Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Remove RealClearPolitics from polling.

RealClearPolitics has a strong Republican bias, and has been dumped by many major pollsters due to this. A great example is that Minnesota is listed by them as a toss up, despite no other pollster agreeing. The conservative bias is also acknowledged on the Wikipedia article about them. 101.119.162.78 (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) 18:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably true. Probably a good idea. Not sure what the current consensus is on this. Andre🚐 06:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to make a new bit here. Can we Please remove the %s for RealClearPolitics forecasts? They tip the averages by a good few tenths of a point. 101.119.102.25 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

All pools are biased, some pro Dem, some pro Rep. This is our reality. M.Karelin (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There are left-leaning polls, like YouGov, there are right-leaning polls, like Harvard/Harris. And then there are bad hack polls like Rasmussen and Trafalgar which can't be defended as having a coherent polling methodology. RCP is closer to the latter. However, I think we'd need a preponderance of evidence in reliable sources to consider downgrading RCP. Andre🚐 09:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

A few points then RCP has labelled Minnesota, a state regarded to be +6 democratic by all major pollsters, a 'tossup'. RCP has an incredibly strong lean. Looking at other Republican Lean's (CNAnalysis for example) shows this as they do not follow polling averages whatsoever. As mentioned above, Rasmussen Reports was removed due to bad methodology. A few sources here accuse RCP of bias/unreliability, and strong bias isn't good in polling. https://www.niemanlab.org/reading/real-clear-politics-was-a-trusted-go-to-source-for-unbiased-polling-the-trump-era-changed-its-tone-and-funding-sources/ https://adfontesmedia.com/realclear-politics-bias-and-reliability They disputed the results of the 2020 election, something no other pollster has done. That makes them more unreliable than not.

The argument that 'extreme democratic leans in polling means we shouldn't remove this' isn't a good excuse. I do think we should look into other pollsters, but this one seems most biased. 101.119.153.162 (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I second this. 120.19.186.242 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think both IPs have a good point. But I think we need some actual registered users to weigh in also. Andre🚐 23:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

the other two IPs are very similar, probably same account 120.18.94.230 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I seconded this for reference. 120.18.94.230 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I might agree with that. They also listed ME-1 District as Likely-D, while Harris is up around 20-25 points in that district. Oudomo (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

this is my IP. (was on holiday) 27.33.134.168 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I support removing. RCP has always had somewhat questionable standards for inclusion[1]. I've noticed them omitting polls without any particular reason and occasionally using a RV number when the preferable LV is available. While it is okay for aggregators to disagree on the structure of aggregations, the fact that their result always leans further to the right (their own position) than others is suspect, especially given a lack of transparency on their inclusion policy. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious if WP:RS applies here; if reliable sources included RCP as an aggregator, it may behoove us to include them as well. However, IMO, they are clearly a Republican outfit and their inclusion standards for polls reflect that. It's also worth distinguishing between polls and poll aggregators. RCP, like 538, doesn't really conduct polling, they just take an average of the polls. Dingers5Days (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If RS are using them along with peers in a "lay of the land" report such as [2], I would agree. But legitimate outfits will also use it to support a narrative they are pushing - see [3] - while ignoring contravening opinions. Personally, I think the only reason to list aggregators numbers is to reflect the true state of the polls from an objective perspective. Including someone who quite clearly has their thumb on the scale is not a service to our reader. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both of your thoughts Andre🚐 20:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

From WP:RSP: "There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided."

Sources labeled as fact-checkers or pollsters should have a pretty spotless reputation. I say leave them out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done (diff) Andre🚐 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose ban: It’s normal for polls to lean either Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. In addition to that, I haven’t seen any reliable, unbiased sources that have given concrete evidence that their polling methodology is based on anything unethical. RealClearPolitics has been widely cited in Wikipedia and elsewhere. It’s also a very well known poll aggregator. The decision to ban the site shouldn’t be taken lightly. CountyCountry (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, we aren't banning them, but the existing consensus at WP:RSP was to avoid their usage, so we're conforming with that. That was from 2021, so not a problem if you want to start a new thread at WP:RSN and have a new RFC on the reliability of RCP. For now though, ignoring the 2 IP editors, we have at least 3 editors asking to remove them, which is a good enough working consensus for the time being when combined with the precedent. Andre🚐 22:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t consider what we have as consensus. RCP’s polling aggregation has been used on many Wikipedia articles for at least several years now, and for most of the time there’s not much pushback (at least for the aggregates). You would need more support for removal to achieve consensus. My other point against removal is that we have other aggregates listed on Wiki articles. The results of these aggregates can be different, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The results for each aggregate can be used as comparisons and averaged as well. CountyCountry (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, technically, you are allowed to revert my change, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the 3 users above would revert that. But, I don't see that I need more support, unless there is someone else that agrees with you, since it's implementing an RSP consensus. Andre🚐 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus you mentioned said that RCP “should probably only be done with caution” and “there seems no reason to broadly label them as unreliable”[4]. The discussion on the site’s reliability was more about their political articles and not the polling aggregates. Even then, their polling aggregates can be used with caution on election articles. As I have stated before, readers can compare polling aggregate results on the articles. They can compare what RCP’s numbers look like vs the other aggregates. You need more consensus to remove RCP polls. CountyCountry (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is very little commentary from WP:RS on the bias of RCP's polling averages, as you point out. NYT has 2 articles where they quote analysts who argue RCP is biased, but I have not seen any other outlets discussing this. [5] [6] Dingers5Days (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, you forgot to remove their actual polling by %. But that helps a lot. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Would be a bad move. Plus, there's no consensus. CountyCountry (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think looking into DDHQ/The Hill might be worthwhile too, they have extreme Democratic leans. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

”Extreme Democratic leans” doesn’t mean their polling results should be removed.CountyCountry (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Update;

I've removed RCP's predictions & polling in all states which are dodgy (Minnesota, Wisconsin, NC, etc) so then it isn't counted into the averages. The problem is, the averages refuse to update. Can someone fix this? 14.203.148.107 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The averages don't update automatically. I can work on it, but may not have time to complete it quickly, in case others want to jump in. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I usually don't update the averages, just pundits polling. I just let someone do the Mean calculations and update it. Oudomo (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I updated and recalculated the numbers. The numbers didn’t change much. CountyCountry (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@CountyCountry

I'm the 101.119 guy, why you removing all my posts??? And who is I would be bias if it was allowed??? 220.240.171.237 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Responded to on my talk page. You seem very suspicious. CountyCountry (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose downgrade: as it's combination of Democratic and Republicans polls, I think that we should receive more feedbacks before deciding it. E.g. feedback timeline for minimum one or two weeks. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

These aren't partisan polls. RealClearPolitics might as well be. 120.19.139.231 (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Point of order We're not talking about polls, we're talking about aggregators. Polls can be partisan, and aggregation is used to level off the data. Some explicitly account for partisan lean, some weigh for reliability. But other than RCP, all apply a logical and consistent policy with the intent of producing objective results. No other aggregator has been accused (let alone credibly) of a partisan lean. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hence the removal. We should also remove the raw polls (the ones displaying percentages and not states) by RCP, as they're both disproportionately tipping the average. It'll be hard to do it in other articles, but I can do those. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that many of the IP users here seem to be from the same people.:

• 101.119.153.162, 101.119.162.78, 120.19.186.242, and 120.19.139.231 are Australian IPs that geolocated to a very similar area.
• 27.33.134.168 and 120.18.94.230 are Australian IPs that geolocate to the same area.

If you are an IP user, please use the same IP. If you use multiple IP accounts, that will create the illusion that you are more than one participant in the discussion. CountyCountry (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I was on holiday and therefore was using the three 120 ones, but 27, 101, and the other 101 aren't mine. I actually sent a thing saying that I was the one who originally said 'I second this.' 27.33.134.168 (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Mind you, my old Wikipedia account was banned and I couldn't figure out how to appeal. That was a long time ago though, and I haven't needed a new one. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait, so you are saying that the "27" IP isn't yours, but you are commenting using the "27" IP. That doesn't add up. Plus, having a blocked account and not knowing how to appeal isn't excuse for using an IP account. This is a clear case of block evasion. CountyCountry (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm dumb. I meant that one of the 120s wasn't mine, not the 27. Sorry for the confusion. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I am 27 as well, it's just that I'm not at my house, and will start removing RCP predictions from articles immediately. 2001:4479:6201:B00:21F9:EED1:C74D:6986 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would, but for some reason, my wifi is dodgy & my phone changes often bc of data stuff and the fact I'm gonna swap off Vodafone onto Telstra (Am Australian) 14.203.148.107 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You’re not alone. Coincidentally (?), there is another Australian IP user that had to use multiple IPs because they claimed they aren’t at their house. Also, I think it’s interesting (fun fact) to note that all of the IPs that have participated in this discussion are Australian IPs. If many of these IPs are independent of each other, then what a coincidence and what are the chances? Not only that, but they are all adamant about banning RCP polls. One of the IPs even went as far to say that Decision Desk aggregates should be removed. Anyways…one of them has removed RCP polls despite the fact that there is no consensus to overturn the long-running status quo. And also the whole process was unusually quick. I oppose removing RCP aggregates and my reasoning is earlier in the discussion. I have much more pressing issues off-wiki, and so I don’t plan on engaging in disputes, either in talk pages (I’ve already made multiple comments explaining my reasoning) or in the form of reverts. I’m busy off-wiki. I will definitely continue to update other aggregates. CountyCountry (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This comment shows bad faith for at least 6 different reasons, but lets just start with the fact that RCP was not removed by an IP, it was removed by Andre (who added a comment saying they did so!). An IP could not edit the article because of the ECP. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You have made a number of accusations against me, so I must respond. I’ll try to make this as short as possible. For your first point, I respectfully recommend you to read this guideline. For your second accusation that I was lying, please view [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14], and [15]. They've also claimed that there’s consensus to remove the Cook Political Report, even though there hasn’t even been any discussion on it![16] CountyCountry (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

well, as for myself, I am:

27

Two of the 120s

The weird IP (2001:etc:etc)

I'm not the post maker though. But I suspect I'm one and the two 101s are the other person. The fact they also have very similar IPs (same first 5 numbers) is even more in favour of that. 14.203.148.107 (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably the last time I will say this, but please use one IP address. Using multiple IPs may make the whole discussion unorganized and confusing if multiple IPs are from one person. If you’re unable to use one IP, then just make an account. Very simple. If you’re the one that said that their old account is blocked, then get that issue settled first before editing. CountyCountry (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In all that diff research, did you bother to look for the one you were actually talking about: [17]. Hey, look at that! You were lying! Maybe you should focus on those pressing off-wiki activities. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t even talking about that diff at all. I was already aware of that diff you just showed. Just look at my discussion earlier in the thread. Anyways…I was referring about the state page diffs because that is usually where I edit. Plus, the vast majority of the RCP removals on any of the election articles were done by the IPs. Don’t put words in my mouth! CountyCountry (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• The WP:RSP entry for RealClearPolitics, at least, does not imply confidence, so yes, it probably shouldn't be used if we're just citing it as the primary source. If we're citing other pollsters people object to we should also discuss their objections, but the issue with RCP isn't that it's biased, it's that there's reason to believe that its bias is interfering with its accuracy. The fact that other high-quality sources are excluding their polls also suggests that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy where polling is concerned. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm no professional Wiki editor, so forgive me if I'm replying in the wrong place, but how do the other aggregates, several if not all of which have bias, not get the same treatment? Why wouldn't it be that their biases affect their accuracy, and how do we know that RCP is the one that's off? From what I've seen, RCP hasn't even been that far off from the other aggregates' data. I'm not suggesting RCP is unbiased; it certainly has bias. But then, so do the other aggregates, and if they have bias, then that bias is in one way or another going to affect their polling data and/or aggregate methods. Also, fact-checking and accuracy in polling? We don't know if a poll is accurate until the election, and if you're talking about the crosstabs of a poll being way off, then most of the other aggregates include plenty of those polls as well. We should be including both right-leaning aggregates and left-leaning aggregates. Redguy07 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  The bias is far more extreme with RCP, and they have credible claims against them, as well as also being the only aggregator that claims that the Republican Party won the 2020 election. They also have suspicious records on their state classifications (Likely D for a +25 district in maine) and marked Minnesota, a state that's +6D, a tossup. They also have suspiciously low predictions for almost all of Harris' election % wins, putting her at +2.2, which is nearly a point under the adjusted average without it counted. The only other aggregator/predictor with this much bias could also be CNN, as they're significantly underpredicting some states, but it's not a difference of marking Minnesota a tossup. RCP has Pennsylvania, a state marked as +1 by other aggregators, as polling towards Republicans. They put it at +0.1R before I removed it. They use very dodgy methods and are the only aggregator that has very partisan leans. Therefore, I want their % aggregations gone from the main article as well, as it'll fix the averages so then it's not as Republican-leaning. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  First they came after Rasmussen because of "rep bias", even tough they predicted Biden last election, but I was silent. Next they came after 538 because of "rep bias", even tough they predicted both Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020, but I was silent. Then they came after RCP because of "rep bias" and not showing their candidate up like others (the biggest hypocrisy being the fact RCP shown Harris being up most of the time, only recently having her score down, why weren't you removing them back then? I guess RCP was okay for liberals when they shown their candidate up in bigger numbers).

  Don't you see the pattern here? I may not agree with Dem bias polls (Susquehanna, Bloomberg, etc...), which I see there a lot, but I won't be removing them like we are in some Nazi Germany no other information or what. What next will be removed because of muh candidate isn't up and reality isn't always sunshine and rainbows? 2A01:C846:3A81:1500:203D:8011:7472:CABB (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice: 27.33.134.168 is User:I would be bias if it was allowed, an indef blocked account. The IPs that they use are socks and their contributions and talk page comments should be reverted and striked respectively. CountyCountry (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with talk page comments, but they seemed to not have harmful contributions to anything 220.240.171.237 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of RCP... The suggestion is total nonsense... --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: can I ask you why you think it's nonsense? Great Mercian (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Was the reliability of RCP ever discussed and if so where? Governor Sheng (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is where. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, support removing RCP. This isn't as simple as "some aggregators are Dem-leaning or Rep-leaning", it's inclusion breaks WP:RSP. We've wasted way too much time fretting about IPs and not enough time addressing the actual problem. Great Mercian (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this (as an IP) 220.240.171.237 (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

IPs or socks aside, several real users expressed support for removing it. Myself, GreatCaesarsGhost, Aquillion, Valjean, and Great Mercian, and possibly support from Oudomo. With Governor Sheng, Goodtiming8871, Redguy and CountyCountry against. I wasn't sure of Dingers5Days if that is a oppose or support removal or M.Karelin. Anyone else besides some IP or socks? No offense guys if you are a not socking IP. Andre🚐 08:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

None taken. I must say it's quite annoying when people mistake me for the other person. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Biden Photo

Should we use Biden's official portrait on the image under the infobox saying about his expiration date? G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Stricken comment made in violation of WP:SOCK. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Bush Jr. and Obama do have their official portraits under the infobox in elections they did not run. So I think you get the point. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Expiration date as in the end of his term? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Bias in lead once again

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

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

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

Kamala doesn't support genocide, so that shouldn't be included because no RS will say that she does. Andre🚐 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The claims about Trump are very well sourced, as is required in Wikipedia. Did you look at the sources? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, extremely well sourced statements about Trump. Andre🚐 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And I can find just as many sources criticizing her for her positions on inflation, the border, and Gaza. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Quality of source matters here, not quantity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. See my previous discussion about this. We should at least shorten this and make a policy paragraph. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Just think about this from an outsiders point of view. When they read that paragraph, they will not think Wikipedia is neutral. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What's an outsider? I'm Australian. Does that count? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

An American undecided swing state voter who can't make up their mind, who will either think Wikipedia is bias or will be convinced to vote for Kamala. They should be convinced on who to vote for based on the policy and issues, which is well discussed here. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is a politician lying not an issue to you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it is an issue worthy of being mentioned in the lead, unless the extent of Trump’s lies are unprecedented (which arguably they are). Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, but it might be productive to have a separate paragraph about these types of criticisms, rather than in the general discussion. The indictments should be kept, as should the election denial stuff, but the other parts should be moved to a separate paragraph. Yavneh (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Tell me one sentence, with sources, that you'd like to add to the lead about Harris' campaign. The border, inflation, and Gaza are not it, but if you have anything else, let us know. Andre🚐 01:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What if, instead of putting the criticism specifically in his paragraph, extend the paragraph about issues to go more in depth and keep this Personisinsterest (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

We will put the relevant information in the lead. And we have. We summarize[d] the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It cannot be helped that a political party and their candidate for office had a number of prominent controversies since the last election. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Although controversial, since the article is detailed in detail, it would be better to summarize the introduction, which is overly critical of a specific candidate and takes up more than half of the entire introduction. This is to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality by attempting to gloss over the controversies doesn't seem like a workable path, but if you want to suggest something than I will review it. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Your objection is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our role as an encyclopedia is to summarize what the sources say; if they're overwhelmingly negative about something, then our coverage must be overwhelmingly negative as well - it is not appropriate for us to "put our finger on the scale" to correct what we consider an imbalance in the sources themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree it needs to be removed, I was pretty concerned while I was reading this page that there was so much bias here.

I've read a couple of arguments above, let me answer to all of those. I've cited in italics some points of the Wikipedia rules.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." I don't see either neutrality nor fairness.

"Even when material is sourced, editors must ensure that its inclusion follows Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and is written to give appropriate weight to the views." Are we sure this is followed? Doesn't look like it from my side.

Adding to this, anyways, the introduction isn't really the space for that, is it? It almost looked like the editor was so impatient to write those things aye? Wikipedia is not the place to share opinions or attract votes to a side or another.

Finally,

"Articles must be fair and balanced in their coverage, and must not contain unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons, even if it is accurate."

You can consider the sources as reliable as you want but even reliably sourced negative claims should be handled carefully to ensure they don't come across as defamatory or disproportionate. 93.36.176.195 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources You removed the rest of the sentence after that, which states in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. It also further states, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

2. I can't find this statement in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Where did you get it from? Even if it is included, appropriate weight is given to the sources.

3. Again, I can't find this sentence in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Where did you get it from? Either way, the sentence is sourced and not poorly sourced. BootsED (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we please talk about my proposal instead now? Personisinsterest (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Or (4), WP:WEIGHT determines whether space should be given to a particular topic. — Czello ^(music) 11:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And with that implication that Kamala has no noteworthy negatives, Czello has put themself firmly in the (2) category. Polls suggest the majority of voting Americans disagree with that “weighting”. This article is bias. 2404:4408:831D:4100:81BF:3502:EA68:9C41 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make the case that there are noteworthy negatives about Kamala that deserve listing on this article, please go ahead. You'll need to demonstrate that the prominence of criticism is reflected in reliable sources. — Czello ^(music) 20:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: It's likely you'll not get a (required) consensus for your edit proposals. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah Personisinsterest (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Personisinsterest:

Please suggest the example about "practical updated lead part" to be reviewed, we can then update the required part after discussion with other editors for this article. I understand that we can not get 100% meet the WP:NOPV however, I also think that current lead part is biased. If you can suggest some lead parts to be updated, and other editors (including myself), will suggest the next to improve the lead part of the article to be more fair and reasonable. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we should improve the lead section of the article with a newly created section before user:Personisinsterest suggests an updated section/suggestion.discussion: it is the updated discussion for this topic.[[18]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: Do not post early calls or vote numbers until confirmed.

Again, I'll be monitoring this page on the week of Election Day. Many states have already begun early voting.

The page is extended confirmation protected, but still, we will not post or display calls for states (i.e. color in states red or blue) until there is widespread consensus. This is particularly applicable to swing states.

Wikipedia must be reliable, and our goal is not to be the first to call the winner or providing information as fast as possible. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The consensus is 3+ major sources (i.e. ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC) for light red/light blue on the map; all 5 sources for dark blue/dark red on the map and for the infobox tally. What do you think about my proposal for creating a whole new template for the infobox? If we keep the infobox on this article, each user will only be allowed 1 revert on Election Night, which will make it harder to enforce consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point we need a custom edit notice for this page. We have statements like these that should be noted as a edit notice. Qutlooker (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I support a custom edit notice. How do we create one? Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

On the Sunday of the election, for at least the entire week, the notice will be up. We may need a custom edit notice--we may have to make a template/banner for this specifically. I will make a thread or group of threads (i.e. one for each swing state) for us to get consensus from 3 & 5 major sources. This is one rough draft JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should be more specific: “Do not post calls for states until ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC unanimously make a projection”. The 3+ source criteria only applies to the map on Commons; whereas Wikipedia is only concerned with unanimity as far as the inclusion criteria is concerned. Prcc27 (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of that for the swing states and potentially other relatively competitive states--i.e. those that were won by less than 10% in 2020. For most safe states, I think 3 sources is enough to do light red/blue on the map. Proposed notice:

The current criteria is to do lighter shades for any state with 3 or 4 projections from one of the 5 sources. We do not need to make a distinction between swing and non-swing states. Prcc27 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800: You might need to make an edit request here Prcc27 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia has no time limit. Only states should be colored when all major sources call it. cookie monster 755 15:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Popular Vote...

Are we going to reference the 2008 election, for the third time? It's getting kind of tired at this point. Every more recent election is bound to have higher vote totals due to increasing population. They will both likely get over 70 million votes, I don't think it's reasonable to reference 2008, once again.Joe Biden got the most votes in history, that doesn't need to be qualified ~ 68.189.2.14 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you rephrase your point? This article does not mention 2008 a single time, nor does it include the word "popular." Joe Biden is not a candidate in this election, and was only a VP candidate in 2008. I have literally no idea what you are saying. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Bias

In the section about Harris and President Trump’s debate, you use CNN as a source multiple times for important information. Wikipedia is not biased, CNN is. What has happened to Wikipedia? Shameful 108.24.127.83 (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. CNN is a reliable source. BootsED (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

CNN having a left-wing bias has nothing to do with anything. Several right-leaning sources are also used. Yavneh (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

When CNN has a left-wing bias, what other news sources with a right-wing bias are used in this article? e.g. fox news. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, CNN is a reliable source. Fox News Politics is an unreliable source, and should not be used. Wikipedia should not add unreliable, non-high quality sources just because one believes they provide "balance" to viewpoints, as this would break WP:RS and WP:FALSEBALANCE. BootsED (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead proposal

First, go further in depth about the issues of the election, maybe try to highlight some specific ones like abortion, border, etc. like other election articles. Then, move the criticism of Trumps comments to the end of the section, so that it isn’t harping on him but just part of the issues of the election anyway. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that abortion, border are the major parts for this election topics. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Trump vs. Harris details in the lead

Reading the lead of this article for the first time, and I'm struck that there are an awful lot of details about things Trump has said and done since 2020, but almost no details about Harris. The paragraph on Trump is indeed a bit jarring to read not because the lead doesn't include negative material about Harris but because the lead includes so much about him (all negative, though I wouldn't argue for WP:FALSEBALANCE) and doesn't include any material, positive or negative, about Harris. The second paragraph needs an overall summary of the character of Harris's campaign.

Then, along the lines of the suggestion above, it could use more information about platforms. It's a long article; the lead could be longer. I thought about taking a stab at this stuff, but figure it might've come up before. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Any reader(or those in the distant future) wanting a quick rundown of both candidates will be left disappointed. The paragraph about Trump is longer than the rest of the lead itself. Some elements could be merged (like "false statements" and "conspiracy theories" as well as "unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history and a continued breaking of political norms"). A paragraph about Harris campaign can be added as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27: closed this section because it's "already being discussed in the section above". Presumably, since you didn't actually specify a section, you're talking about the "bias" section? I've reopened it because bias is not the subject of this section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the bias in lead once again section. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Mixed: I do think we should add a bit more about Kamala's campaign, about anything that may be of note. However, I also do think that if Trump takes up half the section and it's not erroneous nor repetitive, then it shouldn't be changed. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I sort of feel like the info about Harris in the opening section dives into minutiae that doesn't really feel like it belongs in an opening section (which should summarize the topic), like her interview on fox news. Some of the criticisms of her seem to be stated as objective and seem poorly written and/or vague, and there are formatting issues.

"Her speech sounds like “word salad.”"

"and that she would show new ideas and experiences."

" Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes." with spaces between the cite notes

It can be argued for like others have that there needs to be more balance in the mentioning of the issues that the candidates have, but it seems a little sloppy with Harris. WWWHHHHYYYYYY (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In an effort to move forward, I made a bold edit to the lead, with changes detailed in the edit summary. Main goal was to address the above. IMO it still needs another good sentence about Trump between Trump's campaign is focused on economic nationalism, deregulation, and a strong anti-immigration stance. and His campaign has been noted for making many... Maybe something about him defending his record while in office? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you. The lead is supposed to be a summary, your edits were too verbose. We already have a paragraph saying which campaign issues are going to be important for the election. Information on what the candidates’ views are on these issues can be found in the body paragraphs. The reason why there is a lot of focus on Trump, is because it is WP:DUE to focus on prominent controversies. Is there a prominent controversy of Harris? Anyways, this section is redundant, please refrain from duplicate discussions, and take your concerns to the relevant section above. Prcc27 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE in the lead is based on what's in the body. Hoping to get additional perspectives on whether this is an improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That is better contents and improved part for this article. In particular, if we summarize the content a little more, I think the core parts will be conveyed better.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance cannot be changed by user agreement. In particular, there was no agreement that issues held by Harris, which have various reliable sources, should not be included in the Lead section, and only Trump's issues should be included. I think it is against the spirit of Wikipedia to demand an agreement that issues held by Harris, which are mentioned in prominent sources such as CNN and VOX, should not be included in the Lead section. Please improve the contents that I updated summarized in the lead sectionGoodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in this article.

@Prcc27, Personisinsterest, GoodDay, Rhododendrites, Czello, BootsED, Aquillion, Super Goku V, Andrevan, Yavneh, HiLo48, Ca, and WWWHHHHYYYYYY: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the Bias in lead once again section above. BootsED (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

At least it was. Seems like that discussion has died down in favor of discussing it here as the last post there was five days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed since last time. We have put the relevant information in the lede. We summarize[d] the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It still cannot be helped that a political party and their candidate for office had a number of prominent controversies related to the prior election.

Regarding the paragraph, I don't see it covering any prominent controversies. Part of the problem seems to be that two of the sources were the same week Harris' campaign for president started and four sources were about her recent interview with Fox News. On that last subject, I am disappointed in seeing another attempt to use Fox News as a reliable source despite WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. It was brough up last month, Goodtiming8871. As a reminder for the future, Fox News is not reliable for politics and is not a reliable source.

I will add that if it is clear that there are prominent controversies involving Harris, then they need to be included. But I am struggling to see that here. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

(Suggested part on article) Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, with her background as a prosecutor, has been criticized as a very poor communicator when it comes to expressing policies on many important issues. Her speech sounds like “word salad.” For example, she struggles to present her vision for the country to voters on how to improve their lives. Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office, as well as issues with her leadership, also raise concerns about Harris’ management style. However, Harris said she would demonstrate a leadership style different from Joe Biden’s in an interview with Fox News, a conservative channel that Democrats have previously avoided, and that she would show new ideas and experiences.

Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her. For example, the United States has failed to stop Iran from raising funds for aggression to other countries for the past four years. Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes.

Hello @Prcc27: I am asking about your claim that only very important controversies should be included in the lead, but generally, important controversies that voters can base their choice of the US president on should be excluded, or can only be included through the agreement of other users, which means that important controversies about Harris will eventually not at all be included in the lead.

Was there an agreement through RfC that only very important controversies should be included in the lead, and even if they are important controversies for voters about Harris that voters can base their choice on, they can only be excluded from the lead or can only be included through the agreement of other users? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I usually try to stay away from these 'too-negative' description for Trump/'too-positive' description for Harris, content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Lead part, which currently lists more than 10 negative things about Trump, big or small,

Regarding Harris, wouldn't it be fair to the voters to list all three or at least one major issue about Harris's past 10 years or more that could actually influence voters' choice of U.S. president, and let them know that Harris has several or at least one flaw?

In Wikipedia's summary of the election that determines the future of the United States, which should be recorded fairly, it is unfair that only one candidate's flaws are listed, and the other candidate Harris is recorded as if she is perfect and has no flaws at all. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to balance the lead, in any way you see fit. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Fairness has nothing to do with it. WP:RS determines what is included on the page. The fact that one candidate has numerous controversies and RS detailing them does not mean the page should be "balanced" to be "fair" to the other candidate as that would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We also have several RS detailing the historic nature of Trump's controversies in the election, from his criminal record to his authoritarian statements and rhetoric. We don't have anything comparable with Harris' campaign. None of the sources you have provided are about an actual controversy regarding the Harris campaign. BootsED (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

”Harris… has been criticized as a very poor communicator” Being a “poor communicator” isn’t a controversy, even if it was, we would probably actually need to mention Trump’s linguistic pitfalls. ”Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office”. I have never heard of this “controversy”, but again, what about Trump’s staff turnover rate? I’m pretty sure Trump’s turnover rate is a more well known controversy (which by the way we don’t even mention in the lead). ”Kamala Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her”. This is based on an unreliable source called Israelhayom? We have already explained to users like you why we do not have anything “negative” about Harris in the lead. And quite frankly, I’m too exhausted to repeat myself. Prcc27 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, they are called Israel Hayom. Currently, both the .com version and the co.il version appear on over 600 articles each with some article using both for references. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

In relation to this, isn't it in line with the founding spirit of Wikipedia that Wikipedia editors should list the three major weaknesses of Harris, based on reliable evidence, that could allow voters to judge whether Harris is a person who can do a good job as president, whether Harris is directly or indirectly responsible for the war in the Middle East and how she will handle it in the future? The language can be softened by referring to the above-mentioned content.

For the past 10 years or more, 1) Harris has frequently changed her words and has difficulty establishing and implementing specific policies, 2) leadership in organizational management, and 3) verification of her role as the second most powerful person in the United States for the past four years and her promise to do a good job in the future. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Let’s assume the source is reliable. It would still be WP:UNDUE to edit the article based on 1 source. Blaming her for a war when she is the vice-president, not the president, is bizarre. I’m not entertaining this discussion any further unless there is a real, well sourced controversy. Prcc27 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to "balance" content on a page to appear neutral. If the majority of reliable sources describe someone as a liar, the page will reflect this. It is not the job of editors to "balance" the page as this would be the introduction of editorial bias. Wikipedia goes on what the majority of what RS says, we do not "balance" content as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. BootsED (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• I mean, WP:FALSEBALANCE also applies to total coverage, not just to negative vs. positive coverage. The due weight for how much we discuss Trump vs. discussing Harris is based on coverage; it's possible that there is simply a lot more coverage of Trump, which means you'd expect an article about the election to devote a ton of text to him and much less to Harris. We could look up coverage of Harris and then weigh it against what's already in the article to make sure our balance is in the right place, but intuitively it's not surprising that there would be more coverage of Trump. (The fact that Harris only became the candidate near the end of the campaign also contributes, of course, and isn't really something with any precedent - it is possible our balance is off as an artifact of that and the article just needs to be updated to reflect recent coverage, but it's also possible that that just means there is less coverage of stuff that Harris did before she became the nominee, which we can only reflect.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

“Will be”

Is there a reason why the article says “will be…” when this election is technically already taking place in states that allow early voting? I think a note should be added that it is an ongoing election in some states. cookie monster 755 15:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a note next to "will be" saying early voting has begun in several states. I think the intention was for the page to make it very clear when the technical election day is, but I added the note to reflect a more accurate picture. Catboy69 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I support this wording. I'll add on the Sunday, November 3rd. The banner will stay on for the entire week. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding that now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it is needed until actual Election Day. The information regarding the election is nowhere near in flux as it will be on the 5th. Prcc27 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Liberal agenda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Love how it’s so focused on trumps flaws but ignores Harris and her nonsense 98.18.15.201 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What well sourced flaws of Harris' are omitted? HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For one, her attempt while she was Attorney General of California to keep nonviolent offenders in prison past their sentences in order to get cheap labor. This is easily verifiable. 2620:0:5080:160:898A:D471:2B14:C6F3 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No sources, no edits, and don't ask other editors to do your work. And free prison labor is not usually considered a "liberal agenda." Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. 2620:0:5080:160:898A:D471:2B14:C6F3 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add a median and/or mean state prediction

In the state prediction tables, I've noticed that there seems to be a bunch of different pollsters predicting a bunch of different things.

I had an idea for this.

Could we possibly implement a median system? I'll explain this Let's give an example The state 'Wellington' is a Solid Purple state according to GenericPollster1 (+3) The state 'Wellington' is a Likely Green state according to PollingWithNobody (-2) The state 'Wellington' is a Tossup according to ICantFindAName (0) This would mean that the state would be marked as a tossup by the median table.

The other idea would be making a mean of that.

So, you'd have +3, -2, and 0. The mean would be 1, therefore the prediction would be Lean Purple (+1 according to this calculation). A few notes. +1 would be lean D, -1 would be lean R +2 would be Likely D, -2 would be Likely R. +2.5 would be Very Likely D, -2.5 would be Very Likely R +3 would be safe/solid D, -3 would be safe/solid R.

Tell me what you think of this idea. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

the polls are all over the place and I'd like to see a smoothing as you propose, but I think it would be original research. simple arithmetic operators aren't OR, but I figure median or mean are. soibangla (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

then why not get simple arithmetic operators? 220.240.171.237 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

After the election, we can calculate the tipping-point state, closest states, and median state. Since Washington, DC is a "state" for the EC, the median state is the 26th state out of 51.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we ban IPs?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is not a joke, we have already had several things of IP spam and Sockpuppetry here. I believe we add protection to this page. Qutlooker (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I second adding page protection to this talk page. BootsED (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I also found out that there are anti-Trump or anti-Harris IP users and some of them are Sockpuppetry. For example, anti-Trump IP users (or anti-Harris Users) using Sockpuppetry have previously distracted other real user's contributions with their IPs. - e.g. the_US_Vice_Presidential_Debate[[19]]

Hopefully, genuinely constructive IP users will be able to express their opinions on this talk pages but, we need to block spam IPs with Sockpuppetry. I think it would be inconvenient, but helpful to the spirit of Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It'd be very inconvenient for me to make an account. Should I make one nonetheless? 220.240.171.237 (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To specify:

I don't have a personal email (I'm a bit of a hermit in real life) therefore my contributions would therefore be likely to get lost if I leave my work. 220.240.171.237 (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend suggesting it at WP:RFPP, though they usually don't lock down talk pages. For examples of successful requests, here are two recent ones: 1 & 2. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have requested one, will see what happens. Qutlooker (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

bias

why is criticism over trump's campaign so rampant compared to kamala harris's? this article doesnt go in depth at all about how she was not elected by her party and yet focuses on anti-trump rhetoric, just an example of Ideological bias on Wikipedia really Benga502 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are free to add content to the article that criticizes Harris, provided it has reliable sources. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I think we need to add an FAQ. This question has been answered multiple times. Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I added an FAQ, same answer as the FAQ in the Donald Trump talk page, because most NPOV disputes are about content relating to Trump, with some also about Harris. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Pov-pushing false balance

Can someone please remove the POV-pushing, anti-Harris paragraph in the lead? It was re-added by a user that is not following WP:BRD. Now the lead has a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even if we were to add Harris’s weakness in the lead, obviously using wikivoice is inappropriate per WP:YESPOV. Not to mention, their edit disregards WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Prcc27 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The election is LESS THAN THREE WEEKS AWAY. WE CANNOT BE DOING THIS. "Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, with her background as a prosecutor, has been criticized as a very poor communicator when it comes to expressing policies on many important issues. Her speech sounds like “word salad.” For example, she struggles to present her vision for the country to voters on how to improve their lives. Her record of staff turnover in the attorney general’s office and the VP’s office, as well as issues with her leadership, also raise concerns about Harris’ management style. However, Harris said she would demonstrate a leadership style different from Joe Biden’s in an interview with Fox News, a conservative channel that Democrats have previously avoided, and that she would show new ideas and experiences. Harris' strategic inconsistencies in foreign policy are pointed out as a weakness for her. For example, the United States has failed to stop Iran from raising funds for aggression to other countries for the past four years. Iran is America's biggest enemy, she claimed. Her Fox News interview was cut short to 26 minutes." Personisinsterest (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is a terrible, unencyclopedic paragraph. I wish I could revert it myself, but we are under WP:1RR (which I am not happy about). Prcc27 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted it. Goodtiming8871, do not edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There was no agreement that only one of the two major candidates could be criticized, and that the other candidate could not be edited even if there was a reliable source. I suggest that you include some more refined sentences from reliable sources such as CNN and VOA, and I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion on the relevant parts on the Talk Page above. [[20]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was only significant controversies should be included in the lead. None of the sentences you added were significant Harris controversies. Prcc27 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will respond to your feedback through the talk created above regarding your opinion. If there are duplicate or related titles, please respond through the talk page we started first. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We cover things according to the balance of how they are covered in mainstream media, not based on putting our thumb on the scale to make it 50-50. And when it comes to the lead in particular, this means the lead should reflect the body (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), which in turn covers the best sources in accordance to their weight. Or, put more simply - would you assert that the media, overall, has been equally critical of both candidates? If not, our article shouldn't be expected to be equally critical, either; and no matter how you feel about that coverage, trying to "correct" it here by putting undue emphasis on criticism of one candidate relative to how much overall coverage it makes up would be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In the article body, we have eg. an entire Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump section, an Election interference section, an Age and health concerns section, and lots of details in the Campaign themes section; all of these reflect major aspects of coverage of the race and therefore need to be covered in the lead. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE to look at that and then dig up every single criticism you can find about one candidate, no matter how obscure or unique to a single source, and cram it into the lead in an effort to produce a "balance" that doesn't represent coverage overall. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Add more information about Harris in lead.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There’s 10 sentences related to Trump in the lead of this article, and three sentences about Harris. I think there should be more info about Harris (and maybe less about Trump) to balance out the information. The notable things about this election have not just been about Trump, but about Harris too. Cleebadee (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead section of 2024 United States presidential election

In the Lead section of this article, there is no mention of Harris among the two major US presidential candidates, and more than 10 criticisms are listed only against Trump.

I would like to ask other user's feedback via RFC to improve the lead part by including at least one strength or one weakness of Harris from three or more reliable sources such as BBC, NYTimes, the Atlantic, vox.com, and politico.com.

• 'Options: Write down the strengths and weaknesses of the presidential candidates from a reliable source. In a suitable tone, Since the criticism of Trump has been summarized for 4 years since 2020, the one about Harris is also summarized from the reliable sources since 2020.

---

• There were Lead part improvement requests from other users, if there is another option, Please suggest feedback on what parts should be included, deleted, or summarized to improve the Lead Part.
• The current content and the proposed content with examples are recorded below. I have included photos of the two candidates to make it easier to predict how the actual content will look.
• RFC Period: Since this RFC is about two weeks before the election, I would like to suggest that it be held for up to about one week. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Lead part

• 
  Kamala Harris
• 
  Donald Trump

Suggested five options about new additional lead parts

option 1: Since there is no information about Harris, we will add only the strengths about Harris.

---

#1 In the case of Kamala Harris, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, The United States experienced the fastest job growth ever, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

option 2: Since there is no information about Harris, only add the weaknesses of Harris.

---

#2 In the case of Kamala Harris, there is controversy over her ability to formulate and implement specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigration, in her performance as Vice President.

option 3: Since there is no information about Harris, we will add additional strengths and weaknesses about Harris.

---

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

option 4: List the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates indirectly, summarizing the content from the sources.

---

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

the case of Kamala Harris, she showed difficulty in establishing and implementing specific policies, such as foreign policy and blocking illegal immigrants in her performance as Vice President. However, under the administration of Vice President Kamala Harris, The United States experienced the fastest job growth ever, recording 158.7m employed as of October 2024, the highest employment rate since recorded in U.S. history in 1939.

option 5: List the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates in direct tone, summarizing the content from the sources.

---

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

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

---

list of backup reliable ref:

References

Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous related discussions or expressed interest in this article.

@Prcc27, Personisinsterest, GoodDay, Rhododendrites, Czello, BootsED, Aquillion, Super Goku V, Andrevan, Yavneh, HiLo48, Ca, WWWHHHHYYYYYY, Cleebadee, Benga502, and JohnAdams1800:

• Comment  : From my understanding of the media source below, Many media in the list of reliable sources on Wikipedia are left-leaning. link = 1. That is why you can easily find articles criticizing President Trump in many major media, and on the contrary, content about Harris is mentioned relatively less. Therefore, even if it is a left-leaning media, if there are criticisms of Harris from three or more reliable sources, I think that the three left-leaning main media outlets can have more WP:weight to be included in wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose all proposed changes; this is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. We are not permitted to put our thumb on the scale, as is requested here, and demand that sections contain X things that favor each side; we cover things in accordance with the weight, tone, and focus in reliable sources. Giving WP:UNDUE weight to some aspects is not balance; balance is covering the aspects that have the most coverage in the lead, while giving aspects that have less coverage less focus (and sometimes none at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose close and consider a topic ban for the OP for consistent bad-faith editing on this page. This is so profoundly wrong from soup-to-nuts that it barely requires discussion. Trump has been found guilty/liable for numerous crimes and awaits trial on many others. That Harris "showed difficulty in establishing and implementing specific policies" (which is a ludicrous statement on several grounds) would be mentioned in the same section is a joke. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I think this RfC is poorly worded, but to answer your question, we should only include significant well-sourced controversies in the lead. I am not aware of any applying to Harris, but if there are any, I would certainly support including them. As for Trump, I am open to removing the part about his misleading/false statements. Yes, he lies significantly more than most politicians, but a politician being a liar is not really unheard of. Also, let me just clear up what Goodtiming8871 said about me. I am not currently actively “involved” in U.S. federal elections– only local elections. So the only clear COI I have is with local political figures and elections. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The RFC is too complex (at least for me) to understand. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for your feedback, To make it clear to understand, I have clarified RFC and made it more understandable by clarification of five options. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871, You very dramatically edited the text of your RfC and sample text after people had already started responding. I'll AGF that you're unaware of the Talk page guidelines about this; you should read them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear user:FactOrOpinion, I will read the talk page guidelines carefully. I was writing until 3 AM local time, so the content was unclear. I received additional user feedback in the morning and made the content more understandable and clear. Thanks again for the guidelines. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - @Aquillion, GoodDay, GreatCaesarsGhost, and Prcc27: In my view, the RfC has changed enough since your comments and replies that you should be notified. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Kill this NOW! It's a disruptive and disrupted RFC with a primary goal of having negative things written bout one candidate to achieve some arbitrary concept of "balance". That's not how Wikipedia works. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think that voters in the United States have a right to know who would do a good job as president of the two leading candidates. Since there is only one candidate and no summary of the other, I don't see any issue in writing about the appropriate content based on many reliable sources. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a for voter guide or newspaper. Users can go to at the articles for Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to see their records and political positions.

Also, the lead for these articles is mainly about the results and events related to the election itself before and after. Voting is ongoing, and in two weeks we'll be covering the results. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This is very textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. I think your continued pushing on this page in favor of right-wing talking points, whether on this topic or how the presidential debates were received are approaching WP:ADVOCACY. Also, just because a source is left-leaning doesn't mean it has more weight, and right-leaning sources have less weight. Weight isn't determined by whether or not a source "leans" one way or the other, but on whether it is WP:DUE and is WP:RS. BootsED (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Map of the 2024 Presidential primaries

We should include a map of this under Democratic, Green, and Libertarian parties as the Republican section has this map too. It would allow readers to quickly see the results of the primaries and lead them onto their respective pages.

Since this may come up: this is entirely a neutral edit suggestion. Burned Toast (talk) Burned Toast (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that the results of the primaries for the Green and Libertarian parties are particularly relevant for the general election page, given their extremely low voter participation and, in the case of the Libertarians, the minimal effect on their nomination process. LV ^{✉ ✎} 22:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)