Talk:2024 United States presidential election

RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

There are two questions:

1. When should we add a state’s projected electoral votes to the infobox on Election Night?
   1. When a majority of major media networks make a projection.
   2. When all major media networks unanimously make a projection.
   3. When one major media makes a projection.
   4. Other?
2. Which major media source(s) should we use for the projected electoral vote tally?

Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Option 2: A state’s electoral votes should only be added to the infobox based on unanimously projected Electoral Votes. Unanimous projections for the infobox tally is the compromise we more or less settled on in 2020. But for the map, I think we should use light red/light blue shades for states where a majority, but not all major media sources have made a projection; and save the darker shades for when the major outlets unanimously agree. Some users got impatient waiting several days for all news outlets to call Georgia. I feel like if we would have shaded GA light blue (like this), users would have been more patient waiting to add Georgia’s electoral college votes to the infobox. Per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no rush to add a state’s EVs to the infobox tally, if the state still has not been called by all major networks. Adding a state to the infobox based on only 1 or 2 media projections would be WP:UNDUE and problematic, especially in light of the AP/FOX Arizona projection controversy.

2. ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC are the sources we should use. These media organizations, (along with FOX, which we already agreed not to use), are usually considered the “major networks” when it comes to election projections (see National Election Pool and AP VoteCast). Last election, we used over a dozen news organizations, which made things very confusing and hard to keep track of. Narrowing the list of sources we use down to just five major sources will make editing drastically easier/simple, and would give due weight to the most prominent outlets and avoid giving undue weight to organizations that are less prestigious. Prcc27 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur All of this looks good to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Concur. You make a good case for Option 2. Vsst (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Best to be certain. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Since what Prcc27 has described. However, we should make sure to state that on the top of the talk page. Qutlooker (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We should probably start an FAQ. I’m surprised we still do not have one. Prcc27 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Concur with Prcc27, including the use of a lighter color to indicate that the majority of sources have called a state. LK (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Prcc27, literally agree with everything there. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Something like option 1 but this whole RFC is unnecessary and misguided. Existing Wikipedia policy is sufficient for content disputes. At this time, there is no content dispute to decide. WP:UNDUE says we reflect the prominence of views in reliable sources. If a few reliable sources disagree with a broad consensus, we should show the broad consensus and use a footnote. We need to stop treating this page like it’s special and that normal Wikipedia policy for content disputes don’t apply. —JFHutson (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC is absolutely necessary. In 2020, we were split on when to add a state, and we ended up not updating the map on Election night because consensus was still divided; it was blank. We did not have an RfC in 2020, so I am hoping an RfC this year could avoid some of the issues we had last time. Requiring projections from only some/most of the sources only, rather than unanimous projections from the sources has WP:SYNTH issues. For example, in 2016 when we combined sources to call states, the race for Trump was called by Wikipedia several minutes before any major media organization had declared Trump the President-Elect. This was an extreme violation of WP:SYNTH that occurred because some outlets called WI for Trump, while others called PA for Trump (both states together putting him over 270 on our map); but no organization had called both states so every media organization still had him under 270. I also created plausible scenarios on my sandbox which show that Wikipedia could be the first to declare a nationwide winner (before any news organization names a President-Elect) again in 2024, if we jump the gun and add states where a majority (but not all) of the sources have made a projection. WP:DUE is met with the light blue/light red shades on the map. If we use option 1 or 3 for the infobox, we could end up violating WP:SYNTH and declaring a national winner before the media. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  The SYNTH issue is in updating the number of votes with our own calculation. We should wait until the broad consensus is that a candidate has x votes before updating that. It’s probably best to leave the projected vote count blank until that time. But if reliable sources agree that a candidate has won a state, we need to say that even if there are holdout sources. —JFHutson (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  But we would be saying a candidate has won the state on the map (light blue/light red), and maybe even in the body of the article as well. We would just be more cautious on the infobox tally. We are allowed to make our own calculations per WP:CALC, as long as it is an accurate reflection of the sources. Obviously, having a candidate above 270 in our infobox tally when no major media organizations agrees, would not be in the spirit of WP:CALC. I do not think many users would agree with leaving the infobox tally blank. Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I take back the comment that we should leave the total blank. If there really was a general consensus at some point that Trump was projected to win enough states to win the election, then putting that in the infobox would have been a Dewey beats Truman kind of thing, but the media’s problem, not ours. I don’t think that was the case. In your scenarios, we’re just reporting what the reliable sources are saying. Though I don’t think we use a simple majority. It would be more like if one outlet is holding out, we shouldn’t let that keep is from showing the “consensus” view. — JFHutson (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 as it doesn't violate WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or WP:CRYSTALBALL if all major news networks unanimously agree on it DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - It follows WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia does not need to be updated to the very second. Take the time for all major outlets to make a call for a state. In terms of out lets I would suggest ABC, AP, CBS, CNN and FOX. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  We should use NBC as a source as well, especially since I would argue they are more mainstream than CBS. As for Fox News? Unfortunately, I am having a hard time trusting their Decision Desk. In 2020, the network pressured their Decision Desk to hold off on projecting Nevada for Biden. Decision desks should operate entirely independent, with no influence from network executives. Fox News has failed to demonstrate they would do this. Prcc27 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I did not know about the Nevada incident. If I remember correctly they also called Arizona like hours before anyone else did in 2020. I would then suggest we switch CBS to NBC and remove FOX due to @Prcc27 comments. Therefore it would be ABC, AP, CNN, and NBC. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 per the fact that there wouldn’t be a constant back and forth between edits. Qutlooker (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

"If elected, he would be the first marine and first Iraq War veteran to serve as vice president. Trump had survived an assassination attempt days earlier with a gunshot wound to the ear."

Request to remove.

The comment on the assassination seems like a non-sequitur. Especially after talking about how Vance is the candidate before just suddenly swapping to that. Plus there's a section on the assassination attempt already. SomeoneOK (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done, seems like a very solid change, particularly the writing style part. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done - @SomeoneOK and Kingsmasher678: So, to clear up what happened: The second sentence was added on July 15th and the first sentence on August 8th, which caused the issue. The latter edit was trying to expand on the initial Vance sentence about Trump announcing him as his VP.

As for the fix, I instead just moved the later sentence to a new paragraph above the RNC paragraph with some small tweaks to the text and sourcing. While there is a brief sub-section on the assassination attempt in the Background section, as far as I can tell the party sections are intended to summarize how their nominee got to be the nominee and what happened en-route to the election. As an example of this, the end of the first paragraph mentions Trump's civil proceedings, despite there already being such sub-section in the Background section about the proceedings. Along these line, should a sub-section about Biden's withdraw be created, we would still keep the line in the Democratic Party section that he withdrew from the race in July.

If this isn't satisfactory for either of you, then feel free to let me know. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, works fine for me! I'm just trying to work through the edit request backlog, so if it's closed, I'm happy.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

All works for me, thank you very much! SomeoneOK (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Reversions on Trump Photo

Following the conclusion of the RfC, there was no consensus as to whether to change the photo to the official photo, keep it as is, or use an alternative photo. The conclusion of the RfC states There is no consensus to implement any changes, so the status quo remains. Editors are fairly divided on whether to use Trump's official portrait, with reasonable arguments presented on both sides. and concludes Therefore, the status quo will remain unchanged. However several editors seem to have interpreted this as being the official portrait so several reversions have taken place on the article.

Brought to the talk page to prevent further reversions: I believe "status quo" means the image that was there previously, not the official portrait from 7 years ago. DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the aforementioned RFC, “In March, a consensus was established not to use Trump's official presidential portrait from 2017 (right) in the infobox for this article. However, since then, editors have been unable to decide on which photo to use as a replacement.” If this is correct, then there was never a consensus to switch to the current photo. The status quo should have been kept until a consensus on what to do was established. A consensus to not use one photo is not a consensus to use whatever photo an individual editor selects. — JFHutson (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You'll never get people to agree, just saying. Calibrador (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't about what should have happened – the current image is, by definition, the status quo. That's why I believe reverting to the official portrait is the incorrect choice until consensus is established DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s about what should happen now, which is to reflect the status quo before the stalled BRD. Right now the article does not reflect consensus. The status quo changes with consensus, not a single editor’s whim. The WP:STATUSQUO is the version before the discussion started. As is evident in the quote above, the discussion has not resulted in a new consensus that can be labeled a “status quo.” — JFHutson (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the wikipedia policy - The WP:STATUSQUO is the version before the discussion started. So we should start RfC based on status of quo before the previous discussion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Or… We could just ask the closer of the RfC what they meant by status quo? @CFA DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

He wasn’t really being asked what the status quo was but what the consensus of the RFC was. He rightly judged there was no consensus. I’m saying regardless of that that the status quo was the official portrait. — JFHutson (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant the official portrait. Jfhutson is right. There is no consensus to change away from the "status quo". As you can see in the RfC above, the official potrait had almost 50% support among editors — the plurality by a fairly large margin. Yes, there is around the same amount of support for not the official portrait, but there is no agreement as to what picture to use instead. So the official portrait remains. As I mentioned in my closing statement, I think it is likely that consensus for another picture could be established in the future (evidenced by people supporting the official portrait only because there are no suitable alternatives), but right now the official portrait generally has the broadest support among editors. No other picture mentioned has enough support. C F A 💬 02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

We’ve had two major RfCs, I believe: one in March in which the conclusion was to not use the official portrait, and one with no conclusion. So I ask: how is it possible for the status quo portrait to be the official portrait? DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

A conclusion to not do something is not a conclusion to do anything in particular. If I gained a consensus that this article sucks and should be rewritten, it would probably result in nothing. It would not mean there is a consensus to replace it with something even worse. — JFHutson (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t particularly like the current portrait. But I keep it because there was a consensus to replace it, and this version won out over all the other ones and WP:SILENCE is consensus. Therefore we should not use the official portrait, which leaves this one DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the record in this talk page reflects SILENCE. — JFHutson (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not, but this is the photo that survived after all other ones. DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

, A few users didn't follow the WP;Status Quo but it doesn't mean that justification of the random temporary photo; To be fair; the record of this talk page are the clear evidence, WP:SILENCE can't be applied but WP:Status Quo of the original and official photo is reasonably to be applied. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It really can’t. The RfC in March definitely decided that the official portrait should NOT BE USED, and after failing to reach a consensus to re-add the official portrait, some users add it back in anyway DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

we should have started the new RfC for replacing the official photo by keeping original photo and followingWP:Status Quo. Not following Wikipedia policy cannot be used for justification of the temporary random photo. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed to not use official photo -> swap it out with a photo that is good enough -> months go by -> no consensus to add back in official photo that is

Somehow it’s the status quo? No. DimensionalFusion (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Will all of you stop with the Trump photo? We have three discussions about it, and we don’t need more. Yavneh (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree photo should be changed clearly this broke the RfC John Bois (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This continuing dispute over which image to use, grows tiresome. Use whichever one yas' want. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree DimensionalFusion (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:Status Quo should be started when this main article was created and how long the original photo was placed.

clearly no consensus of the the temporary and random photo mean that we should follow the process now by keeping the original photo before arrival to the consensus and starting the new RfC for replacement.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:Status Quo should be started when the RfC to change the current photo was started, not 6 months after the previous RfC DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This is unfortunately correct. There actually was unanimous consensus following the removal of "official" to go with "self-assured schmuck" (albeit quickly decided and with limited input). Folks need to learn how to compose an RfC so its comments can actually be read as consensus. 8 options, with people offering varying levels of support for multiples is anarchy. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is the rock solid consensus for the schmuck photo? My memory is not months of happiness about the photo, but constant and unproductive discussion. You recognize it was quickly decided and with limited input, and that type of consensus shouldn’t be used to enforce a widely disliked image on such a contentious and widely viewed topic. — JFHutson (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to use the official photo as a WP:STATUSQUO before there is a consensus on the photo to be changed and a photo that is agreed upon by a majority. We should create a separate Talk Page for WP:STATUSQUO to check. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It is factually impossible for the official portrait to be a status quo image as it was decided by an RfC that the official portrait should not be used. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's here. There was a discussion to change the photo, multiple users agreed, the discussion was left open for an appropriate time, then the change was made. It was a fully appropriate read of consensus. That then became the status quo. All subsequent discussion failed to achieve consensus, and thus "schmuck" remains. Before you criticize me for this read, please note that I was the only one in the discussion advocating to keep the official photo. I still prefer it. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The WP:STATUSQUO's Infobox photo

The WP:STATUSQUO should consider the photo before the dispute occurred as WP:STATUSQUO by judging which photo was placed in the topic "2024 United States presidential election". In addition, among the 80 or so existing users who contributed to the text corresponding to the current topic, 6 agreed and 3 opposed, and only the photo replacement agreement was reached, but there was no agreement on which photo to use.

• In other words, considering that the temporary and random photo uploaded photo is still in dispute from the past to the present, considering that numerous users continue to oppose the photo on this Talk Page. For this content, WP:STATUSQUO should use the official photo before the dispute occurred.
• I am recording the evidence that the existing agreement was that 6 people agreed to change it and 3 people opposed it, and there was no RfC for selecting the photo to change.

* Originally, The WP:STATUSQUO image with the subject "2024 United States presidential election" Special:PermaLink/1212321039

• Previous talk: Biden and Trump pictures : Started by . TheFellaVB - 20:06, 6 March 2024 - Agree to change(1) Closed by - Punker85 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) - Agree to change (2) > User:PizzaSliced ​​- Agree to change (3) > user: Wikipedia1010121 - Agree to change (4) > user: Lostfan333 - Agree to change (5) > user : GhulamIslam - Agree to change (6) > user: OCNative - posted the official photo > user:GreatCaesarsGhost - oppose <1> > user:Memevietnam98 - - oppose <2> > user:68.189.2.14 - oppose <3> March and April discussion on the same page as the above conversation link: Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7

Users who opposed changing the official photo on the March and April talk pages on the same page as the conversation content that was said to have been agreed upon above;

• Subject Wikipedia usually uses official portraits for infoboxes. > user:WorldMappings - oppose <5> 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Subject: Donald Trump photo in infobox > user:WorldMappings - oppose <6> user:CY223 - 04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• > user:Sthubertliege - oppose <7> > user:TDKR Chicago 101 - oppose <8> Since then, there have been frequent instances of changing photos because there was no agreed upon replacement photo, and in August alone, > user:Vrrajkum changing photo of Trump to his official presidential portrait; 17:44, 10 August 2024 user:Goodtiming8871 - 12:39, 31 August 2024‎- (Temporary photo that were previously posted without an agreed upon procedure replaced back to the original official photo- Gain consensus in the talk page before changing this picture, if else the change will be reverted > User:GoodDay (talk | contribs) at 16:29, 31 August 2024 (changed to the status quo, image). Special:PermaLink/1243287211

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. There was an RfC that decidedly said not to use the official portrait, so I fail to see how it could possibly be a status quo image. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion about changing the official portrait, with some existing users participating and 6 agreeing and 3 disagreeing, but this does not mean that * the temporary and random photo can be used. * Until there is an agreed upon replacement photo, the official portrait should be the WP:STATUSQUO and a photo that has a majority consensus among the examples below should be confirmed. as user:Prcc27, user:TDKR Chicago 101, User:jfhutson suggested Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 should not be put in because Trump is 7 years older than he was in the photo, which is especially pertinant when a big portion of the election is focused around Trump's age and comptency to run. It's been historical precedent to use the best photo, not the official one. For example, FDR has had a different photo in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944 and rightly so – health concerns make it important to show that he had got older since 1932 so instead, more recent pictures are used.

I don't really like option 2 as it's at a tilted angle with his head slanted, and the camera facing upwards instead of head-on.

Option 3 is level with his face, but Trump's expression in the photo makes him look deranged, plus his body is tilted to the left instead of facing the camera.

Option 4 is perhaps the best in terms of having good camerawork (at eye level, face and body facing camera) and he is smiling like Kamala but there's just a quality I can't describe that makes him look unsetteling DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

President Grover Cleveland ran for President in 1884, 1888, and 1892. All 3 elections use the same portrait/picture of Cleveland. InterDoesWiki (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That was when photography was still much harder to accomplish, so there were less available photos DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Only commenting because my name was invoked. I do not think the closer meant that the 2017 portrait was the “status quo”. Prcc27 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

the previous conversation was talk and no consensus to the replacement photo; so status quo is before debate start. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The debate start was the RfC to replace the photo started several days ago, not a totally different RfC 6 months ago. DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my decision that the official portrait should be used. The current alternative options don’t look as good as the official portrait. If the portrait is good enough to use for Trumps infobox it should be good enough for this article as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. But let’s not kid ourselves; this is going against the RfC closure. Prcc27 (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in replacing the photo. About the WP:NPOV Concerns of the previous talk on March/2024, @Super Goku: @GhulamIslam: @Vrrajkum: @Maximus: @Geffery2210: @JFHutson: @InterDoesWik: @Prcc27:@LawNerd123: @Herostratus: @Nojus R: @Yeoutie: @Calibrador: @TDKR Chicago 101: @GreatCaesarsGhost: As noted in summary, 1) Regarding the previous talk on March/2024,- link attached below talk ref. The title omitted the word RfC and used the ambiguous word "Biden and Trump photo", which was overlooked as a minor topic by Wikipedia editors. 2) However, when some users agreed to the title without RfC, but several users disagree the change and the user user:OCNative previously directly uploaded an official Trump photo to express his preference of official photo, the votes should be counted 6 in favor: 4 against, but this was counted as 6 in favor: 1 against, which caused confusion among other users due to the incorrect tally. 3) If it was a photo change, the photo image should have been uploaded to make the TALK stand out, but regarding the TALK, which is the core of the photo change, the photo was omitted and replaced with TEXT several times, which made users think that the TALK was minor. 4) When the TALK was conducted with the title without RfC, and User participation was limited, TALK was quickly closed, and other users were encouraged to follow this by repeatedly stating that this was an RfC. However, other Wikipedians were asked to follow the previous RfC (???) that was just a discussion topic.

(Question) Why was it titled Missing keyword: RfC and thus had less user participation?, and did they list the pictures clearly so that other users could distinguish it as one of the most important topics in the 2024 election? 5) Even if we follow Wikipedia's advice and view the above situation as well-intentioned, too many mistakes were made at the same time, and this seems to create the concerns to the core value of WP:NPOV. I would like to get feedback from other users. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns of WP:NPOV, The actual target of the change is the official photo of Donald uploaded on the main article, but I think the excuse that it was difficult to obtain the photo is an unreasonable. If the previous user had tried to change the most important official photo of the infobox, which is the target of the change, and had tried to see it with good intentions, and had accidentally omitted the RFC with proper heading, but if the previous user attached the official photo with heading of RFC: official Trump photo changes, at least 3-5 times more users would have participated in the related discussion, and there would have been a considerable number of opposing opinions, as can be seen from the numerous opposing opinions so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtiming8871 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• I continue to support official vs. the long-standing "smug" image. However, I think the March discussion (not sure why people are calling it an RFC, but it was not) was fairly handled and the consensus properly read. I do not see the 4 votes against noted by others. The IP user 68.189.2.14 for example was FOR the change, and is noted in this discussion as being against. The STATUSQUO argument here is bad faith attempt to over throw consensus after failure to do so through MANY discussions. Also, if you want to change the photo, open a discussion with ONE alternate to the existing. Offering multiples splits the votes and encourages people to say "I like #4 the best but 3 and 6 are also good" and how the hell do you read consensus with 20 comments like that? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Seeing the multiple arguments/RfC’s for a new Trump portrait in the info box. I believe a RCV based runoff should be used to determine which photo is the best from the users. Qutlooker (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• I think there are a lot of confusing malformed RFCs, official or not, formed by all sorts of users (including sockpuppets), that makes it impossible to really gain any consensus. I do think the status quo is the more recent photo, not the official 7 year old White House photo. In order to get a more codified answer to whether people prefer that image or not, I think the only clear way to do it is an RFC which only has two choices - the old photo, and SOME newer one, TBD later. Another option would be a ranked choice method of determining the photo to use, but I believe that is what resulted in the status quo photo, more or less. The current discussions feel like WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:TENDITIOUS at the very least. There have been at least 3 near-identical RFCs all with the goal of undoing the previously established consensus; when one does not succeed, it seems another is created. Tduk (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  When we start RfC, I think the option below official vs. the long-standing "smug" image and other two of the images below would be reasonable. I would like to suggest the format below opposing candidate - for comparision.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no need to include the other two images, and it obfuscates the issue in my opinion. There is no need to even include the other image, the goal is to disprove the previous consensus that people did not want the 7 year old image. To include any other goal would be a distraction and possibly alter the results. Tduk (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. To respect the preferences of other users, I believe it’s reasonable to include the most-voted photos so far. Ultimately, the decision rests with the Wikipedia community. If a new, better image emerges, we can consider it during a future RFC process. Please suggest us better images of both candidates. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO -1 and Alternative Options.

• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  Official Portrait October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06); 6 years, 11 months ago (Option 1)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 2)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 3)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  October 10, 2023 (2023-10-10) (Option 4)

RfC: Infobox Trump's main photo

Hello, Regarding Trump's main photo of "2024 United States presidential election", there were several discussions previously. - example link: Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7 I'd like to confirm which photos can be used. I've included the top-voted options based on my understanding, but I think limiting it to three additional choices will give us the most efficient results. If a new, better image emerges, we can compare it after this RFC process

• For this RFC process, I propose that we only allow users to vote for one best photo for the Infobox Trump's main photo. This will simplify calculations, as it's easier to determine the winner based on a single vote per user.

• Official

>Every U.S. elections always using official portrait but not in presidential primaries, for example, in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton's official portrait was used for 2 times although two times were sequence 4 years ago. weakness of this photo: considering that the age is a concern among some voters, the images of relatively recent can minimise that concern. Trump's 2017 portrait doesn't show a drastically different Trump/no change in appearance.

• Option1

>the long-standing "smug" image; This can be seen as an unkind and arrogant, but on the other hand, it can be seen as a confident looking

• Option2

>it is smiling freindly photo with his face,like Kamala but Trump's expression in the his body is tilted to the left instead of facing the camera.

• Option3

>it is smiling freindly photo and suitable camerawork - example: at eye level, face and body facing camera and he is also smiling like Kamala but there's just an impression that makes him look uneasy. (Above description: I've compiled a summary of some users feedback.) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in the Infobox Main photo. @Super Goku: @GhulamIslam: @Vrrajkum: @Maximus: @Geffery2210: @JFHutson: @InterDoesWiki: @Prcc27:@LawNerd123: @Herostratus: @Nojus R: @Yeoutie: @Calibrador: @TDKR Chicago 101: @GreatCaesarsGhost: @Sthubertliege: @Memevietnam98: @WorldMappings: @Qutlook: @GoodDay: @Tduk:

Official and Three alternative options.

• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  Official Portrait October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06); 6 years, 11 months ago (Official)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 1)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 2)
• 
  March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) (opposing candidate - for comparision)
• 
  October 10, 2023 (2023-10-10) (Option 3)

Voting Section

Comment - I don't think this is a useful question; none of the photos are from this year, and all of the photos that aren't the 2017 photo are fairly similar, so the !votes will go either to the 2017 photo or the recent photos. This is also at least the 5th time these exact 4 photos have been suggested, and each time it is not a useful exercise. There needs to be a truly meaningful attempt to determine if consensus has changed from the (until recently changed) 2023 photo that was in use, hopefully by an as-yet-uninvolved party. I suggested a simple "use the 2017 photo or a more recent photo" poll first to make the issues more clearly separated but this advice has so far been ignored. Tduk (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I say we use the 2017 portrait, but that's just my opinion. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion about 2017 portrait Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The Offical Portrait is my pick. InterDoesWiki (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official portrait For the sake of consistency and to avoid another debate about which candid pick to use. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment – if you can only vote for one out of 4 options, does this not create a spoiler effect? If half of the people do not want the official portrait and half do, doesn't the half that doesn't want the official portrait split their vote between the three other options? DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No. You are creating a false grouping of three of the options literally defined as "not the fourth option." If anything, a spoiler effect is created favor the current image (option 1) as any other option would need the super majority we call consensus to win. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The explanation of user:GreatCaesarsGhost is Correct, That is RCV based runoff, the winner is the one with the most votes among the four options. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 is not the current image. It was for whatever reason already replaced with the 2017 photo DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I support the official image. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Why aren’t there any photos with Trump having a neutral facial expression? And why is a photo proposed by a sockpuppet one of the options? Prcc27 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official, the only normal looking photo. He looks pretty much the same age in all these photos. The main difference is that his head is tilted weirdly in the "option 1," and he just looks extremely weird in the other two. --JFHutson (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment – I don't like any of these options.

• I don't understand the support for the official portrait when the Age and health concerns about Donald Trump are a very real part of the election. Trump is 78 but was 71 when the official photo was taken, which is a big difference, even without taking his age and health concerns into account.
• Option 1 (the smug one) has an odd camera angle (seemingly taken from beneath?), Trump's eyes seem to be not matching his face and body making him seem to look down despite facing forwards, and he isn't smiling so much as doing some form of smug look.
• Option 2 also seems to have been taken from below, and Trump's face is not facing the same way as his body and his smile is slanted.
• Option 3 has good camerawork but he just looks wrong, somehow. In a way I can't describe.

I've attached an image I cropped into a 3:4 portrait which is similar to what I think a portrait should be (not suggesting it would be, he is slightly looking away from the camera and not smiling very much)

My personal criteria for a portrait is that: a portrait should...

• represent his age as of the election
• have the camera at (or seem to be at) eye level
• have him smiling (ideally with teeth to match Kamala's but not strictly necessary)
• have his body and head facing forwards

DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Age and Health Concerns are 100% a part of this election. However- this wikipedia article is not here to express an opinion on that. Just my reason why I'm tossing out any personal opinions and just looking at the portraits as 1) Which one is the best photo and 2) which one best matches Kamala's portrait. (IE- which 2 photos are the most similar and thus least biased.) We could get into such deep waters if we tried to get concensus on what a portrait should ~say~ about a candidate. Trust me- I would love to see one that highlights the fake tan and has one of his ridiculous faces..... but thats how I see him, thats not, necessarily, how history will see him, nor is it how an unbiased person would see him. But I do like your suggested portrait here.... maybe not for the top of the article- but in general- good photo to show his age, but not make him look . . . off kilter. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nightenbelle, this picture isn't presidential election infobox material, but it could definitely be used for something. My opinion of course. InterDoesWiki (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In regards to your thoughts on the 2017 photo: obviously it’s not Wikipedia’s job to form an opinion, but it is its job to be accurate.

I think it would be misleading to show Trump as being younger than he actually is, because that, too, sends an opinion. So I think we should put up a recent image - for fairness, perhaps one from 2021 as that’s when Kamala’s picture was taken? DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

To my eye he looks younger in this than the official portrait. So I don’t see the advantage of this picture. His eyes are also dark. Between that and not smiling, it’s not an improvement. — JFHutson (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested it as an improvement, noting that he’s not staring directly at the camera and not smiling as much as he should be in an info box photo. I said something like that - such a photo could be on commons right now for all we know DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok rereading your comment I guess you are not proposing we use this photo? I can agree that your criteria are good. I guess where we disagree is whether a 7 year old photo can “represent his age at the election”. I think the White House photo does this well because he looks so similar to how he did seven years ago. — JFHutson (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on the non-free images I’ve seen lately of him (such as on Getty images) - he doesn’t look great. I’d include them here for reference but that would of course be a copyvio but I can say that in my opinion he looks significantly older than in 2017. That’s why I oppose the 2017 photo so much – I do think it would be misleading to present Trump as being younger than he actually is DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the breadth and nuance of your argument, but we have to choose a photo that actually exist. We cannot display a hypothetical photo "like X, but with slight variation." Saying none of the options is acceptable is non-productive and off-topic. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Everyone looks better in a posed (and touched up?) portrait than candid shots. Harris looks much better in her official portrait than in many of these: [1], as well as these in 2021. If anything she is getting a bigger boost in her portrait. I agree that a 2024 professional portrait would be better, and if one can be found that is an improvement on the 2017 White House photo I would definitely support it. But I don't see the oldness as a big drawback until Trump goes through a significant change in appearance. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official Personal opinions and preferences aside, I think the official portrait is most appropriate for 2 main reasons. 1- it is the "Official" portrait- its how he and his campaign have chosen to represent him- and in the general article on this election- why would we stray from official portraits for the main portrait? Use other photos in other articles or in other places in this article- but for the main photo- let’s keep it simple and use the main portrait for both of them. Secondly- this photo and the other photo are good comparisons. Both candidates are in similar poses, zoom is similar, they are both well-made portraits. There is little room for bias between the two- we can't say we're sending any hidden signals by using such similar portraits. Thats my s cents :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't seen the White House photo - which is only being called "official" because people have started calling it that - used in any recent Trump material - can someone show someplace it's been used officially by the Trump campaign? That might be helpful. Tduk (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment (2) I don’t think the portraits need to be equal as has been suggested previously. Just because Kamala is smiling in her portrait does not mean that Trump MUST smile in his portrait too. For example, 2008 United States presidential election has Obama not smiling whilst McCain is smiling. We really just need a good picture, not for the two pictures to be equal. DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed- I'm not so much concerned about matching facial expressions as matching quality and tone. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I like DimensionalFusion’s proposal. It’s newer, professional/presidential, and doesn’t have a cheesy smile. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think that a photo for a US presidential election should be balanced against its competitors. I agree with User:Nightenbelle to some extent, and interpret it as follows:

• For a presidential election photo, the photo officially selected by the US White House is appropriate.
• Since Kamala Harris, Trump's competitor, also used the best photo among her many photos, if there is a photo that matches the competitor in terms of 1) pose, 2) eye level, 3) zoom, 4) face angle, and 5) photo quality, it is fair to use that photo.
• In other words, if Kamala Harris used Official portrait of Kamala Harris and used a photo that can determine the image of the person through the quality of at least 5 of the factors that determine the quality of a photo , then since Wikipedia is in the public domain, I think it is fair for Donald Trump, Kamala's competitor, to also use Official portrait of Donald Trump in the article of 2024 United States presidential election. If you use a non-official photo between two competitors in the public domain, I think it would be fair to find a suitable photo among the unofficial photos on the right example, such as Kamila Harris's one of the photos, to avoid giving one side a disadvantage from the WP:NPOV perspective.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Still think official portrait should be the one that's used. Calibrador (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official The flag in the background should match that in Kamala's portrait, which is equally "polished". Senorangel (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am partial to option 1 simply because it's been the photo used for quite some time, but I acknowledge there was no consensus to implement it. Therefore I think it is easiest to keep the official portrait for practical reasons (given the obvious inability to agree.) DimensionalFusion's picture is my preference among the ones proposed, however. Also, remember WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; there is no "voting" taking place here. Dingers5Days (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I asked above, but got no reply. Why are we calling it the "Official" portrait? Is there any indication that the Trump campaign uses this image? Tduk (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  It his official White House photo. It doesn’t matter whether the campaign uses the photo. They are not constrained by copyright like we are. - JFHutson (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, I agree, except "official" has some implications to people coming to this unaware, as you can see from some of the comments above. This whole thing is obfuscated by having so many different photos, and labelling them differently in each post. I'd like for there to be a clear RFC but this isn't it imo. Tduk (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: regarding WP:NPOV, Since the competing opponents in the outlook use official photos, the official photo name is used as an option name to remind users about WP:NPOV. To ensure that Wikipedia articles can be edited fairly, there are many unofficial photos of Kamala, such as the unofficial photo option of Kamala mentioned above. Please make suggestions for these.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, part of the thing here is not so much that it is his official portrait, but that it is the only one that is *a* portrait at all: the photographer has set up a lighting rig, has the subject's attention, etc. The photographer would have taken a dozen or more shots, from which the best was selected. The others are candids - photos taken while the subject was doing something else. It naturally leads to a photo of lesser quality. The best examples will be from professionals looking to monetize their output, and thus not free to us. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Photographers who take pictures of the President or Vice President are likely to be among the most professional photographers. I remember an interview article with a photographer in Life magazine who said that he takes at least a hundred pictures from various angles to find the one best portrait. For this reason, it raises concerns about WP:NPOV that Wikipedia lists as having the same quality rating for a casual, candid, non-professional, non-photographic portrait and a professional portrait. WP:NPOV is understood to be a rule that should be adhered to, even if users and editors agree on it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I cannot follow your point. WP:NPOV has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. Choosing a better photo over a lessor one is not bias. The "official" is good because it's a professional portrait that Trump posed for in an ideal setting, and it's free because it is the work of the US government. It is difficult to find anything comparable that is free and of high quality, because Trump has not sat for a portrait, and those who are shooting him are not offering their work for free. Some do (such as Gabe Skidmore, who provided the 3 alternatives seen here). But the pool of available photos is reduced considerably by concerns of copyright. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment:I agree that selecting a higher-quality photo is not biased. My neutral point of view was that all presidential candidates should have equal access to high-quality images. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official - use official for both candidates. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I think if all the editors were to suggest using unofficial photos of both candidates, there are some good ones for Kamala, and the one example above is fine. It would create a strong image of her. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Official - Yes - use official for both candidates.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: Please see the discussion on this I have made. I vote Neutral `Qutlooker (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Knowing these discussions, WP:MORATORIUM needs to be implemented. I would like to note that these discussions are one of the major reasons I added the {{round in circles}} template. Because I assume we'll end up with no consensus at the closing comment again. Qutlooker (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral - Still don't have a preference to the image other than maybe changing the 2016 election article to use a pre-2017 image to avoid an issue of reusing the same official portrait three times. Following Qutlooker's comments, I am in favor of a moratorium until after November given that we have had similar RfCs that have failed to generate enough agreement on a preferred image. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I understand that some user's feedback for netural. I agree on regading WP:MORATORIUM for this topic, and I think that they believe the WP Editors can concentrate on other beneficial topics to the voters of Presidential election this year. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Reason for deleting notavote and related records, RfC usually comes out at least 2-3 weeks after the result.However, I think it is unfair that a specific user interfered by inserting notavote just 48 hours before the official RfC voting started, thereby blocking the voting. * The notavote inserted by one user has been deleted. * If you want to insert notavote in the future, please mention the relevant WP regulations and detailed reasons to get the consent of other users. The related records are summarized below. :* 23:47, 2024-09-02 RfC created - Title: RfC Inforbox Main Trump Photo => * 3 September 2024 12:01 user:Legobot rfc|pol|rfcid=506FBD added RFC ID (official). ==> * 4 September 2024 21:24 user:Tduk added notavote. ==> 00:32, 9 September 2024 , user:Goodtiming8871 removed notavote ==> 9 September 2024, Notavote back as - as consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I agree with Super Goku V's sentiment, I don't think Trump should have the same three portraits for 3 very distinct presidential elections in a Row. 2016 Should be pre-presidency, 2020 should be official and 2024 should be option 1 or something during the campaign. Likewise it makes no sense for Biden to have a presidential portrait in 2020 when he was still a candidate. The presidential race should reflect an accurate image of the candidate from that year. It's also very likely when he loses he will run again in 4 years, and by that time the 2017 portrait will be more than a decade old. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I understand the second suggestion, aside from using the official photo, to be fair to both competitors, to stop the wasteful debate with WP:MORATORIUM and let WP: users focus on more productive things from a neutral standpoint. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Vance photo

Should JD Vance's photo be changed to a cropped version in the republican nominee infobox? Given Trump and Harris both have cropped versions of their respective portraits? Jostlinggav (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I went ahead and changed the picture to a cropped version of his official portrait. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In the Kennedy section, mention that he remains on the ballot in some states

I would edit the main article if I could, but I can't, so I'll make the suggestion here - I suggest editing the Kennedy paragraph under withdrawn candidates to mention that he remains on the ballot in a handful of states, despite withdrawing. Fryedk (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added it. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for the length of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris policies for each item

Voters will compare the policies of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to elect who will be the US president. According to WP:NPOV, I think that the policies of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris should be similar in length so that they are not too much on one side, and that they can be compared with each other. However, when looking at foreign policy, Kamala Harris's policy comes first and even has photos attached, and the length is about three times that of Donald Trump. In other words, if we look at this objectively, I think it is easy to misunderstand that Kamala Harris is better prepared for foreign policy than Donald Trump by looking at articles in the public domain. Therefore, in the case of foreign policy, I suggest that the content on Donald Trump's foreign policy should be at least twice as much as it is now, and that photos of Donald Trump's successful foreign policy should be included. n addition to foreign policy, there are other areas where Donald Trump's policies are allocated too little compared to his rival Kamala Harris's policies, so I suggest that the content be supplemented so that WP:NPOV can be implemented in this article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Can you please refrain from adding staggered indentation to your posts? This is how we indicate that a different editor is responding on a talk page, so it's use for stylistic purposes makes it difficult to tell what subsequent comments are replying to. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. That makes sense. I followed the different format(staggered indentation) because it was easy to read, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind and follow for future reference.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Add article Election interference by illegal immigrants

WP:DNFTT Qutlooker (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can you please add this part with the source? "Former President Donald Trump has urged Republicans to use the deadline to force the inclusion of the SAVE Act, which prevents illegal immigrants from voting in elections and which Democrats strongly oppose. " ref: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-advance-act-solution-search-problem-rcna161316 from CNN: Democrats seeking to add undocumented immigrants to the voter rolls. “Non citizen Illegal Migrants are getting the right to vote, being pushed Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Did you read the source? It's an opinion blog, and the article makes clear that there's no such thing as non-citizens voting in a federal election. As the article says, this is a solution in search of a problem, and is of no significance as other than a misleading talking point to try to convince the credulous that non-citizens are voting in presidential elections. Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Comments: YES :there are also other sources like CNN so we can find more details and I just wanted to share the proposed subject to be added and more work required for finding additional sources. CNN:Democrats seeking to add undocumented immigrants to the voter rolls. “Non citizen Illegal Migrants are getting the right to vote. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC) I don't see a CNN article. Noncitizens don't vote. WP:NYPOST is unreliable; anyone can "get" a voter registration form, that doesn't mean they fill them out and submit them, let alone get added to the voter rolls. The SAVE Act is a solution looking for a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Your personal opinion regarding the SAVE Act does not mean that it is not a notable issue that has been raised in the election, it certainly has garnered enough attention to be mentioned within the article. Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that "non-citizens do not vote". Non-citizens do actually have the right to vote in some American local elections see here [2].XavierGreen (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Comment: Thank you for sharing the practical and actual fact that Non-citizens can interfere U. S. Presidential election. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Perhaps we should have an article on the "illegal immigrants voting conspiracy theory" or "illegal immigrants voting hoax", given how well-documented the hoax is. BD2412 T 00:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC) References

Can we just stop with the RfCs on Trump's Portrait and just prohibit them?

This isn't sarcasm, I'm being serious. Can we have it to a discussion and just have them all prohibited entirely.

1. They go nowhere
2. They're often multiple open at once
3. It doesn't do anything meaningful when we end uo with the same no consensus wording at the top of when they're closed.

I get this might be considered unhelpful, but when we reach the same agreements with the same topics I think we need to just put it to rest. Qutlooker (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Yep, Regarding WP:NPOV policy, if we place the official for both candidates, there would be no issues. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You are suggesting a MORATORIUM against RfCs on changing the image, which is possible and does seem to be reasonable in this situation. Where a proposal is made repeatedly, and essentially the same proposal is made again, without new evidence or arguments, only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

With the multiple Trump Photo RfC's that have been going on for months now. I think WP:MORATORIUM is necessary now. I have also have this edit to note the constant restarted arguments about which Trump photo to use. Qutlooker (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed though I think the outcome of the current item should make the consensus clear. I think most editors don't particularly like the 2017 photo due to age, but it is better (in the collective opinion) than any specific alternative. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As I stated at the very beginning of the RFC (if that's what it is), I don't believe any of the recent attempts by the same person to switch the photo to the 2017 photo really represent any form of consensus - for a variety of reasons. Once things quiet down I think a genuine attempt at finding peoples' views is possible, but really all of this seems to have been a distraction to actually change the photo against consensus and keep it that way. Note that I actually didn't (afaik) express any preference for any of the photos. Tduk (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments: Regarding RFC; Currently, several users are coming to a consensus that it is fair to use the official photo for both leading presidential candidates at the same time.

Or, the next best option is to avoid a more wasteful debate with WP:MORATORIUM. I think the reason the current debate started is that although it is not an RfC to change the Biden and Trump photos in March 2024, several users came together and reached a consensus that Trump should use an unofficial photo but Biden should use an official photo,in my view which is against WP:NPOV. Instead of further wasteful debate, I think it would be more productive to supplement the content about each presidential candidate's policies. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Russian President officially supports Kamilla Harris

WP:UNNECESSARY. Qutlooker (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As of today(7th of September), Russian President officially supports Kamilla Harris. The reason is that President Trump imposed too strong and excessive economic sanctions on Russia, which was not good for Russia. I hope this will be added to the text. Ref from BBC: Personal opinion:. Because Russia has experienced how Camilla Harris conducts foreign policy for more than 3 years, so they clearly know who is good for Russia. It does make sense for Russia as they are influenced by U.S.A quite a lot. They really needed U.S.A President who can be beneficial for them. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC) They really needed U.S.A President who can be beneficial for them. Yeah, that's Trump. Russia's RT seeking to push US voters toward Trump, US intelligence official says What they do is more useful than what they say. WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Thank you for sharing the views from another source. It's greatly beneficial for us to see multiple sources about the current event. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC) References Your personal analysis is of no interest, please stop doing that. Reliable sources take a much different view of Putin's motivations. And it's Kamala. You're actually trying to edit articles and you're doing that? Competency is required. I remind you that contentious topic sanctions exist for American politics, your consistent soapboxing is becoming tiresome. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Comment: Hello, via talk page, you can ask other users opinions about the reliability of sources and your opinions. Get to know the necessary information and balanced views. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC) No, talkpages are for specific, sourced suggestions for article improvement, not misspelled hand-waving and soapboxing. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Comments: No: As you see my reply comments above about WP:MANDY and reply to the user Muboshgu, I am trying to have well balanced view with other users. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2024

If Trump wins, he will be the second president in American history to win a second non-consecutive term since Grover Cleveland in 1893. SuperRedSpace (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is acknowledged in section 2024 United States presidential election#Republican Party. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

that is a good point. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2024 (2)

2 edit requests add current event template and tag under {{db-g4}} 2603:8001:6940:2100:3231:35E2:C35B:EC74 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 18:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that specific examples could be necessary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Would be WP:UNNECESSARY. Qutlooker (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Butch Ware Photo

Why is there no photo for the Butch Ware in the Green party info box when there one available on Wikimedia Commons File:Dr. Dutch Bilal Ware wisdom (cropped).jpg. Aojrocks (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a pending deletion discussion regarding the file. Best not to consider to use until that has resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The deletion request has been very inactive and if true, the photo is under a wiki compatible license. Qutlooker (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Suggestion: In section named "Electoral College forecast" please add a column with the time zone of the U.S. state, and please make the column sortable.

Reason: During election night, projections of the results from U.S. states will be coming on every full hour, depending on the time zone of the state. The new sortable column in said section would be useful to a reader if they want to follow the results live, so they can see possible routes to the 270 electoral votes at a glance. Hristodulo (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Will possibly be done when the time comes in November. Qutlooker (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Results section?

Hi,

Is it too early to add a Results section that would link to each state's election article?

The election is only a couple of months away. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What would we put in a Results section at this time? There are currently no results to cover. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The actual results would be blank, but it would list the election results for each state, like this:

2020 United States presidential election#Results for each state. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be way too early to add into the article at this time. Once it comes like November time we should add this per se the monday before the election. Qutlooker (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

100% agreed. Wait until November. What's the rush? A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed. It would be reasonable for us to add the additional infobox on 5th of November,2024(Tuesday) or after. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong with this, but some states begin early voting in mid-October such as Georgia. I know that doesn't mean we'll have results in mid-October (obviously), but I feel that I've seen some election articles in which results are preliminary/being counted and there's still an empty results section. Maybe mid-October is when we could add a results section? Totally agree for election day/election day eve too. Just a thought though. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding a history fact into the lead

Kamala Harris is the first candidate since 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries to stand as a Presidential candidate despite not standing in the primaries OR the first candidate since 1952 Republican Party presidential primaries to become the chosen candidate despite not launching a primary campaign.

All three are important facts and one of them needs a mention in the lead. They are just as important as the fact Biden is not standing as an incumbent since 1968 or Trump standing again. RevolutionizeSeven (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like WP:UNDUE trivia to me. Prcc27 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally not a big collection of random trivia per our policy of WP:NOTTRIVIA against it. Raladic (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)