RS's are unanimous in stating that he will likely get it. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
At the risk of sounding a bit snobbish... come on, he's not a real candidate. Gary Johnson polled at around 15%, and he (rightfully) was not included. CoryJosh (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People said the same thing about Donald Trump in 2016. Look what happened. Gary Johnson never averaged anywhere near where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is. KlayCax (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He actually was included, various times, and up until the end of the election. So you're quite wrong there. Not only that, but his numbers were more around the 10% ballpark. Not 15%. John Anderson got around 15-20% and ended up with 7% in the end, but did he have an influence? Considering the massive polling errors (both in 1980 and 2016) that ended up benefitting the Republican, it is definitely fair to assume they had significant relevance both times, and did have an impact on the election. So even with that logic, you get someone that's more akin to John Anderson and not, say, Ross Perot, you are still getting a precedent for relevance. But saying 'he isnt' a real candidate' is far too subjective, and can be used to dismiss hundreds of other candidates in infoboxes all across Wikipedia. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he’s in poll aggregates at over 10% still, I think that’s something to not really sweep under the rug. I think he should be included, but maybe wait until Summer and if he’s still polling well, maybe add them then XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)XboxGamer2002! (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

i support. he's outpolling Biden in several states. it would be really really unfair to exclude him. all the major news networks are talking about him. JohnX92 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) JohnX92 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Agreed, I would’ve thought he would’ve fallen further by know, but he’s doing well still XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)XboxGamer2002! (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Exactly, and keeping him off the infobox to me feels like trying to hide his campaign, considering he's polling very well. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I’d add him for now, but I don’t know if he’s decline substantially, he’s polling very strong for a third party candidate 8 months out. So it’s probably better to see if he’s still polling at least high single didgets by summer. I think he’s gonna play an interesting role here XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)XboxGamer2002! (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I might also add depending on what polls out there he’s polling at like 15 on some, like that’s something that’s not been seen since Perot, he’s definitely getting more chatter lately I’ve noticed in the media too XboxGamer2002! (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)XboxGamer2002! (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose for all the reasons I've opposed including him before. He's an unserious third party candidate like the others. I'm not sure that I believe that Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura top his VP list, but I don't not believe it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I have concern with
      single-purpose accounts in this thread. The possible sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry on the supporting side of this argument needs to be taken into consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Kennedy polling in the 20s in numerous states is unserious?? Wow, okay. Keep your opinions to yourself. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A serious campaign would have ballot access to 270. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The ballot process is ongoing so keep your opinions to yourself. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can call this out as the publicity stunt that it is in a discussion about how we editors should consider the campaign. A poll in the 20s in March doesn't mean it's serious. You don't have to reply to me when I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow Lostfan333 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You haven't done your research on the Constitution, Libertarian, or Reform parties if you think ballot access is the sole metric, nor are you aware of how people write-in candidates that get over 10% in races, or even win in the case of Murkowski if name recognition is high enough.
      Instead of looking for 'hey what's a serious candidate or not, oh god he has Ventura on his VP list according to some speculatory article', one should indulge in proper precedent more and look towards other info at the state and international level for how one measures and anticipates "seriousness". So far polling from many different organizations is a pretty reliable indicator all things considered (even if they get half of that, it still holds better weight than getting .5% with ballot access). Borifjiufchu (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps you should read about how polling this early is not predictive of results. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You know I'm a frequenter of 538 - and it pertains to a 2 person race. If you've seen my other replies, I've mentioned many other examples far beyond what that article even begins to touch upon. John Anderson polled in the 15 to 20% range in '80 election, and ended up with 6-7% of the vote, but undeniably had a major effect on the election. RFK Jr trumps Johnson's numbers during any point in the 2016 race.
      In-fact 538 has gone on to defend many polls as being pretty accurate, as a normal margin of error around the last quarter of the election season is typically 4%. Most people don't want Wikipedia to have anything pertaining to bias by having just Trump/Biden, and not a guy that has polling that would put him well above the 5% for qualifying for infoboxes and nearly dancing with qualifying for a debate.
      Not only that, but in that article, there is no examples of any elections post 1992 (when hyper-informed cycles and electorates became a significant norm) where there was any 10 point difference in major candidates when it came to polls in the early year vs the election results. I highly doubt editors would keep a Perot or Anderson off, and only try to have Reagan Carter, or Bush Clinton in the infoboxes when we had Gary Johnson in mid-2016. Borifjiufchu (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ross Perot lead Bush and Clinton at certain points in 1992. Anderson looked like a joke for much of the summer. Speculating how we would have treated them with contemporary knowledge is a fool's errand. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "looked like a joke for much of the summer", you mean garnering 20% polling averages?
      Even aside from that, polling in the 3rd millennia hasn't been as variable as one may claim or suppose. Considering the bar for recognition, the shock and rebound factor for name recognition to dissipation has leaned towards inelasticity when you count national polls for various sources (and consider the fact modern polling and news cycle isn't as centralized or few and far between as the past).
      And were any other candidates jumping both of the candidates in polling, or hitting 20% averages? Your points just cement the fact that it would be of the reader's interest, and consistent intrigue that they hold historical relevance, rather than a 'joke' or 'fool's errand', so I am not quite convinced here. Borifjiufchu (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only if sources treat him as a serious candidate. Right now he is being treated just like Johnson or Stein in 2016. Yeoutie (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not true at all. Kennedy has way way more media coverage than Johnson or Stein, is outspending them both by an order of magnitude and has polling that bounces regularly between 10 and 20% nationally. Stein never had more than 2 percent national polling, and Johnson's polling was never as high either. Kennedy's situation is much more akin to Ross Perot than anyone else at the present time.XavierGreen (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Strong support in favor of including Kennedy.
      • Posting from mobile, so apologies for any strange formatting.
        I am reposting this comment from another thread on this subject, which I replied to mistakenly believing it was this one:
        RFK Jr. is, beyond a doubt, a relevant national candidate and will very likely affect the election, according to literally *all* available polling data and news reports. He is polling at over 15% and has been covered by every major news agency — not just after the announcement of his campaign, but repeatedly and at-length. A quick google search of “RFK JR.” will result in dozens of articles popping up — many of them published within the last *day*, from outlets such as the New York Times, ABC, MSNBC, etc.
        In the face of this, this entire “irrelevancy” argument several editors keep harking on is, frankly, a bit bizarre. The only
        conclusion I can draw is that the reason some would seem to keep perpetuating this idea is because they don’t appreciate Kennedy’s extremist ideology, and desire to, in a sense, “consign him to irrelevancy” because they believe promoting such ideas is harmful.
        Which would be reasonable, if it were not for the fact that this irrelevancy argument is, in fact, wholly illusionary, as I have laid out above. This seems like patent
        WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
        .
        P.S.:
        Here are several arguments I have seen against this notion, and why I think they are invalid:
        1. “Third Party Candidates poll higher prior to general elections, and rarely meet expectations”:
        This argument fails to recognize the fact that, quite simply, the level of support these candidates achieved — such as Stein, Johnson, etc. - never came close to reaching that of Kennedy’s. That’d seem to indicate a far stronger base of support. He has also remained remarkably consistent over the course of many, many months, hovering around 10-20% and never dipping below 5%. And every poll his numbers continue to remain stable - or even improve — makes me find it increasingly harder to believe that he will simply “fizzle out” as some claim.
        To bring this point home: Kennedy’s numbers have never dipped below Johnson’s *best performance* in 2016.
        2. “Kennedy is a crank, and should therefore be excluded”
        This argument is entirely invalid. A candidates beliefs should not exclude their inclusion in the infobox if they meet the proper criteria.
        I do not know why several editors keep citing
        WP:FRINGE as evidence to the contrary. The page clearly states that “a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.” However, we have repeatedly acknowledged conspiracy theories/theorists who reach Wikipedia’s notability standards — which Kennedy certainly does, as I’ve argued at length — while clearly demonstrating these beliefs are not based in reality, a la Alex Jones. Half of the Republican party would seem to be shifting towards these very notions. Should we exclude these (certainly) notable candidates on the basis of their odd beliefs, or acknowledge them and make it clear how they are false? Gambitenthusiast99 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      Well Put. Gambitenthusiast99. InterDoesWiki (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also Support basically for your reasons above, unless there's a huge polling dip for Kennedy sometime soon he should be added now Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait: Ballot petitioning is still ongoing. As it stands, even including write-ins. Mr. Kennedy only has access to 137 electoral votes. That number drops to 71 if you include only states in which he will appear on the ballot. Until Mr. Kennedy obtains access to 270 electoral votes (a majority) I agree to keep him off the infobox. When he does obtain access to the majority of electoral votes. At that time I do not see a reasonable argument to oppose addition outside of personal bias. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey proposal

We had a similar argument in November about whether we should add Kennedy to the infobox and we have clearly not gotten any more. We obviously need to come to some sort of consensus not only whether we should include Kennedy but when we should include Kennedy (or any similar third party candidate). I've come up with some options for citeria, but am very open to other criteria.

1: A consistent polling criteria (generally this has been assumed to +5%)
2: Some sort of ballot access criteria (reaching ballot access is enough states to win the presidency, 25+ states, etc.)
3: Reaching a Presidential Debate
4: Media coverage that treats Kennedy as a serious threat to affect the election.

Personally, I think we should have a mixture of 1 and 2. Someone who has consistently polled over 5% against major candidates, and has ballot access in a majority of states could reasonably effect the election. Whether or not he wins or even could win is irrelevent in my mind because all it takes is neither major candidate getting a majority of electoral college votes for Kennedy to have had a serious effect on the election. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Lostfan333 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think as long as a candidate meets 2 of those 4 criteria, said candidate should be included . Cannolorosa (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we definitely need some kind of blend of these qualifications. I think that the 270 ballot access criteria (2) should be the most important, with the candidate then having to poll above 5% to qualify (1). So, if a candidate polls above 5%, but does not have ballot access in enough states to amount to 270 votes, they do not qualify. That way, we exclude the litany of smaller parties that have wide ballot access but no mainstream impact. Maybe also an inclusion of a stipulation that if a candidate is polling ahead in a state but fails the first two, then they can also qualify? I'm mainly writing this with Evan McMullin in mind, as a win in Utah would have meant he would have won electoral votes and have been in the 2016 election's wikibox.
I feel like options 3 and 4 are more subjective and definitely more difficult. Presidential debates are notoriously difficult for third parties to get into, and require their own polling threshold (15%). Doing so would just switch the 5% criteria to a much more stringent 15%, which excludes notable campaigns like Ross Perot's 1996 run. Media coverage is also a tricky thing to measure objectively, and I feel like any candidate that passes the first 2 criteria outlined above will already be in the limelight. We saw extensive coverage of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in 2016, though those two campaigns never amounted to much, so anyone that polls higher should be equally as written about. QuailWatts (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the ballot access proposal should be some sort of benchmark(ie take the number of EVs a candidate has balllot access to and compare it to the EVs a candidate can not get ballot access to due to failure to meet ballot filling deadlines. The candidate can be included in infobox if he/she has ballot access to more EV than he/she cant get) Cannolorosa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Fringe rules it out His beliefs go against mainstream science. Duneatlas (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is not relevant here Cannolorosa (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 & 4 are probably the most important but I can also go with 2. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)5% is the threshold for votes, polling would need to be higher. 2)Necessary, but not enough. Libertarian will be on the ballot in all states but not in the infobox. 3) Fine, but too high a standard. He is almost certain to be excluded. 4) Candidates who actually did swing the election are not there in 2000 and 2016. I would suggest name on ballot (not write-in) in 25 states or 270 votes AND polling at 10%. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not a candidate reaches a presidential debate is an entirely irrelevant factor. It is entirely possible that Donald Trump will not participate in debates set up by the commission on presidential debates or alternatively could choose to debate against third party candidates simply to afford media attention to them.XavierGreen (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Due to the importance of this article and the fact that we have been going in circles on this and will probably continue to do so, would it be best to sumbit a request to wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests Cannolorosa (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom doesn't settle content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart request

Now that the major candidates are unambigious, could someone make a graphical representation of the polling data for Biden, Trump, Kennedy, and "other" candidates? RealClearPolitics has polls we should use. Roadtruck (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If graphs could be used on wikipedia rn, it would already be there. Lukt64 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is, except due to a security vulnerability they have been disabled. Qutlooker (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German election page has a graphic. Wouldn't that version work? Roadtruck (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia has different rules than English Wikipedia. They also use different frameworks also. Qutlooker (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

There has been a longstanding debate on this page about the criteria required for a candidate to be eligible for the infobox.

  • Criterion #1a: A candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
  • Criterion #1b: A candidate who generally polls at 10% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
  • Criterion #1c: A candidate who generally polls at 15% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
  • Criterion #2a: Media coverage that considers them to have a significant chance (>5-10% or above) to win the national election.
  • Criterion #2b: Media coverage that considers them a major candidate in the race, regardless of whether they have a significant chance of winning.
  • Criterion #3: Reaching and participating in a presidential debate hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
  • Criterion #4: Nomination from a major party only. Third-party candidates shouldn't be listed.
  • Criterion #5: If the candidate holds political beliefs that are non-fringe, mainstream, and polls above a certain percentage. (Whether 1%, 5%, 10%, and 15%.)
  • Criterion #6: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and meets criteria #1a, #1b, or #1c.
  • Criterion #7: Another criterion not listed or a requirement that they fulfill multiple criteria of the above. (Explain how and why.)

The results of this RFC should not be interpreted as

WP: PRECEDENT outside of this article. KlayCax (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • IMO if the media coverage deems someone will be a major candidate - the polling will eventually reflect this. Henceforth I don't hold very great weight on media coverage on that. Wikipedia included Johnson, Stein, and McMullin in 2016 within the last quarter of the 2016 election when this was a concern too. In 2020, needless to say, third parties didn't have a very great effect on polling, and ballot access historically is not very indicative of successful candidates (see Reform, Green, Libertarian party in the past 20 years).
    Of all these, polling tends to be the most reliable and neutral way to approach it. Participating in a debate is optional and just adds more grounds for unnecessary contestion if someone barely makes it to a 15% threshold during a certain polling period. And #5 would be used to exclude countless candidates from infoboxes across the world, no use in trying to think this one out, for this is argument's galore. Of all these I think #1a makes the most sense and is line with candidates that have been included in infoboxes. If there is any way you have to look at this, you should look at what gets a candidate to an infobox in past elections and use that as your baseline.
    Borifjiufchu (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cannot possible be serious. You've got scare quotes in four of the options. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KlayCax: Stop removing candidates from the infobox! We have consensus from this page to have Biden and Trump listed. You must gain consensus BEFORE making the change, not change it first then act like reverting requires a new discussion. Separately, several editors you list as supporting your perspective are transparently sock-puppets. Please refrain from reading consensus as supporting your own position, especially when the support comes from newly creates single-purpose accounts. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not scare quotes. They are italicized to place emphasis on generally. Meaning that one strange outlier poll would not qualify a candidate in the infobox. (As often happens with third-party candidates.) KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You changed them after my comment. There is a page history. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of prolonging this tangent, they were indeed italics markup from the beginning and never scare quotes. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meeting #1A, and 2B is probably enough. Ballot access is important as well so some sort of small requirement would probably be helpful, see Evan McMullin 2016 presidential campaign for why Ballot Access is neccesary. I also agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. We have long standing consensus to include presumptive nominees from the two major parties, removing them because you aren't getting your way around Kennedy is very disruptive. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Evan McMullin would have won Utah, his ballot access in other states would have been moot. You only need 1 pledged Electoral Vote to be include post-election. If RFKJR was leading in the polls in one state (and had ballot access there), I'd say include him. Prcc27 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was more than Evan McMullin failed to get the national attention he needed to win a state because he didn't have ballot access. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made several points about why ballot access doesn't really guarantee this. In-fact of the people planning to vote in protest against Trump - many were leaning towards Gary Johnson, with polls as high as 5-10% generally speaking. You really think people didn't vote for Evan McMullin because he wasn't on the ballot when some of those people were planning to vote for a third-party anyways (i.e. not Trump)? In-fact 30% of all his votes were write-ins. Now let's say in some unforeseen circumstance that RFK Jr doesn't get ballot access (despite polling and having recognition similar to John Anderson/Ross Perot), would he not get tons of write-in votes, and still be polling just as highly? That's the line in the sand that I don't get with regards to why ballot access is a serious qualifier, since it doesn't disqualify someone from winning, nor does it seem to be reliable at all considering the amount of parties that do get ballot access, yet little in the way of substantial votes beyond a decimal percentage impact. Borifjiufchu (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "ballot access" should include write-in access. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #7:: 5% of the national popular vote, or winning a state (or electoral vote in the cases of Maine or Nebraska). I could be convinced to change my mind to criterion #6. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you arguing for the fourth criterion? Nomination from a major party only. Third-party candidates shouldn't be listed [until the results of the election are known].
    Since the RFC is about whether third-party candidates should be included before the 2024 presidential election is held. KlayCax (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is only about pre-election results, then yes, criterion #4 would be my vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1a (ideal) or #1b — best in line with the
    WP: PRECEDENTs established on other election articles. I'm willing to raise it to 10% before the election simply because of the fact that third-party candidates tend to decline in polling before the election. As the United States elects its presidents through the electoral college, rather than a national popular vote, requirements that candidates appear on a X amount of ballots simply don't make sense. KlayCax (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Criterion #1b before the election to ensure candidates will likely secure at least 5% of the vote in the election. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally #6: Ballot access (including write-in access) in 270 Electoral Votes, meets national polling requirement; OR #7 a serious contender in at least one Electoral Vote (state, district, etc.) in which they are likely to get a pledged electoral vote post-election. Prcc27 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's best to do this sui generis, as the issue to me is a certain level of success at a certain point. 10% in October would be enough, as would 10% plus ballot access to 270 votes, as would participation in the debates. I don't see any of those things happening, but I would support something lesser, but I'd have to know it when I see it. Perhaps 10% after the conventions? I don't know. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1a due to this being precedent in other articles, and is in good condition. Lukt64 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with Criterion #1a too. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 (with #1a). As has been previously discussed, criterion 1a is widely used.
    • No matter what you say regarding this decision being unique to this election, all decisions should be reasoned by general rules and not specific whims. Otherwise, we risk this decision coming down to pure bias for or against a candidate.
    • Using 1a alone as a rule across articles sets a confusing precedent, since party candidates may poll over 5% in hypothetical matchups before winning their nominations. To then require them to get their nomination to be included would actually create an irrational bias against party candidates.
    • But because getting ballot access in states representing 270 electoral votes is sufficiently analogous to being a presumptive nominee (and therefore getting automatic access in most states), we should include this requirement.
    • Requiring access in sufficient states to theoretically win the election avoids
      WP:CRYSTAL
      and relies solely on objective metrics, avoiding endless debate over reliability of sourcing and precise meaning of language.
    Let me know if this should be clarified; I realize it's a complicated argument with several steps. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add an addendum here that the subjective purpose of the infobox is to "tell the story," so to speak, of the election and not simply show candidates who could win. Thus, if we're going to fall back on a subjective perspective, Kennedy should be included whether or not he has a shot in the eyes of the media, as it seems clear that he will have an impact on the race. With that said, I think we should fall back on objective principles given the likelihood of controversy. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 - DEFINITELY ballot access. It being mathematically possible to win the presidency should be a given. criterion 1b or 1c is also preferred - third parties almost always don't hit the same numbers as the polls may indicate. Longestview (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 and 1a (though prefer them not being added until results, as we do with every other US based election)
    We include folks on the infobox for other US based elections if not of a major party if they get 5% in the final results. A third party candidate polling at a certain percentage has yet to actually net that high of a result, especially so far out, and especially with the weird skewing of polling that we have seen the last two cycles. Actual results, and polling are two vastly different things.
    However, if the third party candidate is not even on enough state ballots to get 270, then they flat out should not be included in the infobox.
    Honestly, would prefer third parties not be included in the infobox until they have actually shown to even get 5% of the vote in national elections. Something that hasn't happened in nearly 30 years. Tipsyfishing (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do include independent candidates before the election on state-level articles if they are polling well. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria #6 & 1a. Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1996 set a clear precedent about infobox inclusion. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 It's the percentage of the vote that counts, polling is provably unreliable and therefore irrelevant. GhulamIslam (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #7. 5% of the national popular vote, or winning a state. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we include the Libertarian nominee then, even if they poll below 1% of the vote? -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We never do in the infoboxes. Tipsyfishing (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and my understanding is that this is because we use polling as a criterion. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6. Without a path to 270 electoral votes, inclusion in the infobox is just plain
    undue weight. Okay with either 1a or 1b after that. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Criterion #1a: This aligns with Wikipedia precedent as prior U.S. presidential elections' infoboxes generally display candidates who received over 5%. Okay with 6 in addition to it. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1a: This is the closest to consistency with other countries' election wikiboxes-in the 2024 Russian presidential election, for example, candidates are included despite the fact that some are polling below 5%, while the German state elections seem to be using 5% as the criterion Cas2024 (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria #6 & 1a. With write-in states counting as ballot access. Cuddle567wow (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 - is sufficient. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 works. Whether it's paired with 1a, 1b, or 1c I'm not as sure of, but #6 keeps us from putting someone in the infobox who could only win in a highly unlikely write-in scenario. The Savage Norwegian 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add that this is my opinion for before the election only. If any candidate gets over 5% nationally in the results, that'd warrant infobox inclusion, like in 1996 United States presidential election. It's undue to add it before the fact if the candidate has no electoral path. The Savage Norwegian 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can theoretically win 5% of the national popular vote post-election with a mix of ballot access and write-in access. The goal is to include candidates in the infobox pre-election, if they have a fair chance of being included post-election. Having actual ballot access (rather than write-in status) is not a criterion post-election, so it should not be one pre-election. Prcc27 (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but we can't add RFK based on what he theoretically could get, because there is no way to know that. The Libertarian candidate will have their name on the ballot in every state, and so could theoretically get 5% (or 50%!) but they will not be in the infobox before the election. Why are we treating RFK different? Because of his actual achievement: elevated polling. Getting your name on the ballot is another achievement. Write-in access is an achievement, too, but a much lessor one. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreatCaesarsGhost: Who said anything about special treatment..? Any candidate that meets the ballot access and polling criteria should be included; I simply think write-in access should count as “ballot access”. If the Libertarians meet the threshold, I say include them too. Prcc27 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Write-in access quite literally means nothing. In most cases, you just send a document to the state, no fee or signatures required... If you can't even get enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, that means you probably don't even have the grassroots support to get enough votes to be placed in the infobox. In many states, they don't even report these numbers even if you get write-in access, and just report it as "scatter." Longestview (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Write-in status can mean something if you actually win.. Biden recently won NH as a write-in, Murkowski became a Senator as a write-in. I can’t speak for all states, but California does report write-in totals. That’s a huge chunk of popular votes up for grabs. Grassroots support is important, but when you have a lot of name recognition and media coverage, it certainly is not the end all, be all. Prcc27 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A) Murkowski did not become a Senator as a write-in. She was a 8-year sitting Senator running for re-election when she won by write-in. Similarly, Biden was the sitting president, running virtually unopposed, when he won NH as a write-in. Neither situation is remotely comparable to an outsider candidate that no one has suggested is even a remote threat to win a single state. B) I never said special treatment. I said different. As in, here we are discussing RFK, and why is that? The reason is that he's polling well. For some that is enough, for the majority it's not. That majority wants something more, and this RfC discussion confirms that something more is name on the ballot. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 works well and makes sense along with #1a. I feel that 1b and 1c are a bit excessive especially when a candidate already has enough ballot access to win the needed number of electoral votes. Also should they qualify for the presidential debate, it's an automatic no-brainer to include them in the infobox too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria #6 and #1a seem fair due to how the system works and the
    WP:5% rule. Although this RfC won't create precedent, we should still follow it. signed, SpringProof talk 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 2b: The purpose of infoboxes is to summarize key facts about the subject (
    MOS:INFOBOX). How do we know whether a candidacy is a "key fact" for this race? If reliable sources about the race are talking about it in that way. I'm not sure that's exactly what 2b says, but it's the closest. Basically, editors need to be reading reliable sources, and summarize them. Even if there are reliable source articles about a third party candidate, I don't think it's until the more general articles about this race generally are consistently talking about those candidates that it makes sense to include them in the infobox. There is no reason to make up a rule, such as criterion 6; we just need to follow the reliable source reporting and do some thinking about whether a candidacy is a "key fact" about this race. As a ridiculous hypothetical, if the grand wizard of the KKK started running and developed a big enough following, even though he didn't get ballot access in enough states to satisfy criterion 6, it seems at least plausible that reliable sources would talk about it a lot to the point it became a "key fact" about this race.--Jfhutson (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I would recommend closing due to near unanimous consensus to include Kennedy after he gets ballot access. Lukt64 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and once Kennedy reaches ballot access he must be added. No more buts. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still not a consensus on whether 1a, 1b, 2b, or 6 (with 1a, 1b, or 1c) is best yet. That's why the RFC is still going. KlayCax (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primarily #6 w/ 1a but also #2a or 2b if a candidate can achieve it. Any candidate that has ballot access in 270 electoral votes of states and is getting 5% in national polls is a significant enough candidate to potentially affect the outcome of the election even if they don't win, and therefore should be included. But even if a candidate doesn't reach this threshold, if the sources agree they're very significant they should be included anyway. Loki (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a candidate is almost certainly going to pass #6. Why should we wait for it to be de jure rather than de facto? It's no different from including Biden and Trump in the infobox now; people who claim it is
    WP: PRECEDENT established on other candidate pages. Considering that third-party candidates are still polling in the upper-10s to low-20s. KlayCax (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I concur that the waiting for BA to 270 votes officially is probably too long, which is why I advocated for a sui generis decision as facts emerge. I believe this RfC only requires us to add him when he reaches 270; it should not prevent us from adding him earlier if consensus deems appropriate. Aside, it is VERY different from Biden and Trump for reasons too obvious to state, and there is no precedent for WP adding a third candidate to the infobox on a US Presidential race before the election. Even if there were, consensus overrules precedent every single time. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a sui generis addition is that *someone* will inevitably revert it as soon as it is done. Meaning, we'll be quickly back at this debate treadmill over and over again for the next few months.
With Kennedy's VP pick, it's already a fait accompli, and stated as such in reliable sources. It would just save us a ton of time and a ton of energy to just place him in the article now. KlayCax (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best to let the RFC run its course. I'm confident that all will respect the decision, when it's closed. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much NOT a fait accompli that RFK will achieve ballot access, or that by the time he does he will still be polling well enough to meet the standard set here (he has already receded from a peak ~ 19% to ~ 9%[3]). This was seen by some (including me) as somewhat inevitable: as the campaign season begins in earnest, support moves from novelty candidates to the more credible. If RFK bucks this trend, that is proof that his campaign is more serious and warrants adding to the infobox. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2a or #2b. Ultimately Wikipedia's role is to reflect what reliable sources say; it isn't to try and second-guess them. This is especially true for infoboxes, where we can't really present much context. If the sources treat someone as a major candidate, we should as well, regardless of how they poll and regardless of ballot access; if they do not, it is
    WP:OR to dig through polling and ballot access to try and present them as significant ourselves. The only complex part of this ought to be figuring out what sort of coverage makes someone a major candidate, which ultimately does have to be decided on a case by case basis; this gives me some preference for 2a (which provides a clear example) but it's probably not sufficient, which leaves us with only 2b as a realistic choice. Oppose #6 in strongest possible terms - based on that, a candidate with no coverage at all could be added to the infobox; that simply isn't how we write encyclopedic articles. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Status read I am applying a ranked voting logic here by assuming that those who support a lower standard would move to the next lowest standard if their preference is rejected. By my count, there are 22 contributors so far. 4 support 5% only. An additional 2 support 5% + write-in access - TOTAL 6. An additional 7 support 5% + ballot access - TOTAL 13. An additional 3 support 10% + ballot access - TOTAL 16. By my reckoning (which is not authoritative), we have consensus for ballot access + 10%. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, yes, most of us can agree that a candidate with ballot access (270+?) and 10% polling should be included in the infobox. Arguably, there is a consensus, albeit weaker consensus for a 5% threshold. I have expressed support for a 10% threshold in the past, but I will yield on the 5% vs. 10% for now. Prcc27 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should presumptive nominees be listed in the infobox? (Question 2)

There has been a longstanding debate on this page about when candidates should be added into the infobox.

  1. Wait until the major party conventions nominate their chosen candidates.
  2. Wait until we see which candidates will ultimately qualify for the infobox, per the decided upon criteria of the above RFC.
  3. Include major party candidates now; decision for third-party candidates should be decided upon criteria of the above RFC.

The results of this RFC should not be interpreted as

WP: PRECEDENT outside of this article. KlayCax (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Edit Biden's presumptive VP nominee

Biden in ads has confirmed that Kamala Harris will be his running mate again (As he still uses the BIDENHARRIS campaign motto) Please remove the (presumptive) tag under Harris's name in the infobox 2600:6C4E:12F0:94B0:40D8:A666:970:B06F (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. That word belongs there for now because the convention has not happened yet. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harris is still presumptive in the same sense that Biden is still presumptive. Neither has been officially nominated. AmericanBaath (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Map

Hello, y'all; I have an excellent idea on how to improve this (and every other US Presidential Election) article: a new map style. Surely, this won't be a can of snakes...right? Frankly, I have no right to comment about the textual content of these articles, but I do make maps, meaning I feel somewhat obliged to give my two cents. The current map style for the Presidential election infoboxes is lacking. This opinion isn't just me rambling. I've seen plenty of other people in a few online places discussing improvements to them. The current maps are the bare minimum, but they pale in comparison to other national electoral maps on other Wiki pages. Currently, the only information they convey is the color of the winning state and its electoral votes. It is perfectly suitable, but there should be more. In my expertise, the infobox maps should contain, in summation, the entirety of an election. The current simple maps aren't bad, but they don't tell the reader much. I've made a proposal sample of what these maps should look like. They include the name of the candidates, the share of the vote, the count of electors, the states shaded by the margin, (as a bonus) clearly defined ME and NE congressional districts to display those results, and either a pie chart showing the turnout, vote share, elector share, or a bar graph showing the difference in electors shaded by state margin, or both. I prefer both, but only one might be necessary. In short, this one map should help a person understand the entire election and results, not the current five maps for just state results. If anything else, I think it's worthwhile starting a discussion over what we include in the infoboxes and the sort of maps we display. Countless people read these articles, and conveying vital information is an important task to which we ought to give high priority. Please, if you have questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, I'm all ears. Map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Presidential_Infobox_Map_Template_P(roposal).svg Talleyrand6 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I love it. Lostfan333 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Certainly there could be improvements too. I might do a 2nd draft. This took me like an hour on a weekday night. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the shading is a good idea, but I don't think the pie chart is – it is far too small to read even when opening as a standalone map, let alone when it will be shown at 300px in size. I think it would also be better to have the key in the caption section (where it would be legible) rather than also being unreadably small (
    WT:E&R last year on the issue of bar charts/pie charts in map sections. Number 57 21:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    See, I think something that can be a one-stop-shop for a basic overview for an election has value. Why have three or four maps displaying basically the same info when you can have one. The Brazilian Presidential maps are a great example of this, or what about this Irish Referendum map showing a wonderful example of simplicity and depth of information. I could point to various other such maps currently in use, why can't the US have such wonderful maps as well? I think the US infobox maps do need some extra detail just to begin with. My proposal doesn't need to be accepted, it's there to stir up discussion. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be good for use elsewhere, but I just think not in the infobox. With the limited space available, the majority of pie charts/bar charts/keys are rendered meaningless by being illegible. Number 57 22:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet plenty of election pages are perfectly fine-nay improved- by the inclusion of a higher quality map. There are ways to convey a lot of information in clear ways which frankly disprove this point about illegibility. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So how would you make the key and pie chart legible at the scale it is in the infobox?
    Also, it's not really very nice of you to post screenshots of this discussion on your Twitter account (nor to refer to other editors as stupid, particularly given you've been unblocked with a zero tolerance warning for personal attacks). It was borderline canvassing posting the fact that you'd started the discussion in the first place. Number 57 22:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again my point is that map makers (especially the ones who've been doing this much longer than I) generally know what they're doing and I'm appealing to their work, but also to an idea that we should strive for better, right? There are some wonderful high quality detailed maps which do a good job representing relevant data without detracting from the article. That's all we want for the US elections. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely the higher the quality the better, but illegible things are not high quality IMO. I would say the Ugandan map is high quality because breaks down the result to quite a good level but leaves the key to be added to the article in a way where readers can actually read it. Number 57 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, quite rude saying this are 'illegible' without properly explaining yourself and ignoring the readily available examples which disprove your point. Much ruder than anyone calling an opinion stupid Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As below, I think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying it is illegible because it is badly designed. It is illegible because the size at which it is displayed in the infobox means the text/numbers are too small to read. The numbers on the states are large enough to read. The others (e.g. on the key in the bottom right-hand corner) or above the pie chart) are not. Number 57 23:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly it's condescending to think the general audience can't understand the better maps. There are real people I know who honestly prefer the higher quality work. Wikipedia is a few encyclopedia and I think it's a sign of respect for this website when people sink hours into one of these maps because they want to provide the best experience for people. It's a service they provide on their own time often without much praise, creating these projects for the sake of others. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on your response, I'm not sure you are understanding my point. I am not saying readers cannot understand your map. My issue is that readers cannot read some of the things on your map because the size at which it will be displayed in the infobox means it is impossible to see certain details, rendering them meaningless. Anyway, I've given my view on the matter, so happy to sit back and see what others think. Number 57 22:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They could always, y'know, left click on the image and open up the preview? Very common thing to do, even on simple graphics. Talleyrand6 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They could, but the question is whether they should have to. Personally I don't think readers should be presented with an image they cannot actually read without having to click through to. I'm guessing this will be the crux of this discussion. Number 57 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that just isn't a convincing argument. I cant comment for other wiki communities but elections wiki is already stuffed full of images that usually require the viewer to open them to see the details. Even on the 2020 US Pres election, for example, pretty much all of those graphics are easier to read once expanded. Like a lot of people read wiki on laptops or phones, not massive monitors. If anything with a map you want to zoom in to see detailed areas. Like with other forms of art, close up viewing to see the details is where the beauty of that work is revealed, not the quick glance at a distance. Talleyrand6 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the standard map is fine as is. While I agree shaded maps are good on elections like France's, which are determined by a cumulative popular vote, the popular margin in each state is irrelevant to determining the winner of the presidential election. It's superfluous information and can be kept in the maps section of the article. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we should keep it simple for the infobox, and get more detailed in the actual article. The infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of the results. The proposed map seems like it would be hard to update on election night. Also, I already proposed that on election night, we use lighter shades for states where a majority of major media outlets make a projection, and darker shades for states with unanimous projections from the media. Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree with this comment. I'm not a fan of the color shading, particularly in U.S. elections where the vote share is irrelevant. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add

Cornell West should be added. Roadtruck (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Lukt64 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cornel West is located in the third party candidate section if you want to find him. Longestview (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State infobox order

Which candidate gets listed first as “candidate 1” in the state infoboxes? The current incumbent, or the candidate from the party that won the state in 2020? This is a unique rematch election, so seems even more bizarre to have Biden listed first in say Alabama, when Trump (not even some other Republican) won it in 2020. Prcc27 (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, I changed to order based on the party that won the state in 2020, since that made more sense to me and for some reason though it was the norm. Then, I checked a few articles on previous presidential elections and saw that it wasn't the norm, so I stopped caring about it. I still prefer the edits I made, but don't feel strongly either way. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incumbent party is listed first. While is does appear odd to see President Biden listed first in a state such as Alabama. His party currently holds the presidency. Going back to 2020 you can see in the history then President Trump was listed first in Virginia. You can also see this in the 2022 Maryland gubernatorial election. Delegate Cox was listed first despite Governor Hogan being term limited. His party still held the incumbency going into the election. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more interesting question, which we should get out in front of, is who will go second when Kennedy is inevitably added to some of these. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The former president would still be listed second. While Mr. Kennedy would be listed third. Third parties and independents follow the two major parties in alphabetical order by last name. At least, that is how it was decided to be in the 2018 Illinois gubernatorial election where both the Conservative Party and Libertarian Party nominees were polling above the 5% average. Despite the Conservative Party's nominee, Senator McCann, polling higher in the average than the Libertarian nominee, Kash Jackson, Mr. Jackson was placed first since J comes before M. Of course, that became irrelevant after the election since both failed to crack 5% of the vote. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's legal issues should be included in the campaign issues section

I have nothing much to add to that other than the title. Both presumptive nominees and major parties have made Trump's legal issues a major focus of the campaign, and they should be included if the article is to be complete 198.7.223.238 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "potential" issues from the lead

Issues shouldn't be in the lead until the election. It goes against

WP: CRYSTAL
, and doesn't inform the reader, as many of these topics are prominent in every election year.

It should be removed for now. KlayCax (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree that issues shouldn't be in the lead until the election. Issues emerge during the campaign, not on election day. The issues are known, well-documented and well-cited. The current presentation gives them the prominence of the lede without giving any particular issue to much weight. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues are a Campaign thing, not an Election thing. Qutlooker (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFK Jr

Now that he has a running mate and appears to be a legitimate candidate as an independent, I think RFK Jr should be added to the infobox at the top of the page alongside Biden and Trump. Just as Ross Perot was in the article about the 1992 election. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of open discussions on this page regarding the criteria for adding a candidate to the infobox. Please weigh in there. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does not have an Incumbent, he also doesn't even have a single state listing him as a Candidate on the Ballot. Qutlooker (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy is already on the ballot in multiple states and will appear in even more now that he has a Vice Presidential candidate. You're wrong. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picking a running mate does not automatically get you on more ballots. Just ask Ted Cruz. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm not stupid. But he does already have enough signatures in some states where all he needed was the VP choice. Again, I know it's a process. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are states where all he needed to do was pick a VP to finalize his status on the ballot, that is something that I did not know. We would all benefit from a deeper state-by-state analysis of his ballot status. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, he has only officially qualified for the ballot in Utah.. Prcc27 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's a process, and Kennedy might not be officially on a state's ballot yet but he's already met the threshold. Thanks for the feedback. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have a VP doesn't mean you'll appear on the Ballot more, just look at Storm in '48 Qutlooker (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of this, is there a way to mention Nicole Shanahan in Kennedy's campaignbox here? Can we possibly format his/Cornel West the way Biden and Trump are formatted in their party's section? I'm sure within a few months West will announce his running mate as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a "running mate" column to that section. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make'em into boxes like the Democratic & Republican (presumptive) tickets? Yeah, that would be cool. We must remember though, the Libertarian & Green tickets would be listed ahead of any independent tickets. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's now established his own political party called We The People (as a way to get easier ballot access in more states). Does this move the needle at all? Vjmlhds (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this actually get him on any ballots? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it easier as being in a party requires fewer signatures Vjmlhds (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: "engages in promotion of conspiracy theories"

Why not just say "promotes conspiracy theories"? The current version is slightly difficult to read Woozybydefault (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I went ahead and changed the nominalization. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F Kennedy Jr Infobox

Robert Kennedy Jr should be allowed in the infobox now that he's officially announced his running mate. He's polling in around 12% of the popular vote and is officially on the ballot in two states Hawaii and Utah, and awaiting certification in six other states, five which are toss up states,Arizona,Georgia,Michigan,Nevada,New Hampshire, and South Carolina. I could possibly understand waiting for him to be on the ballot in all 50 states before allowing him on the infobox but I still believe he should be allowed in the infobox now since he's shown he's a serious candidate with significant support among the voters. TheMilitaryHistorian1939 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several open discussions on this topic already. Please review the talk page before starting a new topic. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustment of RFK Jr Campaign section infobox

Could the infobox for the RFK Jr Campaign section be adjusted to be the same as the "ticket" infoboxes above for consistency. Buildershed (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose if/until he gets enough ballot access and/or qualifies for the main infobox. The regular table seems
WP:DUE for candidates that lack ballot access. Not sure what to do about the Green and Libertarian nominees. Would we wait until those parties get enough ballot access before adding them, or would they automatically get nominee style tables since they had sufficient ballot access in 2020? Prcc27 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Kennedy ballot access

Lukt64, Kennedy is certified for the ballot in Utah and Hawaii. See: [4]. Six states are still pending certification. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its more than one. Lukt64 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10 (certified) + 61 (awaiting certification) + 66 (automatic write-in) = 137. Halfway there? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu In a hypothetical and unlikely scenario, if RFK Jr. got all those 137 EVs, he would easily make it extremely difficult for Joe Biden or Donald Trump to reach 270, easily leading to a contingent election. Buildershed (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]