Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Cornell West candidate box

I think we should remove Cornell West’s candidate box. He is still way below 270 EVs ballot access, and it does not appear that he will hit this threshold anytime soon. Prcc27 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally like Cornel West, but you are likely correct. It is an enormous shame that the U.S. system is not truly democratic, so a proportionate percentage of influence depending on the total number of votes is granted to all of the parties that enter the election, like in many European countries. David A (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Prcc27:, as a third-party candidate, only Kennedy even deserves to be considered for a candidate box. (And it seems like he'll barely finish with 5% due to double-haters dramatically decreasing after Biden dropped out. 15%-> 7% in 2 weeks is insane. A lot of Kennedy's support, of course, was not about him, but because of a strong dislike of both Trump and Biden that many people had. With Harris: that seems to be reduced quite significantly.) KlayCax (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We should keep the Green Party and Libertarian candidates’ candidate boxes. They have 270+ ballot access, and they are relatively mainstream third parties. Prcc27 (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He is included in most polling, so I would keep him there, as he is still a notable candidate. Lukt64 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He is certainly notable enough to get a candidate box, there is a ton of media attention given to him (much more than Oliver). Due weight would argue that he is relevant enough to be included at the level of coverage on the page that he currently is.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should because I think he was notable when he declared his candidacy and switched affiliation twice and he is still notable since he is way more regularly polled than a lot of other less notable candidates Punker85 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but monitor I concur with above that as long as he is 1 of 5 candidates being frequently polled, it should stay. I don't know why they are still polling him, but they are. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

But the threshold for the third party candidates seems to be ballot access.. Seems weird to have one criteria for third party candidates and another for independent candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not exactly accurate. West and RFK got boxes long ago, before they had any access (or the opportunity to get access), on the basis of them being famous people and nominally credible candidates. I don't recall anyone arguing against this (and certainly not convincingly). Removing West now based on his campaign fizzling out is a reasonable suggestion, but it would be acting on vibes rather than any specific rule. But since we are making a decision based on vibes, I could not see the logic in having a box for Oliver and not West, given that pollsters are treating West more seriously. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RFKJR residency

We currently list RFKJR.’s residency as “California”, even though he claims “New York” as his place of residency. How should we handle this? [1][2] Prcc27 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we just omit it? Listing either California or New York without elaboration could be an issue. Is there really much value in listing a candidates declared home state? I'm aware that his running mate is also from California, but the "concern" about them winning the state is a little silly. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It might look a little weird omitting his homestate while leaving everyone else’s homestate, especially in infoboxes. Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump's and Harris' aren't showing in the infoboxes in the candidate section. But if that doesn't work for everyone, I would favor listing New York with a footnote indicating the dispute. GreatCaesarsGhost 10:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, the candidate boxes for third party candidates and Vance do mention the home states. As for the infobox.. this is what it looks like if we leave that field blank. But listing NY with a footnote could work. Prcc27 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I added New York as RFKJR.’s home state, with a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a court rejected Kennedy’s New York residency claim. Should we re-add California as his residency..? [3] Prcc27 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

NBC News: Kennedy resides in California with his wife, actor Cheryl Hines, but in testimony, he said the couple had always intended to move back to New York. This and the AP should be enough to re-add California. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Another Extended Confirmed Edit Request, 13 August 2024

Please change the red link Silver Bulletin to [[Nate_Silver#Post-FiveThirtyEight_career:_since_2023|Silver Bulletin]] or to not be a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McYeee (talk • contribs) 06:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved: I've created Silver Bulletin as a redirect to the target you mentioned. Left guide (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed Edit Request: Please remove {{date}}

Please remove the {{date}} template by undoing [4]. The documentation of that template reads, in part "This template should only be used internally in other templates". McYeee (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for pointing this out. Undone the change. Raladic (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Edit Request

Please do one of the following.

1. Insert "{{cn|date=August 2024}}{{As of?}}" after the last sentence in the section September 10: Harris vs Trump which reads "The two campaigns have not yet agreed to any other debates."
2. Replace the period of that sentence with "as of {{subst:today}}}}.{{cn|date=August 2024}}"
3. Cite the claim and include a date in prose.

McYeee (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Would this count for a citation? "Campaign officials for Vice President Kamala Harris said they would consider debating Donald Trump in Grand Rapids, but first he must demonstrate his willingness to participate in an earlier commitment. Trump, the Republican nominee in the 2024 race for the presidency, last weekend announced on social media his plans to debate his opponent, Harris, on Wednesday, Sept. 25 in Grand Rapids. On his Truth Social account, Trump said the debate would air on NBC and be anchored by Lester Holt. Harris campaign officials, though, said they reached no such deal with Trump or NBC on the debate." The date of the article is August 13th. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That source looks good to me. Please replace the period at the end of that sentence with "as of 13 August. McYeee (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done with some tweaks. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please replace the text inserted above with "As of 14 August." — Preceding unsigned comment added by McYeee (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - nex time, please open a new separate edit request instead of reopening and already addressed one. Raladic (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Frank Luntz ... Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House

Edit ...

Pollster Frank Luntz says ... "I'm going to say this for the first time ... the Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3p8krLZneA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz 67.173.189.1 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is merely an opinion, it therefore does not belong on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pollster Frank Luntz said it again ... the Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/08/14/donald-trump-is-actually-giving-away-this-election-says-pollster-frank-luntz.html 98.46.118.50 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead is not neutral

This lead is not neutral. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but I think that the lead could be more balanced.

The lead mentions a lot about his authoritarian, dehumanizing, and false statements he's made. But this does not happen in Harris' paragraph. It simply states facts about her campaign. And I think it might be irrelevant, given no other political things are said in the lead. I think if you want to mention this, you should just expand the section about policy. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead mentions a lot about his authoritarian, dehumanizing, and false statements he's made. But this does not happen in Harris' paragraph. It simply states facts about her campaign. – that seems a factual and accurate summary of how the campaign has gone so far, though.  Nixinova   T   C   08:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I reinstated it for now, @Nixinova:. I think it should be kept. But perhaps a shorten version could do? KlayCax (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Way shorter. Right now it stands at "Donald Trump's 2024 campaign has been criticized by legal experts, historians, and political scientists for invoking violent rhetoric and authoritarian statements. During the campaign, Trump has repeatedly dehumanized those who he sees as his political enemies, while also repeating false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him, part of a broader election denial movement that has gained popularity among members of the far-right in the United States." Too long. Just maybe say "Trump's campaign has been criticized for its perceived violent and dehumanizing statements against political opponents, and has been accused of authoritarian rhetoric." We don't need to mention 2020, the media really doesn't do that. And we should find something the media criticizes her for too, maybe her Gaza policy. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean that it doesn't talk about her shortcomings. All of this is accurate, but I think it's undue. Sure, the things he says are notable, but they aren't mentioned enough in the media consistently to get multiple sentences in his paragraph. We should just have a big section about the policy debates going on, and mention it there. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the lead is not neutral and this blurb should be removed. It's also true e.g. that Biden-Harris admin oversaw historically high inflation, but that campaign talking point is not appropriate for the lead. TocMan (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I re-added a trimmed version. It seems WP:DUE to mention his authoritarian tone and his legal troubles. Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is good, thank you. Personisinsterest (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of endorsement-related lists

I have started a AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements. Despite the name, it is for all the lists of endorsements, not just Biden (but someone had to be nominated first to start a multi-afd, and Biden was first in the category, so he got to be the one in the name). Opinions are welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Debates are a mess

The debate situation is a mess, and our coverage is starting to reflect that. I think we need to have an open discussion here as events emerge to ensure we are reflecting the facts accurately and avoid edit warring. The actual facts around the debate are very difficult to parse. For example, reliable sources are indicating that Vance agreed to a debate on CBS on October 1. Now we are seeing Vance hedging on that and asking for concessions.[5] GreatCaesarsGhost 17:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2024

Can you please update the Economist column in the Electoral College forecasts table? It says updated August 13, but looks to be out of date to me. VA is a toss-up, for example, on Wikipedia but 83% chance of winning on https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/prediction-model/president/virginia/ 80.6.246.219 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 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. M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Democratic Party

In the section about the Democratic Party, it says that, should Kamala Harris be elected, she would be the second African American president. However, I believe that she is of Jamaican decent, which would make her the second black president, but not the second African American president. I believe an edit should be made to correct this Sutapurachina (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not by individual editors' interpretations of ethnicity. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

To add, "Jamaica is a country where more than 90% of the population is of African ancestry," said Judith Byfield, a professor at Cornell University who teaches Caribbean and African history. "So the idea that because her dad is Jamaican she has no African ancestry is completely false." --Super Goku V (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification, I did not know this Sutapurachina (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Harris portrait

C'mon @Willform, this must be some kind of joke. We reached consensus on Kamala's Vice Presidential portrait being used. Just like how Al Gore, George H. W. Bush, Walter Mondale, and Richard Nixon (1960) all had their official portraits used. If you think a different image should be used please initiate a discussion about it instead of making the decision by yourself to change it. TheFellaVB (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there was a time issue before, so the agreement was reached in an inappropriate way and went in a different direction.

I think it would be fair to allow Trump to use his own portrait even now.

Or at least the next best option is to use option 6 above. This option is the second best for the portrait. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris' picture in the "Democratic nominees" section of this page

Hello.

The image used to represent Kamala Harris in the "Democratic nominees" section of this page has not been properly cropped, and as such makes Harris look too small to Wikipedia visitors.

As such, I request that the top image for Harris will be used in this section as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election#Democratic_nominees

David A (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the intent is to not crop or lightly crop in that section. Compare and contrast with 2020 where you see the majority of the images show the upper body of all of the major party candidates. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant that it is the same photograph, but the top one has cropped away the area above her head, whereas the lower one has not, so I would like us to reuse the top version of the image. David A (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I was just trying to point out what the intent of the section appears to be as it does seem intended to not be a headshot of the candidates. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. No problem. Do you and other Wikipedia editors find it acceptable to use the main photograph there then? David A (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If no one else objects, then feel free to use the cropped versions if you believe it would be an improvement. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. David A (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo

In the section Economic issues, under Campaign issues, in the paragraph beginning with "Trump has proposed," the word "illegal" is misspelt as "illegial" JustSomeGuy4361 (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@JustSomeGuy4361: Fixed, cheers! BD2412 T 02:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Michigan

If anyone still has the stomach for an RFK Jr. infobox issue, can you please go to Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Michigan‎#Kennedy in infobox? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

We’re really going to rehash this? Prcc27 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You're insisting that there is a consensus that doesn't exist, so I guess we have to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think an uninvolved admin should make a close here. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Another forecast for the electoral college

CNN etc. are the most prominent, but here is another to add:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2024/polls.php

It has all the latest polls. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The forecasts all use more than just polling, which Leip does not. That page is just averaging the three most recent polls, so its not really a forecast, just a state-by-state poll aggregator. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to above, the methodology here is really janky. Straight average of 3 most recent polls gives too much weight to outliers. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Biased hate toward Trump

WP:DNFTT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is there paragraphs stating “Trump's campaign has been criticized by legal experts, historians, and political scientists for invoking violent rhetoric and authoritarian statements. During the 2024 campaign, Trump has continued to repeat his false claims” right on the front page where uninformed voters can see and make assumptions yet Harris and Biden’s “deep state rhetoric” or their false claims are not mentioned at all. This is literally the definition of propaganda 2601:804:C201:6DB0:A2:5203:D513:8707 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Because it has been, silly pants. Dhantegge (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC) No, it isn't. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC infobox tally reminder

Hello. Just wanted to remind everyone that there is an active RfC regarding when to add a state’s projected electoral college votes to the infobox. Just reminding everyone in case it was overlooked by some. Prcc27 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr. status

In his announcement, RFK Jr. said he's suspending his campaign, but not 'ending it'. He said he's staying on the ballot in blue states and encouraging his voters to vote for him in those states, but he is withdrawing his name from the ballots in red/battleground states while endorsing Trump and encouraging his voters to vote for Trump in those states.

My question is, should he be considered as a withdrawn candidate or should he still remain on the Independent section like before with a footnote? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So he wants to be a spoiler candidate. Without evidence that he matters enough to be one, we should give him as little placement as possible. Mark him as withdrawn, while acknowledging what ballot access he has. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Keeping him in withdrawn section, but adding like a footnote adding that he's on the ballot on some states/somewhat campaigning as a spoiler candidate in some states? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Since he is actually still on the ballot, he needs to be listed in the Independent section.XavierGreen (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of people are on the ballot/going to be on it. But if he doesn’t even have an active campaign, it seems WP:UNDUE to include him in the independent section. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How is it undue when its reality and news media is giving it attention? It is NPOV to exclude him.XavierGreen (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He is a minor candidate who is dropping out of the race. Why should he be included? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He has sufficient media attention right now. Stop predicting the future. You said he wasn't gonna get close to reaching 270 EVs, yet he did. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel quite vindicated by the fact that he dropped out in August. I said he was not worth the attention and I was right. I see no evidence he got to 270 EVs before, but he certainly doesn't have them now.

And if Wikipedia ran solely by getting sufficient media attention right now, we would be overwhelmed by Kardashians and other pop culture items. I will predict the future again: RFK is not going to sustain todays media attention (you know, when he is dropping out) into November. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You just love going on and on, huh? Lostfan333 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Focus on content not contributor – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I will. Anything for you. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Do it for yourself, because your current behavior could lead to sanctions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize. Lostfan333 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't he trying to be the opposite of a spoiler candidate and exit all races where votes going to him would affect the election? BenDoleman (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But this discussion is getting off topic. Prcc27 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I see As to his electoral future, Kennedy said he would only work to remove his name from ballots in swing states because he wanted to give his to give his supporters in "red states" and "blue states" a chance to vote for him without "harming or helping." Not a spoiler, but not relevant either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He has withdrawn and endorsed someone else. If he starts to actively campaign we can revisit this. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

During the primaries when someone drop outs, it's said they've suspended their campaign. So, not much difference here. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

add 1 word

i can't edit but i think we should add the term "new" to: along with his "new" running mate, Ohio senator JD Vance. Avy falk (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Trump infobox

Regarding RfC: Trump infobox photo Existing agreement on Can you post a link? About 50 numbers of existing discussions and agreements regarding President "Donald Trump" are summarized and there is a direct link at the top of the talk page. However, it is said that there has been an existing agreement on this content - photo, but since there are many archived topics, can you post this at the top of this talk page or here in this talk page? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I did not receive a response to my inquiry, I looked it up and found that an agreement was reached in March of this year. Below is the information. ref link Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7

In summary, a total of 9 people voted, 6 in favor, 3 strongly or slightly opposed, and the agreement was reached in March of this year, 2024.

The basis for the agreement is that 1) in the past, in the case of photos from the US presidential election that were more than 5 years ago, they were required to change them to new photos and participate in the election, and now 2) since voters may be concerned about President Trump's age, it was said that in order to allay concerns about this, it would be reasonable to use photos from the past 3 years.

Since the above agreement seems reasonable to me, it would be difficult to reverse the agreement and reuse the photos that were officially designated 7 years ago, and I suggest that you upload 3 or fewer photos from the past 3 years and proceed with the vote while reducing the options until more than half of the users who participated in the vote agree

Especially for the 7-year-old photo, when doing a new RfC, you should summarize the reasons why the existing users above agreed to the above and inform the users that the option should not be selected for the 7-year-old photo. It seems that an agreement will be reached if you inform them of the reason.

Although the current photo has an arrogant expression, the good thing is that it has a smiling expression, is confident, and looks young for its age. However, the head angle and expression are strange, so I think it should be changed to give a positive and friendly image.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Texas Swing state?

I know that currently the community is talking about North Carolina but Texas should be looked at again new polls show consistently that Harris is down 2-5 points from trump John Bois (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems WP:UNDUE, we would first need mounds of reliable sources which show that Texas is a swing state. It is original research for us to base it on solely on polling. Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Does no one understand what the term swing state means? It is not a "close state." It's a state that "swings" from party to party. North Carolina has gone for the Democratic candidate once in the last 10 elections, and then by 1/3 of one percent. Texas has gone red ELEVEN straight times. There is no swinging! GreatCaesarsGhost 14:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

And Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have gone red only once in my lifetime. So if North Carolina isn’t a swing state, neither are those rust belt states. At the very least, MI, PA, NC, and WI are “battleground” states. Prcc27 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think your age is a particular relevant data point, except perhaps to explain how you could think this argument holds water. North Carolina went blue 16 years ago in an election where the Democrat won by 7%. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin went red 8 years ago in an election where the Republican lost. And not just any Republican - the same one who is running this year. In any case, Texas has never gone blue in your lifetime, so I'm not sure what your point is. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We’re just gonna have to follow the sources. We say NC is a swing state, because that’s what the sources say. If the sources ever say Texas is a swing state (which I doubt they will for this election cycle), we should too. Prcc27 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. However, swing state and battleground state are now used interchangeably. North Carolina is a swing state. Texas is not. Yavneh (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets.

Hello all. I would appreciate all of your input here, about possible sock puppetry being done in these RfCs: [6][7]. Your insight is very much appreciated. Prcc27 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

I don't know why someone who always thinks the same is accused of being a sock puppet. You can't just accuse without evidence. What if they always read Wikipedia and find my proposal? Why should someone who thinks the same be accused of being a sock puppet? Why would you do that to me? Teknologi Positif (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I'm shocked because I just proposed a photo about Trump and there are people who think the same but you accuse me of being a sock puppet. Teknologi Positif (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC) This talk page is not the place for you to defend yourself. Please only add comments on the matter to the sockpuppet investigation page. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I have no problem with anyone else. It's just that I'm confused when I submit a proposal for a new Trump photo and there are people who have the same opinion as me, I am accused of using a sock puppet. Maybe I shouldn't submit a proposal for a new Trump photo anymore. I know you are a Democrat, but I ask that you have good intentions towards me. I am actually an Independent and not affiliated with any party. That's why I submitted a proposal for a new Trump photo with a smiling face to be on par with Harris's photo which is also smiling. But if you want to silence my opinion and accuse me, I am willing and sincere. Teknologi Positif (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

"Bobby"

Trump calls RFK Jr "Bobby". He is NOT Bobby. And we should not call him "Bobby" in the article. He is nothing like the real Bobby. The real Bobby was a hero to many Americans. He was immediately favored to win the 1968 election. I was 21 and ready to vote. But for an assassin bullet, America and the World would be different. Most likely BETTER but at the least different. As the Family says, "This is a travesty". We should not sanction a travesty. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• This thread may be a tad early since "Bobby" is not yet mentioned in the article. But should he be, we should only use Robert Kennedy JR. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making such decisions, based on emotions. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If sources cover Trump calling him Bobby, then it might be suitable for inclusion, especially as a comparison to JFK. Even then though, it should be brief here as this is more focused on the election overall. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no comparison. Even his family never calls him Bobby. It's a Trump gimmick. I'm just saying...His name is Robert Kennedy Jr. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources make a comparison, then we could consider it for inclusion. As it stands, reliable sources only seem to be quoting Trump and members of the Kennedy family when using the word Bobby with regards to Kennedy Jr and not actually using it outside of those quotes. So there is no reason to add presently. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This section does seem premature and unnecessary. Why are we worried about a problem that hasn’t even happened yet? We should use the common name of an individual. Prcc27 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I know. It is premature. I was just so upset (Yes emotional) when I heard Trump call him by my hero's name. Do any of you young whipersnappers have a hero that died to soon, whose life would have changed the direction of your country? A hero whose name is being scorned by mis-application. I am a veteran editor that does not do social media. I come to Wikipedia to communicate with fellow editors. I hope you will excuse my humanness. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood, but please remember WP:NOTAFORUM. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump photo as of 27 Aug 2024

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

---

I would like to suggest the final image to change on the profile photo based on three options from other Wikipedia users. Please give me your opinion on this. I propose that the RfC voting start on Tuesday, August 27, 2024. For election 2024 photo, The existing 2017 official profile picture has been agreed to be changed in March 2024 for the following reasons, so it is excluded from the options.

the previous agreement of profile photo was reached in March of this year 2024. this is the information. *ref link Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7

In summary, a total of 9 people voted, 6 in favor, 3 strongly or slightly opposed, and the agreement was reached in March of this year, 2024.

The basis for the agreement is that 1) in the past, in the case of photos from the US presidential election that were more than 5 years ago, they were required to change them to new photos and participate in the election, and now 2) since voters may be concerned about President Trump's age, it was said that in order to allay concerns about this, it would be reasonable to use photos from the past 3 years.

(option:1) Trump's current photo. (Opinion) Trump's head angle is awkward and his expression looks arrogant. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15)

(option:2) Trump's updated photo-2.(Comment) Trump's bright and friendly facial expression, and the photo was taken within the last 3 years. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15)

(option:3) Trump's updated photo-3.(Comment) Trump's bright and friendly facial expression, and the photo was taken within the last 3 years. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15)

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

RFC on inclusion of RFK Jr into the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion obsolete now that Kennedy has dropped out. Nojus R (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Now, I would like to specify some things.Firstly, there is ongoing debate on whether he qualifies for the info box based on previous Rfcs, which mainly states from my observation that he needs to: A. Poll consistently above 5% B. Be eligible for 270+ electoral votes Today he qualified for B with Texas certifying him for the ballot, but he has dropped in some polls to just below 5%. Knowing these things, can we say that he qualifies or not? Do you think: ✅Aye: he does qualify for the infobox ❌Nay: He does not. Leave your comments for why so and elaborate on it. The specifics for what the info box will look like will be seperate. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment The RFC does not say "Poll consistently above 5%"; it specifically mentions "generally." The agreed upon criteria were: "Criterion #1a: A candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)" and "Criterion #6: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and meets criteria #1a, #1b, or #1c." See here for the RFC:[8] David O. Johnson (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson Ah, thx. Also leave your opinion on inclusion of him in the infobox Jayson (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jayson Aye

To comment on the polling, there are a lot of issues going on with the polling at the moment and we shouldn't take them for granted. Many of the polls, which are also being listed in the aggregators, that include Kennedy and third party candidates didn't include them as separate options for the respondents but rather as something to put in under "Other". Some polls will make this easy by labeling it as (VOL) for voluntary. YouGov doesn't do this to point out but they do have the option "Other" and list only Trump and Harris. Compared to appearing on the ballot as an option, this is equivalent to a Write-in which unless you are Joe Biden in New Hampshire earlier this year, you will barely get many votes.

TLDR, many polls will portray their results like they gave Kennedy, West, etc equal chance to Trump and Harris but when in reality, made people have to write them in.

For accuracy's sake, we should only include polls that we know provide the other candidates their own option to the respondents. Buildershed (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/evidence-Tl3Mr6u to back my claims up Buildershed (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand how aggregates work, and I am not going to explain it again. Prcc27 (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 I have read what you said already. Buildershed (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, this just furthers the fact that he's not considered as major of a candidate as Harris or Trump, and thus is evidence against including him in the infobox. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Unknown-Tree 2%-4% as a write-in? Buildershed (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

My point was that he's not being considered a major candidate. He's not considered on the same level as Harris or Trump, but rather on the same level as West, Stein, and others, which aren't being included in the infobox. I also don't think he'd be much higher if he was in the polls. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's a nay from me. A fairly low-polling candidate/undue weight. His polls don't look much different from the other third party candidates running now. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is simply not true, West, Stein and Oliver are not getting polls in the 5% range.XavierGreen (talk) XavierGreen (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Massive Aye from me. Sure, Kennedy has dropped in the polls but he has now reached 270+ EV, so I say it's time. No excuses. Lostfan333 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Aye -Once he is Consistently polling lower than 5%, then it's a done deal. InterDoesWiki (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He already is. Of the last 5 polls in a five-way matchup, 3 of them are below 5% and 1 of them is exactly at 5%. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your vote doesn't make sense. You say AYE to include but only if his polling is below 5%? GreatCaesarsGhost 20:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure he actually has the 270. Do we have a source? I see some people pointing to the RFK WP page, but several of the references there are iffy. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

❌Nay The average of the five aggregators is under 5%. 2 of 5 are below, and the numbers are falling. While "generally above 5%" is open to interpretation, I would also ask everyone to read the prior discussion. Most of the people supporting 5% were conflating polling with results, and made no comment recognizing that partial ballot access would reduce this number. In any case, there is a generalized consensus to add him if appears to be a serious factor, expressed by some combination of ballot access, polling, and news coverage. While ballot access is expanded, the polling has fallen by more than half and the news coverage is exclusively laughing at him. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, the access count is now 260, as IA, PA and LA do not have independent confirmation and we cannot ascertain with certainty what the primary sources say. If he is still at 5% in 3 out of 5 when he gets to 270, I would support interpreting that as meeting the qualification of the prior RfC's consensus. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I am open to waiting for better sources for IA, PA, and LA. But even then, it looks like some people just don’t want to add RFKJR no matter what. Prcc27 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I imagine you could ask an uninvolved admin if it came to that. I would suggest that the prior RfC still stands as consensus, and this one does not overrule it as it only asks "should we add him at this moment?" and much of the resistance is questioning whether he actually meets the standard of the prior RfC, rather than seeking to subvert it. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment. The previous RfC's outcome suggested general polling above 5% in major polling aggregators (mentioned 538, RCP) and 270 EV ballot access. He has reached this threshold with 538 and RCP, but not in The Hill. He generally meets that criteria. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If the new threshold though is consistently polls above 5%, then Nay. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no "new" threshold. The RFC result was about polling aggregators, not polls themselves.XavierGreen (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the recent polls show that RFK under 5% in state polls. There have not been a lot of polls lately that show him at all. the ones that do include him usually have him hovering above 5%. But it also brings up the point of when polls expire. Because he has polled as high as 21% albeit it was likely an outlier and against Biden. He has met the criteria that was outlined. It makes little sense to change it now. I say Yay to include him. 2601:243:2401:15A0:F497:92DF:61D6:E25D (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. RFK should be included on the infobox because the precedent is that third-party candidates get on the infobox. We see this with elections just about every country aside from the USA, with candidates much less likely to win their elections than RFK Jr. All previous doubts as to if RFK will be able to get 270 EVs have been silenced and his polling generally shows him above 5%. The idea that he shouldn't be included flies in the face of all precedent outside of the USA, and the idea that he shouldn't be included because he is unlikely to win or that some think he is unlikely to cross 5% is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is not up to Wikipedia to judge candidates' chances of winning. RFK is a national candidate with the best polling for a third-party candidate since Ross Perot, therefore it is clear that he should be included. Frankly, I fail to even see the need for discussion on this issue. Collorizador (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

All previous doubts as to if RFK will be able to get 270 EVs have been silenced Have you read any posts on this page? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

RFK is certified for 293 electoral votes, with 209 awaiting certifiaction.[9] Collorizador (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia-made image is not a reliable source. Looking at a few states, I see discrepancies. Like a PA legal challenge for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. We do not know what the legal challenge will bring. Biden was included in the Ohio infobox despite potential legal trouble as well. Collorizador (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't know what the challenge(s) will bring. Therefore we should be defaulting to exclusion, not inclusion, until it's sorted out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why was Biden kept in the Ohio infobox then despite the potential legal trouble there, then? Collorizador (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They had a workaround. RFK ballot challenges are different from the Ohio situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

AYE, Kennedy has enough electoral votes and generally polls above five percent. I see a lot of people commenting here, I respect their opinions, but we must also respect the rules. Fact is, most Americans know about Kennedy and a decent chunk support him. He will impact the election moreso than most other third-parry candidates and therefore should be included. 2600:6C83:1E00:24:773C:C1A1:3DEC:1D20 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Nay. He just doesn't have the polling anymore, and no RS has actually reported that he has actually achieved 270; to say he has is WP:SYNTH. In my view, he doesn't meet either criteria, let alone both. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, FiveThirtyEight has him at 5.1% and he's been falling. If they go below 5%, a majority of aggregators will be below 5%, in which case there's really no defense to putting him in; if we add him now, it's likely we'd have to remove him in a couple of days. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

By stating he is at 5.1%, you are admitting that he has met the critera to be included in the last RFC and your edits removing him from the infobox are therefore disruptive by your own admission.XavierGreen (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please modulate yourself and AGF. The editor did not say "he is at 5.1%" he said "FiveThirtyEight has him at 5.1%" which does not meet the criteria of the RfC. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant now, isn’t it? Yavneh (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is this discussion labeled an RFC? It hasn't been tagged as such. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay Sorry, its my first. Jayson (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is already an ongoing discussion regarding this above as well. He clearly meets the inclusion criteria, as he has at least 270 ballot access and is above 5% in a majority of polling aggregators as stated on the page itself.XavierGreen (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He does not have "access" to 270 EV. The Hill says 174 confirmed. Why do we have to continue to beat this dead horse? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I can already spot a few inaccuracies. For one, the Texas AG certified him for the ballot. Let me go look for some more. Jayson (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Jayson, the 174 confirmed includes TX. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Oof my bad XD Jayson (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The Hill's chart is not a reliable source. For example, it says that NJ is not "confirmed", however the NJ Secretary of State (who has the final say on ballot access in NJ) has stated that RFK, Jr. is on the ballot in New Jersey. See here [10].XavierGreen (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@XavierGreen Also California. The state Independent American Party, which has ballot access last I checked, nominated Kennedy for the ballot. Jayson (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:THEHILL is reliable. Where's your source for "he has at least 270 ballot access" XavierGreen? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The Hill's chart is not reliable. Another example, as another user stated is California where the AIP has nominated RFK, Jr. The AIP has ballot access in California. The Hill seems to be excluding states where RFK, Jr. is on the ballot via nomination by pre-existing third parties. See here [11]. NYT has him "confirmed" in California see here [12].XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

NYT appears to give RFK fewer states than The Hill. We can't engage in WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A summary of reliable sources does not violate Wiki SYNTH. See [13]. The ballot access page itself provides reliable sources for each state that shows he has access to more than 270 electoral college votes.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It's SYNTH and an overreliance on WP:PRIMARY sources that are not taking into account ongoing legal challenges. Like PA for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That lawsuit in PA was literally just filed. The new jersey lawsuit ended, Scott Salmon's case was defeated. Other than the PA lawsuit, the ballot access page actual does note where RFK, Jr.'s petitions have been challenged. Excluding PA, RFK, Jr. is at 274 electoral college vote access.XavierGreen (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be WP:SYNTH if we said “RFKJR has ballot access to a majority of Electoral Votes” in the article. However, if it is clear to us as editors that he has sufficient ballot access, we should at least consider including him in the infobox. Most of the readers probably don’t even know that ballot access is a criterion for the infobox. And we are not directly making that claim to the readers if we include him in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, states that RFK, Jr. has access to more than 270 electoral college votes. See the comment section of his post here [14]XavierGreen (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

❌Nay: As other editors have pointed out, the average of the five aggregators is under 5%. From The Keys to the White House: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been polling at between 2% and 12%. Lichtman's criteria is that a third party candidate is required to poll at an average of 10% or more consistently to turn the key false: as of August 5, 2024, Kennedy's polling aggregate average in a three candidate race is 4.2%.
Key 4 is turned false when a single third party candidate consistently polls at 10% or more, indicating they are likely to receive 5% or more of the national popular vote: third party candidates typically underperform their polling by around half, with Lichtman saying they tend to fade in the voting booth as voters focus on the major party candidates.
There's also the question: Do news sources treat him as a major candidate? No, his candidacy is no longer covered seriously. Articles about him now read like The Onion, e.g., a worm ate part of his brain, he buried a bear cub in Central Park. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The keys to the white house is absolutely not a criterion for inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is, but his point that third party candidates typically underperform their polling by around half is true and not being considered by users pushing this "5% rule." GhulamIslam (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The 5% rule was already adopted in the past RFC on this page, and site wide for all elections pages.XavierGreen (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The "5% rule" refers to votes, not polls. The polling 5% standard adopted at this page is explicitly NOT site wide, but only for this page. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

✅Aye, he is in the conversation in an impactful way that exceeds the typical situation for third-party candidates. BD2412 T 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No - He's not a major candidate & we shouldn't be pushing that he is. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You supported the ballot access and polling criteria at the RfC. Why the change of heart..? Many users feel like the goalposts are being moved. Prcc27 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They supported the BA, but did not comment on the polling. Which is part of the issue with trying to consider so many hypotheticals simultaneously; you don't even consider the guy polling at 18 is going to drop to 4. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not he is considered by you personally to be a "major candidate" is not relevant or NPOV. The prior RFC established a consensus that any candidate that has ballot access to 270 polls and is "generally" getting 5% in polling aggregators must be included in the page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And for the millionth time, he doesn't have ballot access to 270. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

❌Nay and whoever added him to the article mid-discussion should remove him themselves to prevent edit warring over this. He's dipped down to 3-4% in most aggregates, so this is an odd time to add him per the 5% threshold. Right now he's looking more like a 2016 Gary Johnson than a 1992 Ross Perot. That said, maybe after the election, if a significant number of outlets report that he had a substantial impact on the election, we can revisit the 5% threshold and maybe think of some exceptions to it. I'm of the belief that Ralph Nader should be on the 2000 election page in spite of his low vote percent because it's widely believed he had a substantial influence on the election, so some tweaking to our criteria could be warranted. But for now, no. The 5% threshold is what we use today, and RFK Jr is struggling to meet it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

also, as many others pointed out, the claim that enough states have put him on the ballot for him to have access to 270 ECVs is very questionable. The source appears to be a bunch of individual sources (some less reliable than others) about access in individual states all WP:SYNTH'd together to demonstrate that he's made it to 270, as opposed to any single reliable outlet reporting this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ballot Access News states he has exceeded 270 2600:1001:B121:9267:40FB:4D4D:2CF7:9184 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ballot Access News is a WordPress website with one or two writers. I personally would prefer a more notable source say it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Exclude, it’s unclear whether he meets the criteria of the last RFC. Even if he does, the difficulty we are having applying those criteria illustrates the problem with them. They should be abandoned, and we should treat this by assessing whether reliable sources consider him to be an important enough element of this race that we should include his face next to the other two people. —JFHutson (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

538 is now <5% as are all other 3-way aggregators and 3/5 overall. I think this conversation is moot? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

For now maybe. But polls can shift. Prcc27 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They can, but the trend so far seems to be that Kennedy is trending down in polling. I personally doubt he will trend back up in any meaningful capacity. Talthiel (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Knew this was gonna happen; mentioned it above earlier. I really don't see how he could be added now, as he unambiguously fails to meet the criteria. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost

5 way aggregators have him above 5% still. Buildershed (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Only 2 aggregators do 5-way aggregation, the majority do 3-way; there are more aggregators below 5% for him than above. The original RfC does not say "if one aggregator has the candidate above 5%", aggregators need to generally have him above the threshold. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Not anymore.. 538 has him at 5% again. If you average all 5 aggregates he is at 5.48%. As for ballot access? We currently have him at 333 Electoral Votes at the third party article. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

All 6 aggregators now have him below 5%. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: Kennedy has been barred from the New York ballot which could lead to further challenges in states where he used the same address. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rfk-jr-disqualified-from-new-york-ballot-used-sham-address-residency-judge-rules https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jlgyzzyz4o GhulamIslam (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Could, but Crystal until it happens. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Include or be consistent with the state pages. It's weird that he is included on the majority of individual state pages, but not the national page. Fryedk (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fryedk, which ones? I agree it should be consistent, meaning excluding him from individual state pages as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• This CBS News article[15] from Wednesday gives RFK Alaska, California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. The NYT[16] adds Hawai'i, Maine and New Jersey, and The Hill [17] adds Florida. That is reliable secondary confirmation of 279 votes with Delaware and Nevada to spare. I don't believe we have the 5%, though. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, Kennedy has now reached 270+ Electoral Votes, but there's a certain someone who continues to deny this. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu doesn't want to add Kennedy pre-election because he will not be there post-election, which is quite logical. However, consensus was clear that there should be some measure by which he can get in before. I advocated for a more "vibes" approach to this, which I think would serve us better now. RFK is limping towards the RFC standard when it's plain as day the bulk of his polling numbers are rounding errors and bad methodology. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Lostfan333 (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Moratorium until November 5

IMHO, we should have a moratorium in place concerning inclusion/exclusion in the top infobox, until November 5, 2024. These constant attempts to add Kennedy/Shanahan into the infobox, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay No. It would make sense to include major candidates in the infobox, and right now he should be treated as such. Jayson (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A moratorium is only viable is RFK is included. Collorizador (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur that a moratorium should only be imposed if RFK is included, because he clearly meets the inclusion criteria set forth by the last RFC.XavierGreen (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The moratorium GoodDay is referring to is a moratorium on this disruptive WP:IDHT push to include RFK in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What's disruptive is the constant anti-RFK POV-pushing. There is no sensible argument to keep RFK out of the infobox. Therefore, no moratorium should take places unless RFK is in the infobox. Collorizador (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sensible arguments: third party candidates always underperform their polling, he does not appear to be getting access to 270 EVs, and it's a two party system whether we like it or not. There you go. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter if third party candidates usually underperform polls. That is borderline WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, I argued for a 10% threshold, but the consensus was for 5%, so the time to argue 5% is too low is over. We are not “pushing” to include RFKJR. He met the RfC criteria, so now we add him to the infobox. We will survive having him in the infobox. FYI, in 2016 we had several third party candidates in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Attempting to enforce the results of the RFC that established the inclusion criteria is not disruptive. Attempting to keep RFK Jr. out of the infobox, when he meets the inclusion critera is disruptive.XavierGreen (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@XavierGreen Let the fool in the infobox and let him in now! ✅️Aye is final for me Jayson (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Not meant to be directed at you sry Jayson (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So if RFK Jr. drops below 5% in just one other polling aggregator, he should be kept? This moratorium is just an attempt to keep him in the infobox until the election, which makes no sense as he is not truly considered a major candidate anymore. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It makes no sense to add him at all. Unfriendnow (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the overwhelming consensus is to include Kennedy. Someone add him to the infobox. -Jayson (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no overwhelming consensus to do that. So, let's not add him. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Are we really going to drag our feet with this? He meets the polling criterion. As for the ballot access criterion.. it looks like he meets that as well. The reliable sources seem to be doing a terrible job updating their ballot access maps. If that is the reason we are excluding him, maybe the ballot access criterion was a bad idea after all. We already had an RfC and I don’t understand why we are moving the goalposts. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you!! Kennedy has now met the Criteria for inclusion. Trying to find excuses to keep him off for longer is wrong. Again, the Criteria has been met!! Massive Aye Lostfan333 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That whole RFC was a joke. You can't list 8 different options, have a combination of two of them get ~ 15% support and call it consensus. You are right about the ballot access in particular being a problem, but we also have the issue of what "generally" means. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the people supporting 5% were conflating polling with results, and made no comment recognizing that partial ballot access would reduce this number. He also does not appear to be getting access to 270 EVs. Adding him is ridiculous and unnecessary. Especially considering in the same time period, there have been 6 polls that show him below 5%.

He also is simply not a major candidate like the other two as many people and news organizations have pointed out. Unfriendnow (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I supported 10% for this exact reason. Partial ballot access makes it that much harder to get 5% post-election, and I did in fact make that argument at the RfC. Nevertheless, I was out-!voted, so we should stick with the consensus we came up with which is 5%+ polling average. RFKJR meets that threshold. Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Of the last 5 polls in a five-way matchup, 3 of them are below 5% and 1 of them is exactly at 5%. Other polls show him below 5%. Adding him now to the infobox when he hasn't been consistency above 5% is ridiculous. It would make sense to add him if he was above that number in general but he isn't, If polling aggregators tomorrow or the following week show him below 3% are we then going to have to take him out of the Infobox? are we going to have to check the polling aggregators every hour??? this all seems so unnecessary especially since his polling numbers are consistently going down ever since Kamala has became the Democratic Party's nominee.   Unfriendnow (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. We already agreed on using polling aggregates. Individual polls are useless. Prcc27 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ/The Hill as of August 9th has him at 3.4% (yesterday it was 3.8), Silver Bulletin as of August 9th has him at 4.1% (yesterday it was 4.5), and 538 has him barely above 5%. If they go below 5%, most aggregators will also fall below 5%, so adding him now will probably require removing him in a few days. In that scenario, there's really no reason to add him. Adding him to the infobox because only one polling says he is barely above 5% is simply illogical. Unfriendnow (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Silver Bulletin being a major aggregate is debateable. Prcc27 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Nate Silver basically created the industry. RCP doesn't even weight polls. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Point of order I don't believe the suggested moratorium would be remotely enforceable. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this is most likely unenforceable as it's essentially asking us to keep a status quo until election day, regardless of discussion and regardless of polling. Polling which, just as a reminder to all the people asking that he be included, absolutely does not support his inclusion right now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be consistent? Why is he on the Michigan page? It's not like he has some huge support of Michiganders, he's at 5% there. 66.181.65.62 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed previously, and the consensus supported adding to the state boxes when the candidate had ballot access and 5% in the aggregators for that state. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• In any case, it seems that he is planning to drop out and endorse Trump, which is likely to make all this moot. If that happens, do we go through and remove him from the various state-level pages where he's listed? --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Probably. Prcc27 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  If he drops out, then we remove him from any infoboxes that indicate actual candidates in the election, and drop a note on the respective pages about his failed candidacy and how he was polling in the respective states before his withdrawal. BD2412 T 20:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand it's done. At least that settles the infobox issues. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Suggestions on improving and updating the article (23 August 2024)

1.) Move Robert Kennedy Jr. to the "Withdrawn candidates" section (adding reliable sources):

example (of article section look):
Withdrawn candidates
The following notable individual(s) announced and then suspended their campaigns before the election:

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr., environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist, previously Democratic primaries candidate launching an independent campaign (endoresed Trump)
• Kanye West, rapper, candidate for president in 2020

  ---

  
  

2.) Move the information about Cornel West's candidacy to the new section named "Independent candidates" , considering that the candidate does not have more significant ballot access than the other candidates listed in "Other Independent candidates" section.

example (of the new section look):
Independent candidates
The following notable individuals are running independently for president.

• Cornel West, academic, left-leaning and anti-war activist and public intellectual, previously Green Party primaries candidate launching an independent campaign
• Shiva Ayyadurai, entrepreneur, and anti-vaccine activist; candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in 2018 and 2020
• Johnny Buss, part-owner and vice president of strategic development of the Los Angeles Lakers
• Joseph "Afroman" Foreman, rapper
• Taylor Marshall, podcaster and author

  ---

  
  

3.) Restore the available photo under Green vice-presidential candidate Ware (available as: File:Dr. Dutch Bilal Ware wisdom (cropped).jpg) at the Green Party campaign information box. --Dav988, 20:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear whether that image is freely-licensed; see [18]. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

On Cornel West, there was a previous discussion on should his nominee table be removed (which would likely put him instead in the other independents list if the consensus was to removed his table) but no clear consensus came out of it Punker85 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

2 - I agree with your suggestion on Cornel West - if he is still short of 270, he should not get a box. That is WP:Undue weight for a candidate with a polling average of 0.6% Superb Owl (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

2 - West/Abdullah currently aren't able to win 270 EV. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that Cornel West nominee table should not be removed because I think he is notable enough of a candidate to have his own table, like many news organizations (The New York Times, NBC News, CNN, The Hill, The Guardian, Reuters) mention him in their list of presidential candidates, which I think is a sign of his notability Punker85 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

RfC: Trump infobox photo from August

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close. Per F4U, “please do not open new RFCs on the lede image while one is currently ongoing.” (non-admin closure) Prcc27 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Official Portrait October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06)

In March 2024, there was an agreement in the information box of this article not to use the official 2017 Trump presidential portrait (right). There are two reasons for this: 1) There is a history of the president using a new photo for elections when he ran for president. 2) Concerns about the president's age can be addressed by using a recent photo (e.g., the last 3-5 years).

• In addition, in July 2024, we asked for opinions on using the official 2017 Trump presidential portrait, but we did not reach consensus by a 50:50 agreement.

• In the meantime, through several RfCs, it was said that the current temporary photo (Option 1) could be seen as an arrogant expression, so we propose a photo that was taken within the last 3 years and is closest to the official 2017 Trump presidential portrait.

• These two photos can be balanced by giving voters a friendly look, like the photo of Harris, with her teeth showing and smiling friendly.
• Please kindly let us know your opinion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternative Options

• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 1)
• 
  July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) (Option 2)
• 
  October 10, 2023 (2023-10-10) (Option 3)

Goodtiming8871, your new RfC appears to be based on an involved closure I had to revert for now, until someone uninvolved finds the time to close the discussion. It may thus be reasonable to remove this RfC (and my reply here) for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree, let me message you to your talk page for the next RfC process Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 and 3 look absolutely insane. They invoke a body snatcher in a human suit making its first failed attempt to mimic human expression. Option 1 is fine, as is the official. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC: Trump photo part 2

Blocked sockpuppet ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Procedural close. Please do not open new RFCs on the lede image while one is currently ongoing. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Trump's current photo. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) My new proposed photo of Trump. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) Harris's current photo. March 5, 2021 (2021-03-05) Excuse me, This is the latest photo of Trump that I proposed because when I saw the photo of Trump that I proposed previously, many people thought that the background of the photo was strange, the tie was yellow, and the face was arrogant because he was not smiling. Therefore, I propose this new photo of Trump which has an upright body and a straight head. In addition, the photo of Trump that I proposed has a smiling face and his teeth are visible which is very fitting when juxtaposed with the photo of Harris who is also smiling and her teeth are visible. Then the photo that I proposed also has a background that is not strange and uses a red tie. For the problem of Trump's face looking old, of course because Trump is currently 78 years old. So I hope that the photo of Trump that I proposed will be used in the Wikipedia article. Thank you. Teknologi Positif (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Support I agree with everything you said. I support the photo of Donald Trump that you suggested. Moreover, this photo also fits well when juxtaposed with the photo of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 114.10.45.169 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you for supporting my proposal. Teknologi Positif (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Support I think the photo you proposed fits all the criteria such as wearing a red tie, head held high, body straight, smiling face and showing teeth. So the photo of Trump you proposed is very good when juxtaposed with the photos of Kennedy Jr. and Harris. Besides that I also agree with everything you said. GBUDJT (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Support Thank you for supporting my proposal. Of course, the photo of Trump that I proposed has the main criteria such as wearing a red tie and a smiling face with visible teeth. And it is very good when juxtaposed with photos of other politicians such as Biden. Then one of the important factors is a straight head and a straight body. Teknologi Positif (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose - Procedural We now have three RfCs running concurrently to decide the image, two of them started by the same user. I don't care too much about what image ends up being used, but do care that we might end up with multiple conflicting closures due to excessive RfCs started after the main one. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Procedural oppose: and I suspect the three users above that support this may be sockpuppets. Prcc27 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Trump photo

Sockpuppet blocked. Prcc27 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. RfC created in bad faith by sockpuppet. There is already an active RfC on the matter above. (non-admin closure) Prcc27 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Trump's current photo. July 15, 2023 (2023-07-15) My proposed photo of Trump. June 6, 2024 (2024-06-06) Oliver's current photo. July 13, 2024 (2024-07-13) I want to ask, do you agree if Trump's current photo is replaced with the Trump photo that I proposed above? In my opinion, this Trump photo is better and straighter. In addition, in my opinion, this Trump photo is the best photo in 2024 so this is also a new photo. Regarding the photo that is not smiling, I think it doesn't matter because Chase Oliver also has a photo that is not smiling or showing teeth. In addition, what I like about this photo is that Trump looks fresher and more pleasing to the eye like Chase Oliver's photo. Do you agree if Trump's current photo is replaced with the photo I proposed? Teknologi Positif (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Support I think the photo you proposed is very good. In addition, there are many photos of former US presidents who are not smiling or showing their teeth. Not only Chase Oliver, Cornel West also has a photo that is not smiling and does not show his teeth. Then the photo of Trump that you proposed also looks fresher and straighter. 114.10.45.216 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Support I would like to add a comment that the photo I proposed has also been used for a long time by several other language Wikipedias. So I hope that English language Wikipedia will also use the photo I proposed. Thank you. Teknologi Positif (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Support - The Yellow Tie is a bit off-putting but other than that, it's a very well option, and his points do make sense, and it's league's better then the current image. InterDoesWiki (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Regarding the issue, I have opened RfC: Trump photo part 2. But unfortunately it was closed. I hope RfC: Trump photo part 2 will be reopened. Thank you. Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Support The photos you proposed are very nice. I 100% support your proposal. Because the photo you proposed looks straighter and more balanced. Regarding the tie color, I don't think it's too big of a problem because the photo of Tim Walz himself wearing a brown tie is still displayed in the article without any problems. 114.10.45.216 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Note: this is a redundant !vote. IP already !voted above. Prcc27 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC) True, actually I don't see why the picture proposed in this RFC Is just one of thr options in the Trump image RFC. InterDoesWiki (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Procedural concerns: we are already discussing Trump’s photo in another RfC. I don’t think another RfC on the matter is helping. Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Agreed. One RfC at a time, especially since it appears reverting the image to Trump's official portrait has some supporters above. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC) I just want to add that the background is very weird. If you look at the zoomed out version of the photo, it is an enlarged photo of Trump. Either way, this RfC is premature. Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Seconded Punker85 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Maybe you can give me a chance? I think the current photo of Trump shows a tilted head and a crooked body. Because I think it would be nice if a photo of a politician like Trump showed a straight head and a straight body. Teknologi Positif (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Slight Oppose I feel like the proposed photo looks less official and clean(?, mostly regarding his hair) than the current photo. Also, why aren't we just using his current image from his article? ✶Quxyz✶ 00:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC) In my opinion, Trump's current photo has a fairly dark face. It is not balanced when compared to Tim Walz's photo which has a bright face. Of course, Trump's current photo is affected by the lighting and lights at the event. So that's why I propose a photo of Trump that has a bright face like Joe Biden or Tim Walz. In addition, the photo I propose also has a straight head and a straight body which Trump's current photo does not have. Teknologi Positif (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Okay. But you should have made the proposal at this RfC instead of starting a completely new RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Support In my opinion, the photo of Trump that you proposed has better criteria than the current photo of Trump. The photo of Trump that you proposed has a bright face color, a straight body and not tilted, a straight head and not tilted. For the tie color issue, I think it doesn't matter because in Tim Walz's photo he also wears a brown tie and it doesn't cause any problems. So I strongly support if the current photo of Trump is replaced with the photo that you proposed. Because when compared to photos of other politicians who are running for president, the current photo of Donald Trump is a photo that has a dark face when compared to photos of other politicians who have bright faces. So I strongly support if the current photo of Trump is replaced with the photo of Trump that you proposed. GBUDJT (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose/close for reasons stated by others: there was a consensus to change from the official portrait (2017), but there will probably never be a consensus on what the new Trump photo should be. The photo right now is fine; let’s remember WP:DEADHORSE. Dingers5Days (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Comment/close Since many people disagree with this proposal, it is officially closed. Thank you to those who have commented. Teknologi Positif (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose ( Previous Support), After watching the photo several times, this photo is too serious looking face and impression of concerns (maybe to much unreasonable political attacks from U.S.A democratic Party)so it's unbalanced to other competitor's bright smiling face profile photos. - basic principle of photo: smiling and bright looking attract positive impression to the voters of U.S.A presidential election 5 November 2024.Tuesday. (Previous comments)< Among the photos that have been released so far, I also recommend the photo that you proposed along with option 6 above, next to the official portrait of Trump in 2017. The reason is that at least the face angle is correct and the expression is natural. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Oppose. Besides the disruption caused by multiple RFCs about this photo, this is worse than the official photo. The argument people have given against the official photo is he is older now, but he doesn't look any older in this photo as far as I can tell. The tie color and background look strange. I searched in Google images and was not able to find an instance where he wore a tie that was not blue or red. --JFHutson (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC) He doesn't look any older so official photo can be used - that is the point !!!:) how the photo was taken; it can be the matter. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Close again, if given 12 options, consensus will never settle on one. We don't need to keep having this conversation. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Suggestion Hello Teknologi Positif Thank you for your RfC, I think that the current photos with strange and especially arrogant facial expressions should definitely be replaced. So I suggest that we try to replace the photos through this, but that we exclude from the votes the users who oppose the replacement of photos without any reasonable rational, without any reason. That is, it seems that the users who support the U.S. Democratic Party are not voting in good faith, but are trying to keep the strange or negative appearance of Donald Trump in the photo. I think that it is necessary to select the people who vote in good faith on Wikipedia.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC) This is absolutely uncalled for! Please remember to assume good faith and be WP:CIVIL. I am indeed a Democrat, but if you would actually read what I have said on this talk page, I have explicitly said I do not like the current photo and that we need a photo for Trump that is more presidential. Believe it or not, it isn’t hard to set aside one’s personal political beliefs and edit Wikipedia neutrally. Many users are opposed to the photo because we are literally already discussing which photo to use for Trump in another RfC. And by the way, the photo proposal in this RfC is actually worse than the current infobox photo. Look at the uncropped version of the photo; completely dreadful! Prcc27 (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC) thank you for your feedback, I assumed good faith but I would like to see the previous discussions about the photo. Let me know the link of the previous talks about profile photos. Kind regards. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC) I don’t want to violate WP:AGF or make any unfounded accusations of sockpuppets, but for some reason I am just a little bit suspicious of the fact that one of the supporters of the photo is an IP and another is a new user whose first and only edit was in this very RfC. But maybe my suspicions are illogical and I am overreacting..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC) You have every right to be suspicious. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you for reassuring me. I have asked an admin what they think is going on, and we will go from there. Prcc27 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your reply, I think this really has potentially a big impact on the election because Trump's photo becomes an important reference point and personal image. Even those who contribute using IP addresses can understand this if they mention a reasonable reason for supporting photo replacement. However, even if someone use a user account, it is uncomfortable mind if the users are told to just use an existing photo without a proper reason.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Comment Proposer has started a new RfC regarding a different image below, implying that this one is no longer supported by them. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Comment/close Since many people disagree with this proposal, it is officially closed. Thank you to those who have commented. Teknologi Positif (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC) I don't believe that the proposer of an RfC can withdraw it when there are comments supporting the proposal. Right now, you have InterDoesWiki, GBUDJT, Goodtiming8871, and an IP user all supporting your proposal. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Hello Thank you for your kind update. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC) STRONG OPPOSE due to EXTREMELY MAJOR concern. In the new proposed photo, Donald Trump is wearing a yellow tie, but he is NOT a member of the Libertarian Party. In Chase Oliver's photo, he has a yellow tie, because he is a member of the libertarian party; Trump is not. Here's more examples: joe biden's photo has him in a blue tie. obama's photo has him in a blue tie jd vance's photo has him in a red tie. Using that proposed photo will only serve to confuse readers and make them think he's a libertarian, when he failed to secure the libertarian party's nomination. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Regarding the issue, I have opened RfC: Trump photo part 2. But unfortunately it was closed. I hope RfC: Trump photo part 2 will be reopened. Thank you. Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC) CLOSE This Talk is divided on several options, and the numbers for and against are similar, so no consensus can be reached. Please end the voting and I will propose a new RfC with the three most voted photos. I would like to formally request an experienced Wikipedian or Admin to close this RfC content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.