Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Kennedy in infobox

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

Personally I Support him being in the infobox, due to him polling above 5%, which is WP:5%. He is also gaining ballot access very quickly, and now has it in 7-8 states. Lukt64 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. WP:5% rule should be the end of the discussion. This has already been addressed in previous RFC's. As NYMag notes: The general election is now projected to be a three-way race between Biden, Trump, and their mutual, Kennedy, with a cluster of less popular third-party candidates filling out the constellation.. Editors who say that the infobox inclusion requires a substantive (which I'm assuming is 20% or more) chance of winning are violating the rule.

Considering previous consensus, precedent, and the present polling, this shouldn't even be a controversy. The guideline's are clear. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Undoubtedly Support.

People have used any argument they could to keep him off the infobox, but suddenly now without Trump or Biden getting their conventional nominations, or without requiring the pledge delegate threshold, suddenly it's that far out of the question to include a guy that's polled at Ross Perot levels? Definitely violation of the five-percent rule and Neutral Point of View to be saying that Kennedy shouldn't be up there.

There was no consensus before putting Biden and Trump up there, despite the flagrantly premature decision to do so, but it's premature to put him RFK Jr up there? What gives? Borifjiufchu (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I Oppose as the 5% rule only applies to actual results. Not just potential polling numbers. The 5% rule comes into play from the national threshold needed to get matching funds for party presidential campaigns, but even within our guidelines, it would not need to apply until actual results came in, as has been seen in every other page with election results present in the United States. Tipsyfishing (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tipsyfishing Support: The 5% rule as clearly defined in text doesn't specify rather if it is for election results or all. By default, it seems to refer to all.

I don't think we should do what SCOTUS constantly likes doing which is make up or use outside sources and say a law means something else when the law says nothing on it, which is lazy. 2600:100B:B13E:D56B:68C7:7A6:67CD:755 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If it were to just who get to be on the infobox by the actual results, then why put any candidate's name on the infobox until results come in on Election Day (when they are published by polling stations and news outlets)? We don't even know if Trump or Biden will still be the candidates come election day, they're just merely presumptive. And if the counter-argument is "well obviously they'll get more than 5%", then you have to look at polls to do so, which we are doing for Kennedy. Therefore I Support RFK being in the infobox 2600:1700:3A40:4800:68BD:F98A:5791:775F (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If that’s what it truly means why aren’t you taking down Jorge Álvarez Máynez from the Mexican presidential info box? His election isn’t in 3 months and he’s polling numbers far bellow RFK here.

frankly, keeping RFK off the United States presidential infobox is only furthering biased reporting that’s trying to down play his campaign’s credibility. AfricanAlGore (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — AfricanAlGore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Support he meets the polling requirements the guy may be a nut which is why people don’t want to put him up there but the rules don’t care about our opinions he meets the wiki requirements to be up there 2600:8801:1187:7F00:25D3:B97C:DDCA:F27C (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I Oppose Kennedy's inclusion in the infobox, as well as the descriptors in the opening paragraphs characterizing him as a major 3rd party candidate and the first since Ross Perot--too early to make such a claim. He may be a serious contender, but that is yet to be seen, him polling in the high single digits well before July/August conventions does not warrant treating him this way. For the moment, the race should be treated as a two-way rematch between Biden and Trump until we have more evidence that Kennedy can continue to remain relevant and pull significant support--especially after Biden and Trump are confirmed as their parties' nominees. If, even after that, Kennedy is polling at 10% or more (aggregated), then I think he would be worth mentioning. JUBJUBBB (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I Oppose bringing RFK Jr. into infobox. I suggest waiting until July to see if his average poll numbers can get above 10. Vuvietanh6204 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed. (Provided that Biden and Trump are additionally excluded.) There was never a consensus to include anything in the infobox for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I Support because the 5% rule is clearly applicable here and he was considered a serious contender in the dem primary. Notwithstanding, He has already received serious and significant media coverage, way more than Johnson got in 2016 Cannolorosa (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I strongly support Kennedy to be included in the infobox. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aricmfergie I think it's about time we put this as an official vote. 170.10.51.116 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aricmfergie RFC has went with 1a, 6 was not in the official consensus, he goes in Infobox now Buildershed (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Support Kennedy is well past the 5% needed to be on the infobox in almost every poll that has ever featured him, although I do think that a different photo of him should be used in the infobx CY223 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Kennedy consistently polls at 5%+. I don't expect him to win the election (or even a state) but that's not the criteria of inclusion. WP:5% rule is clear here. 1980 United States presidential election, 1992 United States presidential election, 1996 presidential election, and others all show candidates who received 5% of the vote. It's widely expected that Kennedy Jr. will obtain this. I haven't seen an argument against inclusion that doesn't go against precedent and previous RFC's.

He should be included, as @Lukt64: mentions. It would be a violation of WP: NPOV (and an instance of WP: CRYSTAL and WP: OR to do otherwise). KlayCax (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose there is no such thing as a 5% rule. That is the name given to an information page that attempts to summarize prior discussions the subject, and generalize conclusions that do not appear in the discussions themselves. Wikipedia does not have rules; we have policies and and guidelines and this is neither. In any case, most prior discussions concerning a 5% threshold for inclusion in the were about election vote totals, not polling numbers. Those that do concern polling are about exclusion, not inclusion, of those candidates with ballot access. For example, Jo Jorgensen had ballot access, but some wanted to exclude her due to polling numbers. A larger issue is those discussions (like this one) concern very specific contemporary scenarios such that editors are commenting on the specific race and not the 5% principle more generally. There has never been a consensus on including a candidate without ballot access polling above 5%. And frankly, because the scenarios are so different, forcing a phony rule on the proceedings is unnecessary. It makes sense to evaluate each event separately. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support Kennedy in infobox, as he is a significant candidate. For now, his chance of winning is vanishingly small, but that isn't the point. He has more support than any independent since 1992 and is likely to change the outcome in some states, perhaps even the national result. Moonraker (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose 5% does not apply to polling. Gary Johnson in 2016 had a few polls that hit 10%, but was never included on the infobox. Ballot access is irrelevant as well. Kennedy's ballot access in 7-8 states is nothing compared to historical Libertarian access (typically all 50 states). If Kennedy is included in the debate or something similar, then there is a real case to include him in the infobox. Currently, there is none. Burger1018 (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

But getting above ten per cent in the opinion polls makes Kennedy a significant candidate, and there is a big problem with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For consistency, the most relevant WP precedents to look at are the infoboxes of the previous elections in 1912, 1924, 1948, 1980, 1992, and 1996. Going against all precedent gives an impression of partisan bias. Moonraker (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Those elections has third party candidates that obtained more then 5% in the actual, final results, hence why those were included.

I'm all for 5% being the benchmark when it comes to actual, final election results. But not when it comes to polling. Tipsyfishing (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We include "systematic opposition" candidates in Russian presidential elections that get 3-8% of the vote, are widely regarded as kooky, and absolutely have no chance of winning. It's inconsistent and goes against precedent if we exclude Kennedy Jr. but include them. There's no good argument against exclusion. CrackTheJack (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — CrackTheJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As the users you've responded to have emphasized, though, that's about actual election results, not polls. We don't know what % of the vote RFK Jr will get. There's not even a lot of high quality polling data yet--you could make a stronger case for RFK in the infobox if he's polling at 10%+ in June or July when more Americans are paying attention and more polls are being done/aggregated. Right now, it feels super premature.

Arguably, isn't their inclusion in Russia's case quite different? They have sham elections, Putin has no real opposition (unlike Biden and Trump) so documenting the silly, sham candidates that are put up against Putin is important context? I'm not sure why we would use the same standard for entirely different electoral systems and levels of institutional legitimacy. JUBJUBBB (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's right.

And unlike the Russian candidates, Kennedy Jr. has a chance of actually competing, unlike Vladislav Davankov or Nikolay Kharitonov We don't know what percentage of the vote any candidate in this race will get.

The sources agree that Kennedy Jr. will likely get over 10% of the vote. New York Magazine labels him a major candidate. He routinely polls in the mid-20s. Only listing two candidates (and then hypothetically waiting until November) isn't neutral. It's tilting the scales to include Biden and Trump while excluding Kennedy Jr. CrackTheJack (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — CrackTheJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree he *could be* a major candidate, and I agree editors should not wait until November if he continues to poll significant support. But the singular NYMag article calling him a major candidate doesn't feel very convincing to me (nor the idea we can know 8 months in advance he'll get 10%), is major candidate a technical term? What does it mean? Do other outlets call him thus and continue to? I also do not put much stock in current polling--of which there is not a lot and even less of great quality. But more of the electorate will be tuned in and there will be more relevant polling 3+ months from now, but still before the election. JUBJUBBB (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

For our purposes? It's 5% in the general. The evidence is overwhelming that Kennedy Jr. will obtain that. He's listed as such by multiple citations, and even pollsters skeptical of his campaign's vitality believe he'll almost certainly obtain it. We wouldn't exclude Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996 from the infobox at this stage. The same should apply to Kennedy Jr. Only including two candidates gives an implicit bias of its own. The majority here is right. He deserves to be included in the infobox.

It's a double standard to include members of the Russian "systematic opposition" while excluding Kennedy Jr. If we adopt the same standard for Russian elections, then we should simply exclude anyone other than Putin, as Kennedy Jr. has an infinitely higher chance of becoming president than any of them.

Either we're consistent and exclude every candidate until the nominating convention or we include Trump, Biden, or Kennedy, anything else in my view gives a significant bias, as other editors have already expounded upon. CrackTheJack (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — CrackTheJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He does not "routinely polls in the mid-20s". RCP has him maxxing out at 22, and only hitting that 16% of the time. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Those candidates that you listed have actual election results though. Not just polling. I'm pretty sure everyone here is in agreement that any candidate that actually gets 5% of the vote would be included in the infobox. I'm in favor of that too, that's what we currently do with election results. However, polling is not election results.

Rags saying that he "might" get 10% of the vote doesn't mean anything.

If Kennedy gets on enough state ballots to reach 270 in the electoral college, then we can re-discuss. Till then, I will stay opposed. Tipsyfishing (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker Tbh, WP:FALSEBALANCE should be more limited in its appliance to political articles as it can result in accidental bias caused by our selected "Reliable Sources" 2600:100B:B13E:D56B:68C7:7A6:67CD:755 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

WP did not exist during the '96 campaign, so we cannot speculate about how we would have treated Perot at a similar time in the campaign. That said, Perot received 19% of the vote in the previous presidential election, where RFK has not. No one is arguing that Kennedy should never be added to the Infobox, only that he be held to a similar standard as the others shown there. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27:'s proposal to exclude the infobox until either 1.) A majority of delegates are obtained for both 2.) The convention floor is the best course of action. @CrackTheJack: and @Moonraker: have expressed similar sentiments.

The essay of WP:NOTNP is apt here. Can someone revert every name from the infobox for the time being? There was no consensus to add it KlayCax (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Putting these two debates together makes sense: delay B/T as long as reasonable, and we can punt the RFK discussion to a point where we will have a greater sense of his credibility. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's do that, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. It would save editors hundreds of hours debating whether "Kennedy should be in the infobox" and whether "Trump and Biden are the nominees yet".

We all know it's coming otherwise. I was initially in favor of including Trump, Biden, and Kennedy in the infobox, but after the debate on here, the opinion I leaned towards reversed. It's still too early in my view.

If Kennedy Jr. however remains at current polling levels: I agree he should be included in the infobox. But let's punt that question for a few months. KlayCax (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the article you linked calls him a "major candidate." The closest is this section: "At this point, all that’s clear is that no one has any idea what will happen between now and November 2024 or how to respond to the threat Kennedy poses to the Biden-Trump binary. As it is, Kennedy is in some cases polling not far behind either likely major-party nominee and in all cases polling well enough that, were the election held today, his presence in the race would define what the next chapter of American history looks like." That's very tentative. It recognizes that at this stage we have no way of knowing anything. What we should be looking for is articles that are about the election generally talking about him as if he's a factor, rather than articles about him. --Jfhutson (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

he has been polling above 10% for months.. Lukt64 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as others have pointed out 5% only applies to results. I think RFK should be added to the infobox in one of two scenarios: he garners over 5% in the actual results in November or he is treated as a major candidate by: a clear consensus of sources treating him as such, invited to the major national debates, etc. Yeoutie (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There's already enough of a consensus of sources treating him as major third-party contender that could even qualify for debates. We are lenient with other countries when it comes to candidates consistently hitting 10%+, but suddenly because it's an American election and you see a lot of reactionary behavior towards a third-party candidate, you get a lot of biases thrown around to exclude him.

Why should what one source say what is a major candidate be a major stepping stone anyways? That's heavily subjective. There is enough raw numbers and data as is, and precedent in certainly more than one country for what qualifies other candidates for infoboxes. Seems to be the American-bias in articles speaking more so than actual Wikipedia precedent and policy when it comes to people that Oppose him. But this goalposting in opposition is nothing short of, well, unfortunately baffling. Borifjiufchu (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose until we know what his ballot access looks like. Then I have no problem if his polling is still strong. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support with caveat regarding existing consensus. I believe there is already consensus on this issue that candidates should be included if they poll over 5% and have ballot access in sufficient states to win 270 electoral votes. Naturally, the nominees of both parties have automatic ballot access in sufficient states. However, my understanding is that RFK Jr. does not have sufficient ballot access yet because a number of states require a vice presidential running mate to be granted access. With that in mind, we should reconsider whether Donald Trump will be added to the infobox upon his declaration as presumptive nominee by the Republican National Committee, or whether he must also choose a running mate and thereby gain ballot access to be added. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support now that Trump has been added despite my outstanding questions regarding his ballot access. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It's a moot point until he secures ballot access in enough states to actually win the presidency, after which a polling threshold is sufficient to determine his inclusion in the infobox. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has had write-in candidates for many state elections, but ballot access is now a threshold? That part I don't get. There were a lot of candidates that had specific regional support or didn't have sufficient ballot access or nationwide representation, but still get represented in parliamentary or congressional elections. This sort of line of thinking is what Ballotpedia has, but it's not something that's consistent with Wikipedia. Borifjiufchu (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's all well and good but even counting states where he's eligible as a registered write-in that only brings him up to 122 delegates. We're not at a point where he can yet reach 270 and actually win. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support The Evidence speaks for itself. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn't to say he doesn't post relevancy and ignored what I said. 5% rule and relevancy are likely to be in order, although even when he does inevitably cross eligibility for 270 (like any third-party candidate polling above 3% typically has), people will find yet another goalpost to make-up. He has the percent, and sources to back him up as a relevant candidate, which is what matters most - in consistency with other nation's elections, which are applied far more lenient standards than what you see here in U.S. election infoboxes. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Until he has ballot access in 50 states & if he's still at or above 5% in the polls. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  So, by this logic, Biden will have to be removed from the infobox if he ends up not being excluded from the ballot in Alabama and Ohio. There have been a number of times a major candidate has been excluded from a states ballot, for example in 1948, Harry Truman was completely excluded from the ballot in Alabama and won the presidency that year anyway. Being on the ballot in all 50 states has never been a threshold for inclusion in the infobox, and is entirely irrational and ridiculous.XavierGreen (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

By my count, that now makes three new SPAs created to support Kennedy in this discussion, all with bold accusations and claims. WP:NEWBIES are welcome, but this tone is a little suspicious. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are we attacking the person? They brought up their own points. That's like if I were to go around attacking people because of blatantly pro-Democrat influences on their profile/talk page, then going towards their social media page, and finding out the amount of parroted stuff from the media that makes its way onto here without much independent thought or understanding in Wiki-historicism and precedent (remember the Gary Johnson debate?). I'm not advocating people to do that, but that is something you will easily find on the background of other users if one is to play the superficial context game of ad hominem 'kill the messenger', in which case, why shouldn't we be talking about the 'message'?

So again, what relevance does this have? Because in that case we can use that logic to say we should be suspicious of people that have been here long enough yet continue to indulge in echochambers and faux populi sentiments to deny candidates on rather systematic overtures of "American exceptionalism" when discussing sensitive elections. As you may be able to note that there are people here using the talk page to express their like/dislikeness for candidates. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We expect editors to contribute to improving the project, not advocate for their personal politics. The consensus has held that RFK has not yet demonstrated the relevancy to be added to the infobox. That we now see the opposing argument gaining significant support from IPs and and accounts created specifically for this discussion is clearly suggestive of sockpuppetry. KlayCax has made edits to the article citing support of these socks as rationale, and that is a mistake that needs to be avoided. It is difficult to recognize SOCK when it supports your own position, but it is incumbent upon a good wikipedian to do so. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume that falls on the jurisprudence of Wikipedia. But I am more skeptical of people that advocate for personal politics and let their biases get in the way, I would ignore these sockpuppets either way when it comes to any argument, as again, proper moderation would have the means to filter and deal out with such accounts, as they seem to work on both sides and lower the common denomination of the discussion - which seems better worth ignoring. Which is the habit that I follow - as indulging in them isn't generally worth the average user's time nor responsibility. Borifjiufchu (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wait, until he gets more ballot access. At his current polling numbers, it's really not a question that Kennedy should be included. However, he isn't going to get 5% of the vote if he's only on the ballot in 8 states (which he's only at now). Once he reaches 25 states, or if the Libertarian party nominates him which has been speculated, I think this discussion can be reopened. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Really silly way to shut down a conversation, we already know the Libertarian party shut down this stuff if you were paying attention to the news, and that most of it was just speculatory media indulgence.

  Then you go on to assume 'however he isn't going to get 5% of the vote if he's only in the ballot' which are two major leaps in assumptions. Then you say he needs ballot access, in which case, if we look at that track record you have the Constitution Party and multiple Nader candidacies. When in any other country this polling would be equivalent to act as a third way alignment in contrast to major parties (pre-coalition). And then more goalposting, and saying the conversation isn't worth talking about until they fulfill your criteria. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

1.) Because of the electoral college, that's not how the United States presidential elections work. Even a candidate with 50 electoral college votes can have immense influence. (This was Strom Thurmond's goal as a Dixiecrat in 1948)

2.) Third party candidates do not usually perform anywhere near this well. Kennedy's polling around 1992 Perot numbers.

3.) Kennedy Jr. doesn't have to win to merit inclusion in the infobox. He just has to get 5%. He's polling that way and WP: RS's are unanimous in stating that he will likely get it. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding a bit snobbish... come on, he's not a real candidate. Gary Johnson polled at around 15%, and he (rightfully) was not included. CoryJosh (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

People said the same thing about Donald Trump in 2016. Look what happened. Gary Johnson never averaged anywhere near where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is. KlayCax (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

He actually was included, various times, and up until the end of the election. So you're quite wrong there. Not only that, but his numbers were more around the 10% ballpark. Not 15%. John Anderson got around 15-20% and ended up with 7% in the end, but did he have an influence? Considering the massive polling errors (both in 1980 and 2016) that ended up benefitting the Republican, it is definitely fair to assume they had significant relevance both times, and did have an impact on the election. So even with that logic, you get someone that's more akin to John Anderson and not, say, Ross Perot, you are still getting a precedent for relevance. But saying 'he isnt' a real candidate' is far too subjective, and can be used to dismiss hundreds of other candidates in infoboxes all across Wikipedia. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean he’s in poll aggregates at over 10% still, I think that’s something to not really sweep under the rug. I think he should be included, but maybe wait until Summer and if he’s still polling well, maybe add them then XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think that's a good benchmark. We had many third party candidates in the 2016 infobox around that time, eventually including McMullin, however as they failed to reach more than 5%, they never ended up staying on the infobox. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Agreed, I would’ve thought he would’ve fallen further by know, but he’s doing well still XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Exactly, and keeping him off the infobox to me feels like trying to hide his campaign, considering he's polling very well. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I’d add him for now, but I don’t know if he’s decline substantially, he’s polling very strong for a third party candidate 8 months out. So it’s probably better to see if he’s still polling at least high single didgets by summer. I think he’s gonna play an interesting role here XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I might also add depending on what polls out there he’s polling at like 15 on some, like that’s something that’s not been seen since Perot, he’s definitely getting more chatter lately I’ve noticed in the media too XboxGamer2002! (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose for all the reasons I've opposed including him before. He's an unserious third party candidate like the others. I'm not sure that I believe that Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura top his VP list, but I don't not believe it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • And I have concern with single-purpose accounts in this thread. The possible sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry on the supporting side of this argument needs to be taken into consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

    Kennedy polling in the 20s in numerous states is unserious?? Wow, okay. Keep your opinions to yourself. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

    A serious campaign would have ballot access to 270. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

    The ballot process is ongoing so keep your opinions to yourself. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

    I can call this out as the publicity stunt that it is in a discussion about how we editors should consider the campaign. A poll in the 20s in March doesn't mean it's serious. You don't have to reply to me when I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

    Wow Lostfan333 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

    You haven't done your research on the Constitution, Libertarian, or Reform parties if you think ballot access is the sole metric, nor are you aware of how people write-in candidates that get over 10% in races, or even win in the case of Murkowski if name recognition is high enough.

    Instead of looking for 'hey what's a serious candidate or not, oh god he has Ventura on his VP list according to some speculatory article', one should indulge in proper precedent more and look towards other info at the state and international level for how one measures and anticipates "seriousness". So far polling from many different organizations is a pretty reliable indicator all things considered (even if they get half of that, it still holds better weight than getting .5% with ballot access). Borifjiufchu (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should read about how polling this early is not predictive of results. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

    You know I'm a frequenter of 538 - and it pertains to a 2 person race. If you've seen my other replies, I've mentioned many other examples far beyond what that article even begins to touch upon. John Anderson polled in the 15 to 20% range in '80 election, and ended up with 6-7% of the vote, but undeniably had a major effect on the election. RFK Jr trumps Johnson's numbers during any point in the 2016 race.

    In-fact 538 has gone on to defend many polls as being pretty accurate, as a normal margin of error around the last quarter of the election season is typically 4%. Most people don't want Wikipedia to have anything pertaining to bias by having just Trump/Biden, and not a guy that has polling that would put him well above the 5% for qualifying for infoboxes and nearly dancing with qualifying for a debate.

    Not only that, but in that article, there is no examples of any elections post 1992 (when hyper-informed cycles and electorates became a significant norm) where there was any 10 point difference in major candidates when it came to polls in the early year vs the election results. I highly doubt editors would keep a Perot or Anderson off, and only try to have Reagan Carter, or Bush Clinton in the infoboxes when we had Gary Johnson in mid-2016. Borifjiufchu (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

    Ross Perot lead Bush and Clinton at certain points in 1992. Anderson looked like a joke for much of the summer. Speculating how we would have treated them with contemporary knowledge is a fool's errand. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

    "looked like a joke for much of the summer", you mean garnering 20% polling averages?

    Even aside from that, polling in the 3rd millennia hasn't been as variable as one may claim or suppose. Considering the bar for recognition, the shock and rebound factor for name recognition to dissipation has leaned towards inelasticity when you count national polls for various sources (and consider the fact modern polling and news cycle isn't as centralized or few and far between as the past).

    And were any other candidates jumping both of the candidates in polling, or hitting 20% averages? Your points just cement the fact that it would be of the reader's interest, and consistent intrigue that they hold historical relevance, rather than a 'joke' or 'fool's errand', so I am not quite convinced here. Borifjiufchu (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose only if sources treat him as a serious candidate. Right now he is being treated just like Johnson or Stein in 2016. Yeoutie (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That is not true at all. Kennedy has way way more media coverage than Johnson or Stein, is outspending them both by an order of magnitude and has polling that bounces regularly between 10 and 20% nationally. Stein never had more than 2 percent national polling, and Johnson's polling was never as high either. Kennedy's situation is much more akin to Ross Perot than anyone else at the present time.XavierGreen (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

    Strong support in favor of including Kennedy.

    • Posting from mobile, so apologies for any strange formatting.

      I am reposting this comment from another thread on this subject, which I replied to mistakenly believing it was this one:

      RFK Jr. is, beyond a doubt, a relevant national candidate and will very likely affect the election, according to literally *all* available polling data and news reports. He is polling at over 15% and has been covered by every major news agency — not just after the announcement of his campaign, but repeatedly and at-length. A quick google search of “RFK JR.” will result in dozens of articles popping up — many of them published within the last *day*, from outlets such as the New York Times, ABC, MSNBC, etc.

      In the face of this, this entire “irrelevancy” argument several editors keep harking on is, frankly, a bit bizarre. The only

      conclusion I can draw is that the reason some would seem to keep perpetuating this idea is because they don’t appreciate Kennedy’s extremist ideology, and desire to, in a sense, “consign him to irrelevancy” because they believe promoting such ideas is harmful.

      Which would be reasonable, if it were not for the fact that this irrelevancy argument is, in fact, wholly illusionary, as I have laid out above. This seems like patent WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

      P.S.:

      Here are several arguments I have seen against this notion, and why I think they are invalid:

      1. “Third Party Candidates poll higher prior to general elections, and rarely meet expectations”:

      This argument fails to recognize the fact that, quite simply, the level of support these candidates achieved — such as Stein, Johnson, etc. - never came close to reaching that of Kennedy’s. That’d seem to indicate a far stronger base of support. He has also remained remarkably consistent over the course of many, many months, hovering around 10-20% and never dipping below 5%. And every poll his numbers continue to remain stable - or even improve — makes me find it increasingly harder to believe that he will simply “fizzle out” as some claim.

      To bring this point home: Kennedy’s numbers have never dipped below Johnson’s *best performance* in 2016.

      2. “Kennedy is a crank, and should therefore be excluded”

      This argument is entirely invalid. A candidates beliefs should not exclude their inclusion in the infobox if they meet the proper criteria.

      I do not know why several editors keep citing WP:FRINGE as evidence to the contrary. The page clearly states that “a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.” However, we have repeatedly acknowledged conspiracy theories/theorists who reach Wikipedia’s notability standards — which Kennedy certainly does, as I’ve argued at length — while clearly demonstrating these beliefs are not based in reality, a la Alex Jones. Half of the Republican party would seem to be shifting towards these very notions. Should we exclude these (certainly) notable candidates on the basis of their odd beliefs, or acknowledge them and make it clear how they are false? Gambitenthusiast99 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

    Well Put. Gambitenthusiast99. InterDoesWiki (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

    Also Support basically for your reasons above, unless there's a huge polling dip for Kennedy sometime soon he should be added now Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wait: Ballot petitioning is still ongoing. As it stands, even including write-ins. Mr. Kennedy only has access to 137 electoral votes. That number drops to 71 if you include only states in which he will appear on the ballot. Until Mr. Kennedy obtains access to 270 electoral votes (a majority) I agree to keep him off the infobox. When he does obtain access to the majority of electoral votes. At that time I do not see a reasonable argument to oppose addition outside of personal bias. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliable sources consistently state the race is a two-way between Biden and Trump, with Kennedy as an outlier in the same vein as Jill Stein or other third-party bids in years past. Kennedy has not even been able to get on the ballot in all states. As Wikipedians, we should go off of what reliable sources state the race is, not our own personal determinations of who is a major/minor candidate. BootsED (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Name one state where Kennedy has been excluded from the ballot. The deadline to apply for ballot access has not yet passed in the vast majority of states.XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Relying on sources to parrot subjective information on their interpretation of a competitive race by jumping to conclusions in contrary to polls, and wikipedia precedent is a horrible standard to abide by. You say you shouldn't go by personal determinations, yet that is the very definition of 'personal determinations'. Look at the 2016 election and see how they handled third party candidates during the middle of that year - all I gotta say.

  And like other people said he has not been excluded. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

'Support I support Kennedy being in the infobox, he is a third party candidate and has been gaining traction as of late. If it was another person who is unknown, is not news worthy or has not been in the news, then I would support not including that person but I believe Kennedy (regardless of one's politics) should be included in the infobox. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey proposal

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

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

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

Thanks for the feedback. Lostfan333 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think as long as a candidate meets 2 of those 4 criteria, said candidate should be included . Cannolorosa (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that we definitely need some kind of blend of these qualifications. I think that the 270 ballot access criteria (2) should be the most important, with the candidate then having to poll above 5% to qualify (1). So, if a candidate polls above 5%, but does not have ballot access in enough states to amount to 270 votes, they do not qualify. That way, we exclude the litany of smaller parties that have wide ballot access but no mainstream impact. Maybe also an inclusion of a stipulation that if a candidate is polling ahead in a state but fails the first two, then they can also qualify? I'm mainly writing this with Evan McMullin in mind, as a win in Utah would have meant he would have won electoral votes and have been in the 2016 election's wikibox.

I feel like options 3 and 4 are more subjective and definitely more difficult. Presidential debates are notoriously difficult for third parties to get into, and require their own polling threshold (15%). Doing so would just switch the 5% criteria to a much more stringent 15%, which excludes notable campaigns like Ross Perot's 1996 run. Media coverage is also a tricky thing to measure objectively, and I feel like any candidate that passes the first 2 criteria outlined above will already be in the limelight. We saw extensive coverage of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in 2016, though those two campaigns never amounted to much, so anyone that polls higher should be equally as written about. QuailWatts (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

the ballot access proposal should be some sort of benchmark(ie take the number of EVs a candidate has balllot access to and compare it to the EVs a candidate can not get ballot access to due to failure to meet ballot filling deadlines. The candidate can be included in infobox if he/she has ballot access to more EV than he/she cant get) Cannolorosa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

that is not relevant here Cannolorosa (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

1 & 4 are probably the most important but I can also go with 2. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

No, it doesn't. Collorizador (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. John Anderson got 6.6% of the vote and is in the infobox for the 1980 United States presidential election. RFK is at least as notable as Anderson was in that election, if nor more so. Don't let your opinion of his political beliefs bias you here, Wikipedia articles have no opinion. Fryedk (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

His beliefs are completely irrelevant to whether or not he should be included in the infobox. If there were an American Nazi Party candidate who got over 5%, they would still be included in the infobox. AmericanBaath (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Kennedy is polling above 5%. Any candidate that polls above 5% or has access to 270 electoral college votes should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, He is clearly above the 5% threshold, as shown by a plethora of polling. So... what needs to happen to actually get him into the infobox? Does some need of final vote need to happen or what? Chipka (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You're going to get a narrative about how he needs to qualify for polling, and then you're going to get some other interpretations based on total lack of precedent and goalposting before people will even begin to give him the same credence as they would towards literally any other election - look at how we handle other countries and determine candidates of interest. It's a uniquely American perspective, and people are turning towards echo-chamber and bubble behaviors to intercede thought on what a relevant candidate is. Wikipedia should make that determination, not a bunch of op-ed perspectives that people keep on parroting. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom

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

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

RFC: In states where he has ballot access, should Kennedy Jr. be in the infobox of states without polling?

There is currently an edit dispute on whether Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of states that will likely not receive polling in the 2024 presidential election or have not been polled yet.

Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.

Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.

Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.

Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• #3 - We should wait until after the November election, to see if Kennedy (assuming he still in the race) gets at least 5% of a state popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  That seems unfair, then why include anyone? PeacockShah (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we really need an RFC for this? Prcc27 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @Prcc27:. Because editors are going to keep reverting it back and forth if we don't. KlayCax (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

“Editors” meaning you? The consensus is already clear without the RfC, and the RfC is only going to reaffirm what was decided, this is a waste of time. Prcc27 (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

My simple opinion is this;

What’s the point of adding him now? Let’s be honest here, everyone knows of RFK Jr. now. He’s a Kennedy, people have seen him on TikTok, the Super Bowl. Wait till he gets the votes, THEN add him. I expect him to get 8%, which is an impressive demographic to be honest. IEditPolitics (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be even more reason to add him now.. If the media is treating him like a serious candidate now, and he has ballot access to a state, why would we exclude him until after the election? An infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of the election, and if RFKJR is going to have a significant impact on the election, he should be included. We should probably wait until he polls consistently at 5%-10% in states though. Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with what you have said. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

#1 it would be unfair if he has access to them yet can't be on the infobox. InterDoesWiki (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There are usually around 10 people that have ballot access. We will not add them all to the infobox, so we need some additional factor for those that we do add. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's again clarify (because there has been confusion on this point) that ballot access means name on the ballot. Write-in access is a different thing. As to the question, I pick none of the above. If Kennedy has ballot access in a state that is not polled, he should be included on that state if he has met the standard for the national infobox. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The state is polled, he just wasn’t included in it. Prcc27 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(For Utah that is; I know this RfC is for all the states in general). Prcc27 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax option #1 commie (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

#1 Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Option #1:, every entrant on the ballot should be listed.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So if 20+ people are on the ballot, we should include all 20+ people in the infobox? Prcc27 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: don't include him without any polling of the state. Including all candidates on the ballot without polling would be unworkable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: If we include Kennedy in these situations, what is stopping other minor candidates from being added too? Yeoutie (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump image RfC

Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article: Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated: five more options - Option E ,Option F ,Option G ,Option H and ,Option I - total five additional choices. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump infobox images

• 
  Option A (Current infobox image)
• 
  Option B (Nominated for deletion)
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option C (Cropped)
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E
• 
  Option F
• 
  Option G
• 
  Option H
• 
  Option I

They're 5 years old. What's the point when we have suitable options A and C from just last year? GhulamIslam (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

While the 2017 photo is a bit dated, the 2019 photo offers a more recent and positive representation (it was taken just one year ago). Compared to the frowning 2023 option, the smiling 2019 image feels more fitting for an official photo.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option B: it is a recent photo, and it looks more presidential. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close: A discussion on this was just opened above and thus WP:RFCBEFORE hasn't been satisfied. Let people try to reach a consensus before starting an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  There are actually several sections open, and it is becoming very difficult to try to discuss and form a consensus. Better to centralize the discussion into an RfC. We typically decide photos via RfC anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Tend to agree. Multiple discussions (mostly among the same handful of people) about what amounts to the same thing but not producing a clear and actionable consensus, isn't helpful. RfCs are useful for several things, and agreeing on the best option among a choice of available photos is often one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  My bad. I missed the 4/8 discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• B as first choice, A as second. C looks ridiculous. A is arguably a better picture from a portrait perspective, but has distracting background elements. B doesn't have those, and is a reasonably good as a portrait, and is not a silly, hammy thing like C, so let's use that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  PS: The later-added F and H also look fine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding C, Biden and Kennedy both have the same fulsome smile in their photos, it's fine from a portrait perspective. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Trump just looks like he's faking it when he does it. F & H are more natural-looking smiles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• B or C are equally fine for me. "A' looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy, but we're supposed to be neutral here, for almost anyone that means using a positive-looking picture when one is available. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• A or C - The lighting on B doesn't look good for an infobox. Longestview (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B is the cleanest looking. There's no guideline relating to the lighting of photographs in infoboxes. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• A: It is somewhat recent with it being 9 months old and, in my opinion, looks visually pretty good with him not having a awkward smile and is well lighted. B is not a bad pick but it is soon to be 1 year and 9 months old, so this is an important reason why I am holding this option back Punker85 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think it has to be that recent, after all, Biden’s presidential portrait is older (2021). I think the main argument with regards to recent photos was that Trump’s 2017 portrait was way too old for an infobox in 2024. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• A or B. C just looks ridiculous, as User:SMcCandlish said. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B. He has a more neutral expression. Senorangel (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• If I had to choose a photo of Donald Trump, I would still choose his main presidential portrait, but if one of the three above is complete, B would be better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B. C looks very unnatural, as said by many people. While A Isn't really Presidential like. InterDoesWiki (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option C. Most representative of how he currently looks, especially in regard to his weight loss, and the best match with Biden's picture out of the three. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The new “option D” is not good; eyes looking away from camera, mic in the way, head slanted. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• A - used in our article for the Republican primaries. In B he's blending into the background chameleon-style and C and D are fairly poor. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B - neutral expression, portrait-style. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B — neutral, non-distracting. A would be my second choice (per Herostratus: "[A] looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy"...) and C is my last choice, as it looks entirely ridiculous. What's a picture from, the dentist's office? Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B per reasoning given by other editors here. It definitely should not C. KlayCax (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B - seems quite moderate looking, to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or a more recent photo of him from his trial. He looks pale and sickly in B and not his usual orange self! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• A because C and D are poor for reasons others have mentioned, whereas B makes Trump blend in. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Option B is currently nominated for deletion, which could impact this RfC. [1] Prcc27 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume That is going to be the deciding factor, because it seems more than a majority have reached a consensus on using B, though the RFC is still ongoing. InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• A first choice, D second choice. There's too much shadow in B and C looks a bit goofy. Some1 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A first choice, B second choice if B is not deleted. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A is my only choice. B is too shadowy, C is too smiley, D has a mic in the way and his head is slanted head, so those are out of the question IMHO.
  Which is not to say there can't be some other picture E which is better than any of these, but that's a bit besides the point.
  Subjectively, A also seems more representative of his personality—which precise adjectives it conveys is left as an exercise to the reader, as different people may assign positive or negative ones, but in any event it is very, very much a quote-unquote "Trump" look
  167.88.84.136 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A. B's nominated for deletion, C looks ridiculous, and his head is cockeyed in D. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  @JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333: In the event that B does not get deleted, would you still prefer A? Prcc27 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm...like others said, B does seem pretty shadowy. Yes, I would still prefer A. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• A is the best option here. C and D have downsides, A does not; it's neutral. I was going to add that the lighting on B is a tad dramatic, but seems like we don't need to worry about that anymore. TheSavageNorwegian 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we should assume Option B is an option if/until it is actually deleted, but of course users that prefer option B should have a backup option just in case. Prcc27 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's a fairly open and shut case. The user uploaded a number of Getty images because he did not misunderstand the license, and they are subsequently getting pulled. There is zero reason to think we would retain it. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. But as of now, it has not yet been deleted. Prcc27 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• A - For the high visibility contrast. B looks likely to be deleted, but is also low contrast and fades into the background. C is ridiculous and objectively doesn't even look like the subject. D would be my second choice. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• C “a photo of Donald Trump with a warm smile instills hope. I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024. However, if Photo C is not chosen, could someone locate an alternative picture of Donald Trump wearing a cheerful smile?
  For instance, could anyone locate a copyright-free photograph of a smiling face, (in other word: A winning smile), akin to the "4 big smile" featured in The Guardian News below? Additionally, may anyone peruse the collection of photos taken at the White House or any potential copyright-free locations. thus far? If we cannot find an appropriate photo now, I hope we can replace it when a suitable one becomes available. News link: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Why the heck should "I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024." factor at all into our analysis LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As the person who took 3 of these photos being considered, why isn't his official portrait just being used? He doesn't look that different. Calibrador (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good point !

  Since the official photo clearly identifies Tump, and serves its purpose well, would it be acceptable to use it again instead of replacing it? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because of the consensus reached at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#Biden and Trump pictures that a more recent picture of Trump should be used instead of his 7 year old presidential portrait that fails to reflect his current appearance. GhulamIslam (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t necessarily disagree with that consensus, but I really do not like photos A, C, and D. If we are not going to use the presidential portrait, I feel like we should still use a photo that’s presidential. And these photos fall short of that IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• C, similar to Biden's picture and doesn't have a weird facial expression. Nosferattus (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• A. Not going to repeat the same arguments made above, but B has the large shadow, C is alright but is not the best photo, D has a strange facial expression, and I am against using the official portrait. Yeoutie (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Official is my preference. A is my second choice. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option H - I like the "Option H " because this photo has a professional and reliable look. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment What brought about the need to change the image? He doesn't look that much different in each of the options so what caused the start of this RfC? Tepkunset (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment The concern seems to be that the official photo, chosen in 2017, might be outdated. While some agreed to consider a replacement if a better recent option emerged, there appears to be no significant difference between the current choices. Given five new options have been added, it might be helpful for those who previously commented to revisit the selection. SMcCandlish , voorts (talk, Herostratus , Longestview ,voorts,Punker85,Senorangel,InterDoesWiki,Tim O'Doherty,Cremastra,KlayCax,GoodDay , LegalSmeagolian,Wikipedia1010121,InterDoesWiki,Some1,Grahaml35,JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 , The,GreatCaesarsGhost,Fieari Additionally, Dear Prcc27 (talk), the agreement to change the photo wasn't mentioned on this talk page. Could you please point the link us to where that discussion took place? e.g. "Archive_7" or any other place? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here's a link to the discussion to change Trump's photo

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7#Biden_and_Trump_pictures David O. Johnson (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: My concern with the new photos is that though they're not as old as the presidential portrait, they're still not new; correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all from 2019, right? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Biden photo is from 2021, while the current Trump photo is from last year. The whole impetus for changing Trump's photo was that it was out of date compared to Biden's.

  [2] David O. Johnson (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I still think A is the best out of those options. Regarding the new additions: E has a noisy background; F is blurry; G is not bad, but the text in the background is distracting; H has his hair blended in with the background; I is blurry. Some1 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I know there's a consensus not to use Trump's portrait, but some of these pics are during his presidency. Can't see why the logic behind not using Trump's official portrait doesn't pertain to some pics taken 2-3 years after the official portrait was taken. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Mystery maps

Current popular vote results of the 2024 Democratic presidential primaries

Current results of the 2024 Republican presidential primaries

Are these maps supposed to convey some kind of information? If so, it isn't working. Nosferattus (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Why yes, it is supposed to communicate information: which candidates won which states' popular votes in the primaries. I can see how a lack of a legend makes it hard to determine. I have added legends to the maps. Longestview (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It Feels like the RFK section should come sooner, directly after the republican section finishes.

Also I feel like his picture should be at the top along with Biden and Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.250.115 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It is unquestionable that RFK is performing better than any third party candidate in recent history. Whether that raises to a level where he gets special treatment on the page like a Perot or Anderson is not a simple question because we have election results for those two but not RFK. The consensus is fairly clear that he doesn't get in the infobox at this moment, and I think it reasonably follows that special placement on the page be treated the same. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Standard for adding candidate to the infobox (part...3?)

Shall we adopt the following standard:

"A candidate shall be added to the infobox when they have achieved ballot access (i.e. name on ballot) in states holding 270 electoral votes while holding a polling average of 5% or greater in 3 of the 4 major aggregators: 538, RealClearPolitics, The Hill, and Race to the White House. Once added under this criteria, the candidate shall not be removed unless their average drops below 3% in 3 of the 4 named aggregators."

This is obviously a response to the RFC above, where it is difficult to read any consensus due to there being so many options. I have attempted to find a space that is fairly close to the consensus expressed there while also being specific enough to be enforceable. I want to be clear that this is a compromise position: it may not be exactly what you would choose, but it does offers something tangible to address the concerns of all sides. Please refrain from offering tweaks or edits so we can get a clean read on this proposal (though you can say what you don't like about it if you are opposed). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. I prefer the 10% standard, but can agree to 5% with the understanding that it has to stay at 5%. The 3% gives us an out here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the polling average should have to stay at at least 10%+, considering how unreliable they are at predicting the eventual result. At this stage in 1980 polls were predicting a landslide for Carter, and the same in 1988 for Dukakis. It's far too early and there's every chance his numbers that are already dropping will have fizzled out before November, not forgetting that he's currently nowhere near the criteria for ballot access. GhulamIslam (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether or not a candidate should be included in the infobox should not solely be based on polling, which is notably inconsistent and unreliable, but also based on whether or not RS state that candidates are "major" or not. The majority of RS refer to Kennedy as a minor, although notable, third-party candidate. Kennedy also only has ballot access in a handful of states, so calling him a "major" candidate to be included in the infobox appears premature. BootsED (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Polling is the best we have, if it was completely unreliable peopl wouldn't conduct it. That's why you use polling aggregators, so that the impact of outliers get muted. It's a quantitative, data driven figure. Deciding on someone being "major" or not is subjective. GeorgeMisty (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not decide who is or is not a major candidate. Wikipedia merely states what reliable sources on the topic state. If a majority of reliable sources start to say that Kennedy is a major candidate then the argument for including Kennedy in the infobox is much stronger than it is currently. Currently, reliable sources do not refer to Kennedy as a major candidate in the 2024 election. To ignore the consensus of reliable sources stating that Kennedy is not a major candidate, but to use polling to assert that he is would be original research. The only thing polls can tell us is what he is polling at. The article currently addresses this by stating that "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emerged as the highest-polling third-party presidential candidate since Ross Perot." However, to make the assertion that he is a major candidate deserving to be included in the infobox would be original research as such a claim is not supported by the majority of reliable sources. BootsED (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  In the context of US elections, the word major literally means Democrat and Republican. A third party candidate definitionally cannot be a major candidate. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Would you remove John Anderson from the 1980 election info box then? 2600:1009:B063:F87:650A:DB51:AD7B:F8CB (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  That is not true at all. There are "third parties" that have major party status in various states. Having major party status often entitles a party to have publicly funded primaries, while minor parties under many states' laws are not entitle to have such primaries. For example, the Libertarian Party is legally a major party in the State of Massachusetts with equal standing to the Democratic and Republican parties and is entitled to have a primary. [3] By your definition, User:GreatCaesarsGhost, the Libertarian party candidate would automatically have their candidate in the infobox, since they are a recognized as a major party under united states law.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was a response to the prior comment, and it is necessary to read it in context. I'm arguing that expecting sources to refer to RFK as a "major candidate" is a bad standard because they probably never will use that word no matter how well he does. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I may actually support 3%, due to Cornel West. Lukt64 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning support. I do worry about polling because third party candidates tend to poll much better than they actually do. I would say 8% as the start and 5% as the drop might be better. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:I support including write-in access in the 270 electoral college vote threshold, especially if it is a candidate that is polling relatively high (around 15% nationwide). The polling threshold should be 10% unless we can account for margin of error and/or ballot access, only then it should be 5%. I am not strongly against a 5% threshold though. I also think that a candidate should have to meet the polling threshold (whether that be 5% or 10%) and maintain it. If they fall below the polling threshold consistently for 2 weeks straight in at least 3 of 4 aggregates, they should be removed. They should only be re-added if they poll at the polling threshold (5% or 10%) for 2 weeks straight in at least 3 of 4 aggregates. I feel like that is a better solution to not going back and forth. Nevertheless, I agree that a candidate polling below 3% should be removed regardless. Prcc27 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am okay with the compromise, with the exception of when to remove/re-add candidates. I think what I proposed above is better. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost Support, let's end this fighting on here once and for all. Buildershed (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Nah. That standard should be "Is/was it an an actual three-way race by any reasonable stretch of the imagination"? 270 is just an attempt to put a GO/NOGO number there to save brainwork. But it's just arbitrary and doesn't work. Norman Thomas was on enough ballots to win; Strom Thurmond wasn't. The Prohibition Party used to get itself on ballots in most states IIRC. It doesn't mean much, and the reader won't even know that we're using that standard. And The Hill today has him at 8.4% and falling steadily. Do we keep putting in and taking out the picture as the polls fluctuate.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so putting in three pictures gives the visual signal that this is three-way race, particularly since an infobox is supposed to be for quick get-the-basic-facts scans. But it's not a three-way race. It's a two-way race, with a third guy messing around who is a conspiracy theorist who has never held any office and doesn't seem to have a coherent platform or much money doing a vanity project. He's not going to impact the election significantly. And visually implying otherwise is misleading the reader. Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

5% is the threshold used by literally every Wikipedia page on elections for inclusion in the infobox, including all other presidential election pages (with the exception of getting electoral college votes). So why should this page be any different? The 5% standard is clearly reasonable, since it is what is already in use on every other page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"The 5% standard" is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, in any case, the threshold only applies to actual results, not inconsequential polling numbers. Reliable sources only mention him as a third party outlier in what is essentially a two-way race between Biden and Trump. Gary Johnson got on the ballot in all 50 states and polled over 10% but only got 3% of the actual vote. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The 5% standard is also relevant, because that is the level of support required for a party to win the right to be entitled to publican campaign financing in the next general election. FEC | Public funding of presidential elections XavierGreen (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, "we mislead the reader in a lot of places, so lets do it here too" doesn't win me over.

To be fair, Trump is also a conspiracy theorist who had never held any office. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both of these standards are based on original research when that is not needed here. We have a plethora of reliable sources who declare who and who is not a major candidate. Yeoutie (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Can you explain further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMisty (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • How is a threshold ballot access to 270 votes original research? That is the minimum someone must get to be elected by the electoral college. Without access to 270 votes, it is literally impossible to win.XavierGreen (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

    “Without access to 270 votes, it is literally impossible to win”. No, it is only impossible to win with less than 270+ EVs if there isn’t a contingent election.. Prcc27 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

    Case in point, you have just proven that a 270 threshold is not "original research". I stated above that 270 "is the minimum someone must get to be elected by the electoral college". A contingent election is by house delegations, not the electoral college. My statement is thus still accurate.XavierGreen (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Mnmh, good point. Suppose RFK is only on the ballot in states that total 240 electoral votes. If he wins them all, he will very likely become president (by horsetrading with the party that doesn't control the House to get it to tell its electors to switch to him). That's not going to happen, but neither is him winning outright. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support either at 5% or a modifies 10% mark. If and only if 270 is reached. RFK is at 10.7% currently in the realclearpolitics avg. We'll see if that continues, if it does and he gets to 270, it makes sense to add him. No original research involved, this is public data. Fryedk (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• too non mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B023:4E97:C17A:6D85:8C51:CA24 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Wait check this out: at List of third-party and independent performances in United States presidential elections#Notable performances we have made a list that someone here decided are notable third-party candidates. I see that all the people on this list all meet these criteria:

• Won some states, or
• Got 16% of the popular vote (let's make it 15%), or
• Is a former president and got 10% of the popular vote (this gets Van Buren in).

This seems like a reasonable standard for "was an actually important candidate, so gets a picture". If we want to write something up I'd go for that. (A simple "won a state" criteria emerged at 1948 United States presidential election which I was involved in. Strom Thurmond won some states and got a picture, Henry Wallace didn't and didn't, even though Wallace got many votes as Thurmand and was just as important and notable in various other ways.

Bobby Kennedy is not going to win any states, is not going to get 15% of the vote, and is not Martin van Buren (I hope). I mean we can't know that for a stone fact, but we also can't know if Trump is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. But we do have the brains to figure out the chances are vanishingly small, so why pretend otherwise.

Really we should have a big well-advertised RfC about thi. Its ridiculous that John Anderson has a picture in 1980 United States presidential election. If we going to do that, we should also write "The 1980 American presidential campaign was a three-way race between Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and John Anderson". But we don't do that cos it's not true. So the pictures and article text are telling different stories. That's bad. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the actual List of third-party and independent performances in United States presidential elections#Notable performances page, you would see that the threshold for inclusion there is a mere 1% with a second section for those candidates who received 5% or more. So by your analysis, all candidates polling at 1% or higher should be included, since they qualify for inclusion at the aforementioned page.XavierGreen (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Anderson is moot, because there is a well established consensus that we will add someone who gets 5% of the vote. But this is about what we do pre-election. Everyone accepts that we add the D and R candidates, but we don't have an established reason for WHY, such that we could apply that to other candidates. Some people say we can't use polls, but what else is there? There could be a third party candidate leading in the polls who eventually wins who we do not add. Obviously RFK is not that candidate, but we do need some rationale that fits everyone to be neutral. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Herostratus, where on earth do you get your analysis based on the article? The article has tables that reference candidates above 1% and above 5%. GeorgeMisty (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. I have closely followed the discussion and this is a good compromise position, soundly reasoned. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please reference the Wikipedia 5 percent page to get an understanding of best pratice'. See here: Wikipedia:Five percent rule.

"Several RFCs have established that third party candidates must poll over 5% to be included in an infobox, unless only one candidate polls over 5%, in which case the second-place finisher may be included if determined appropriate by local consensus."

These debates have happened before for prior elections. And in those RFCs, it was deemed that 5% polling was sufficient. GeorgeMisty (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned, the RFCs collated on that misleadingly titled infopage are related to voting results, not pre-election polling. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And that makes sense, Kennedy has not gained 5% of the vote yet, thus he should not be included in the infobox unless he does so. The standard I've seen for pages on upcoming elections, whether it be for state or federal elections, is to include candidates who got 5% or more of the vote in the previous election, and which have filed for a candidate in the upcoming election, which so far includes only the Dems and Reps. But an example of this includes 2024 Indiana gubernatorial election. In 2020, Donald Rainwater got around 10% of the vote in the election, so he's being included on the 2024 page, but will likely be removed if he does not get 5% or more of the vote this november. (This page, 2024 Puerto Rico gubernatorial election, is another example of this). Kennedy should only be included if he wins 5% of the vote, that has been the standard for recent elections now, and for several years now. It seems to me like people only want to change this because it's Kennedy. But that's just my two cents. Talthiel (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. It's good that the part about 270 electoral votes is needed. That will require polling to have some staying power. If the polls remain around 10% or so come late June, then despite any potential polling overestimations, the candidate is certainly likely to over the 5% final result that would be needed post election. Just my thought. MannyMammal (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - What's the current inclusion criteria? These multiple discussions about basically the same topic, is getting confusing. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don’t really have an official inclusion criteria yet. But I think most users would support (or at the very least would be okay with) including a third party candidate that a) has ballot access (excluding write-in status) to 270+ electoral votes, and b) polls consistently at 10%+ (maybe even 5%+) nationwide. The 5%+ threshold already seems to be the de facto consensus for state infoboxes? Although, one could argue there is a valid reason for having a 5% threshold for state infoboxes and 10% threshold for the national infobox. My guess is RFKJR will be added once he has 270+ EVs ballot access and averages 5%+. Hope this answers your question. Anyone disagree with my analysis? Prcc27 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

SCOTUS portraits?

Should Supreme Court Justices portraits be included in the abortion section? I think it is bizarre to have SCOTUS justice portraits in an article about the presidential election. Not to mention, 3 of the 5 justices that overturned Roe were arbitrarily chosen to be included over the other two. I feel like a pic of an abortion protest in front of the SCOTUS building or a map of abortion legality by state would be a better image to have in that section. Portraits should only be for presidential candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that they should be removed. I understand what point the portraits are trying to make with the caption but there is no need to have their pictures. Everything about how Dobbs/abortion is an important issue can be conveyed in prose in that section. Yeoutie (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason only the portraits of Amy Coney Barret, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were chosen instead of all the justices who voted to overturn it was because those three justices who overturned Roe were also appointed by Donald Trump, who is now running for reelection and has taken credit for overturning it. I previously had a map of abortion legality in the states for the section but decided to replace it with an image of the justices as the map was very big and sort of "bled" into the other sections and was visually unappealing. I didn't want to include another protest picture as we have one for the LGBT section. Hope this explains my decision making process. BootsED (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RFKJR Utah infobox?

It looks like RFKJR has been added to many state infoboxes in which he has ballot access. I am not against adding third party candidates to state infoboxes that consistently meet the polling threshold. But should we include a candidate if they were only included and met the threshold in 1 or a few polls? If we do, it could be risky, especially since some polls could be outliers. I think a candidate should have to at least be included in/meet the threshold in 5 state polls before being added to a state’s infobox. Consequently, I feel like he should be excluded from the Utah infobox for now. Prcc27 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Exclude Kennedy, from the Utah's infobox-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Include, if he meets 5% he should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If/when editors do add a third candidate. They should lower the image size in the infobox. That way, the infobox won't be too wide & thus wipe out the written intro. A reduction from 200px to 160px, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)