Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential debates/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Is it undue to mention RFK in the lede?

As of right now, we have no way of knowing if he would even qualify for the presidential debates. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed it based on today's news that Biden and Trump are accepting an invitation from CNN, outside of the CPD. RFK Jr. meeting the CPD criteria becomes moot if the CPD is not involved in the 2024 debates. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Biden declined CPD

There is a statement itself on the page of Biden declining to participate in the debates by the CPD, so shouldn’t the table be updated to reflect this? SDudley (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Has the CPD invited Trump and Biden to participate in their debates?

This page says invitations have been extended for Trump and Biden to appear in the CPD's 3 debates, but I have not found a statement from the Commission stating that they have done so: [1]. They typically do it a few days before the debates are scheduled to take place. Dingers5Days (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

They have not. It looks like Biden and Trump were added as invited when whoever created the table put it in the article :[2]. I'll change it to TBD. I'm not even sure if we should even keep the section, since it's clear that the campaigns won't be attending the CPD presidential debates. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Question on date range in infobox

Why are the debate dates currently listed as a range in the infobox, rather than separate dates?

I.E. "June 27, 2024 – September 10, 2024."

Thanks for any explanation. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is because of the expectation that a VP debate will be scheduled somewhere in the middle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:824:7577:54ec:39e0:b650:d545 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the infobox should say "June 27 – September 10, 2024." I've gone ahead and changed the date to "June 27 and September 10, 2024" and removed the running mate parameter as it is misleading. If a VP debate happens, then the infobox should contain a module for that debate. --Wow (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should have 201 potential electoral votes in the June 27th debate part of the article.

https://www.kennedy24.com/ballot-access 174.138.196.194 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Kennedy24.com is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the party of Trump's VP choice unknown?

Trump can nominate a democrat, republican, independent, even a green party candidate to be his VP. They're not required to be a fellow Republican. 76.109.196.157 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He can. But only Republicans remain on his potential VP picks list.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Potential as confirmed by him or as speculated in the media? Maurnxiao (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

FEC Statement on CNN debate

Could someone put the FEC Statement on the CNN or paraphrase it into the article. It's relevant and might have ramifications.

https://www.kitv.com/news/cnn-debate-criteria-not-backed-by-fec-regulation/article_150180ec-2796-11ef-87b4-f343cf4897c3.html Buildershed (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

this might be important Buildershed (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
What about it is important? What ramifications? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@Muboshgu The FEC's ruling on the debate renders the debate illegal in how the candidates were selected Buildershed (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
And? That obviously didn't stop CNN from holding the debate. Nobody is going to jail over this. Is there any impact? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Change "mixed" in the first sentence of the "Reception and aftermath" section to "negative"

  • Why it should be changed:

The section lists barely any examples of positive reception within the Democratic party of Biden's performance, and the reception seems overwhelmingly negative from the article's current content. The first positive examples come up only five paragraphs into the section, and I'm not sure whether e.g. Biden's own positive opinion on his debate performance should be counted as meaningful reception to begin with.

So this should either be adjusted to be in line with the actual examples listed, or there should be more prominent examples of positive reactions added and implemented much earlier within this section.

217.254.94.242 (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: the source didn't explicitly say negative, but I reworded it to say neither "mixed" nor "negative" and instead only focused on what CNN claimed the Democrats said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there a single synopsis of Biden's performance that has a neutral or mixed tone? To represent it as anything other than negative, based inba variety of sources would be wrong. The word "negative"should be there. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Both candidates fail to address Palestinian suffering

Please add this paragraph to the end of the Format and debate section ...

Debate hosts Dana Bash and Jake Tapper, both of whom are Jewish, mentioned that thousands of Palestinians had been killed, and the onset of famine conditions in Gaza due to Israel’s persistent blockage of aid, the mass destruction of Gaza went unaddressed by the candidates. "Both candidates fail to address Palestinian suffering, toll of Israel’s war on Gaza as protesters rally near venue."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/28/trump-calls-biden-a-bad-palestinian-in-us-presidential-debate-jab

https://www.timesofisrael.com/who-are-jake-tapper-and-dana-bash-the-jewish-moderators-of-the-biden-trump-debate/ 98.46.117.204 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Not relevant. Lots of questions weren't squarely answered. This happens often in a political debate. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it should be added. Neither Biden nor Trump made any mention of the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, instead treating the question as a way to show how good allies of Israel they were. Though probably inconsequential for Trump, there has already been considerable criticism among more left–wing Biden voters for his actions toward the war in Gaza; Biden's failure to mention the situation the Palestinians find themselves in will not have been missed by the people these things matter the most to. Maurnxiao (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The "both of whom are Jewish" part seems pointless to me. Maurnxiao (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It helps me identify tendentious editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it shouldn't distract from the fact that the rest of their edit seems sensible. The war in Gaza is a notable issue in this campaign. Maurnxiao (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Your comment putting it all on Biden and calling it "inconsequential for Trump" was also telling. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
In what way? Do you think Trump's voting block will care much about his support for Israel? Perhaps a some people, but more generally? Biden's voting block is diverse – far-left, left wing, Muslim, gay, Jews, Zionists, anti-Zionists, capitalists, never-Trump Republicans, etc... to an extent that Trump's simply is not. Maurnxiao (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
A question was dodged in a debate, this is not newsworthy.
Opinions on the voting blocks, etc are irrelevant here. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
We are conditioned by the MSM to think that Palestinians are bad, terrorists, and Jews are good, the Chosen, defending themselves from the evil Palestinians. So when Palestinian is used as a slur, it passes without notice.
"Trump Used "Palestinian" as a Slur. Biden and Debate Moderators Didn't Say a Word."
https://theintercept.com/2024/06/28/presidential-debate-trump-palestinian/ 98.46.117.84 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
You are speaking from your own personal biases, not presenting any RS to suggest this matters at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Do we have here an example of someone wanting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know, are you (plural) willing to read what I am writing? It feels absurd that anyone should think Trump's support for Israel is anywhere near as electorally damaging to his campaign as Biden's is for his, and if I should point this out this is "telling" and "righting great wrongs". What am I missing? Maurnxiao (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Has, for example, a notable Republican senator come out and said Trump's views on Israel could be his own Iraq? Maurnxiao (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
americans aren't beholden to obsessing over palestinians 24/7. Inflation and immigration are the main issues for voters. Not Palestinian demands. 2601:183:487E:9CA0:B937:6AB9:DCFA:1 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump home state

Shouldn't it be New York and not Florida? Giraffeedits (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

No, Trump lives in Florida now. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Huge duplication of content

There is a huge duplication of content (and extra content) here. Most of it should not be here.

What's going to happen to this content? We can't just continue to edit it and add to that content here. It doesn't belong here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The information was actually moved to the June 27, 2024, US presidential debate article, which no longer exists. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
You didn't notice my little note above "(the newest title)." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Valjean: That's because there never should have been a "new title". There was never a need for a split, and I merged the "new" article back into here before because the creator, elijahpepe, failed to give a reason why there needs to be a separate article, as there is not currently any size concerns with this article. He recreated it without reason, which is why I removed the main article template as well, and in addition there is an AfD since elijahpepe insists on improperly and prematurely splitting this article (he has had article ownership concerns in the past, and this seems to be a case of it as well). We shouldn't have two articles of roughly the same length on the same topic being collaboratively created by different people. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Well said. I applaud you. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the good info. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Vice president party

Why does it say the vice president will be Republican in the box on the right side? Is that confirmed somewhere? A vice president doesn't need to be in the same party as the president. 213.225.15.74 (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

All three candidates left (according to Trump) are Republican, so there's no point in saying it would be otherwise. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Everything else (including Trump) has (presumptive) written after it, then clearly it needs to be written after the party of the vice president too. 213.225.15.74 (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
There's not a very good place to put "presumptive" for the VP, and I don't think there's any doubt the VP's going to be Republican; if Trump suddenly died or the RNC decided to nominate someone else, the VP would likely still be that person's running mate, so I don't think it's really necessary here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Both moderators are Jewish and go to the same synagogue

I'm going to WP:BOLDly close this as it's clearly not worthy of being added and is debatably antisemitic. — Czello (music) 15:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Suggested edit ...

Both moderators are Jewish and go to the same synagogue.

Why is this not controversial, when a Palestinian slur during the debate is ignored by the moderators? 


76.156.161.247 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The moderators didn't contest anything the candidates did or said this time around, simply letting the candidates speak for themselves. The article already mentions Trump's usage of "Palestinian" as a slur, but as the moderators were ignoring everything said as a rule, including blatant lies, there is no reason to blame the mods in particular, whether they go to different synagogues or not. Kaotao (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
seems antisemitic to imply this. all the american media is wellknown to avoid discussing propalestinian issues, why bring in jewishness? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
You’re getting into WP:OR territory. And the religion of the moderators may be trivia; them going to the same synagogue is definitely trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/who-are-jake-tapper-and-dana-bash-the-jewish-moderators-of-the-biden-trump-debate

Trump used “Palestinian” as a slur. Biden and debate moderators didn’t say a word.

https://theintercept.com/2024/06/28/presidential-debate-trump-palestinian/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.46.117.58 (talk • contribs)

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.

No Republican reception section?

There's a fairly lengthy section for how Democrats received the debate, but nothing for the Republicans. Can someone who isn't me make a skeleton for it? Kaotao (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That section isn't how Democrats in general received it as that's mostly covered in the "overview" section above; the "Democratic Party reception" section is for how people close to Biden and Democratic elected officials saw it, and the response by any Republican elected official (and Republican non-politicians) is covered in the overview section as well. Maybe that header should be changed to "Reception by Democratic Party officials"? We don't need a whole section for how the Republican officials saw it as that is mostly the same of "it was a disaster for Biden" and "he should leave the race", etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
There is way too much information there, with pundit after pundit after pundit included. This is WP:UNDUE and I have tagged the section as such. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
It definitely could be trimmed a bit, but in what way is it undue weight? Virtually all media outlets and commentators who commented on the debate mentioned Biden's poor performance and the other things being said in that section, so to say in detail how widespread and universal the panic and thoughts of Biden's performance is in now way undue, the weight given to these views is perfectly WP:DUE here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia. Not a newspaper. We need to take the long-term view. Admittedly we can't yet because of the WP:RECENTISM, but that's really the point: we need a summary here, not every person with an op-ed column's opinion. Comments on the pro-Biden (Newsom, Fetterman, Clyburn) and anti-Biden (Bedingfield, Axelrod, Carville, Yang) sides can be trimmed down if not removed entirely. And all of this about Biden and nothing about Trump's performance is out of balance as well; I know there's more ink spilled on Biden, but it's not like everyone forgot Trump was there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the sections need to be trimmed and condensed, because we certainly don't need a separate article for the June debate. Some1 (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I cut some. There is more to cut. All of these pundits are saying the same thing, we don't need to repeat each and every one of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
For the record, this is what you removed in that edit. It seems to me that it's notable that so many different notable and reliable sources are saying this. Prior to this debate, every single mainstream news source had repeatedly said that Biden's mental health was fine. Now all of a sudden, they are all saying the exact opposite. I think this article could be improved if it would explain why they all changed their mind at the exact same time.
The Associated Press stated that Biden "appeared to lose his train of thought" from tax policy to health policy, trailing off until time ran out for the question, and that he "fumbled" on abortion rights.[1] The Guardian felt that Biden managed to both "live down to expectations that were already rock bottom", as well as "make Donald Trump sound almost coherent." David Smith quoted that the president was "looking as feeble and frail as the democracy that now rests on his shoulders."[2] Yasmeen Abutaleb of The Washington Post said that Biden failed to counter Trump's points and contrast their achievements.[3] The Post also described Trump as using a "fire hose of falsehoods" during the debate and indirectly answering questions, but also contrasted it with Biden's voice and struggle to be succinct and understandable in delivering his points.[3] Amy Walter stated that Biden failed to change the trajectory of the race and the debate instead served to remind voters of Biden's weaknesses. Walter also criticized Trump's performance, noting that he "continued to exhibit the many behaviors that have made him a polarizing and unpopular figure" and like Biden trailed into "non sequiturs", but said that Biden failed to offer strong rebuttals to them.[4]
Beaver's Library Book (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Beaver's Library Book (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The single biggest response from the political right is that they are saying, "I told you so" in response to the mainstream media reporting on Biden's condition during the debate. Prior to the debate, the mainstream media had dismissed such claims as "fake news" and "cheap fakes." But now that Biden's condition has been aired on live television for over an hour, the mainstream media can no longer lie and cover up what happened. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, you said it absolutely perfectly and beautifully. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Let me see if I have this straight...the New York Post--which has been reporting on Biden's cognitive decline for three years, and which broke the Hunter Biden laptop story--cannot be trusted as a source on Wikipedia, while The New York Times--which two weeks ago called unedited video of Biden wandering aimlessly a "cheep fake", and labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation"--has an A+ rating as a source. We have a word for this down here in the Delta. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference apjune27 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference SuckerLoser was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Reston, Maeve (June 27, 2024). "Analysis, key moments from the Trump-Biden presidential debate". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
  4. ^ Walter, Amy (June 28, 2024). "Biden's Poor Debate Performance Undermines His Chance To Reset Campaign". The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.

Biden's performance

The overview of the article states that Biden's performance was controversial, with some democrats calling on him to step down, etc. In the main section on his performance there is a clear consensus that his performance was, frankly, bad, with Biden himself admitting he didn't do a good job (and the polls since the debate hugely reflect that). Though many people still support him, there is hardly even a significant minority of people who don't think he performed badly. I suggest that the overview should reflect this, and state that "Biden's performance was (bad), and some democrats called on him to step down etc." A few suggestions for the word choice: Dismal, Weak, Badly perceived. JoeJShmo (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree his performance was certainly controversial, but what do you want added? We already go in-depth on the many reports criticizing his performance in the reception section. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I apologize if I wasn't clear. The word controversial implies that some people think it was good, others it was bad. Perhaps it doesn't have to mean that, but the words 'Dismal' or 'Weak' are far more unambiguous. That's why I propose to change the word from 'controversial' to 'dismal'. JoeJShmo (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Using a solely-negative word such as 'dismal' or 'weak' might be correct here but its not very neutral; 'controversial' is fine here and doesn't necessarily mean a lot of people thought it was good, rather it was (from M-W) "marked especially by the expression of opposing views". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
What "opposing views"? Everyone says that his debate performance was bad, there appears to be universal agreement. "Controversial" is a bad word to use here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The word's not the best, and I'm not disputing the agreement his performance was bad, but it's better for the sake of neutrality than to say in Wikipedia's voice his performance was 'dismal'. Maybe put a "highly" in front of the "controversial"? I think the content right after it in the lead makes up for its lack of harshness though, as it explains how controversial it was through the many calls for him to drop out of the race following the debate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument of neutrality. If the consensus among references is that his performance was, say, dismal, we treat that as a fact and dictate it so. Technically we could also say it was viewed by the public as a dismal performance, but there is no reason to do that. As far as I know, Wikipedia policy does not oppose calling it dismal if that's the consensus. Perhaps I'm wrong. Until then, my original suggestion stands. JoeJShmo (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Technically we could use a word like that if consensus among sources was universal to use that exact word, but it is not, and usually we stay away from making such claims in Wikipedia's voice, even if they can be verified by some sources, as they are contentious. For example, on Putin's article, we don't outright call him a "dictator" in Wikipedia's voice as it is non-neutral and a contentious label even though many sources would corroborate it; we instead say "people frequently characterize him as a dictator" instead of making the claim in Wikipedia's voice; that is what we should do here as well. What is currently there and what I recently changed the wording to, Biden's performance during the first debate was said by many observers to be poor, with some commentators and Democrats calling for him to drop out of the race, seems fine. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Dismal is a word that is better used in weather reporting. "Suspect" would be better than controversial. Controversial doesn't really tell the reader anything...it could be bad, it could good. Biden's performance was "inadequate" based on expectations and the very recent State of the Union address. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 22:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
"Suspect" is ambiguous. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the current wording, though I think wikivoice is definitely called for here. The reason we don't call Putin a dictator in wikivoice is in fact because there is a significant minority scholarly dissent on that characterization. Without even checking, I'm sure we do call Kim Jong whats-his-face a dictator in wikivoice because there is no significant dissent and we view it as a fact. My impression was that Biden's dismal performance was viewed as such by practically everyone, and so demanding wikivoice. I'm not sure you even disagree with that, so I still propose changing the wording to Biden performed poorly. You're welcome to bring better proofs that wikivoice shouldn't be used here. JoeJShmo💌 09:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • There are two important point to be mentioned somewhere per this:
  1. Such performance was expected, at least by some people who recently interacted with Biden. (“The country saw [at the debate] what those of us who have had personal interactions with him have all known for the last 2½ years,” a senator said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss Biden’s fitness.)
  2. If he does not withdraw, his loss of the elections to Trump will be his "legacy" forever (“If he loses to Trump after that debate, that will be on his tombstone instead of his achievements. It’s an absolutely legacy-defining moment,” this lawmaker added). My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden considers calls to step down

@Muboshgu What is your reasoning in again reverting my edit, beyond "please discuss on the talk page"? I think I made it pretty clear in my edit summary that your reasoning to originally revert my content addition was unsound; Biden himself did not deny it, the content is not "recentism" nor "undue weight" as the reports and calls for Biden to step down and the response to it are very widespread, and are not just by anonymous commentators, whether you like it or not; the person who reported this conversation with Biden to the press was not just some guy talking out of his ass but was someone credible, as evidenced by the breakingness of the story shown by CNN and the NYT. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden himself says he is staying in. If you can't see that the anonymous reports are UNDUE and RECENTISM that appear to be incorrect, I don't know what else to tell you. And I think you needed the reminder of how to behave in WP:CTOPS articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Four latest Democrats to call for Biden to step down

Hi,

Should those four Democrats (Morelle, Nadler, Smith and Takano) even be listed in the table? The article indicates that it was a private phone call. Since those statements have not been made publicly, do we treat them differently?

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

THis obviously depends on sourcing. Is there a reliable source telling us about the ephone call? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It's currently sourced to Politico and The Hill. See here: [3] and here: [4]. Both are listed as generally reliable on the Perennial Sources list: [5]. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

Typo in "Calls for President Biden to drop out: change "he" to "the"; "Smith went on the record he following day and called for Biden to withdraw." to "Smith went on the record the following day and called for Biden to withdraw." Nickspoon32 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal for June debate "Reception and aftermath" section

I propose that the "Reception and aftermath" section of the June debate be split into an article named "Joe Biden presidential debate controversy". The controversy surrounding Biden's performance among Democrats has stretched onto its 2nd week, with no signs of abatement. Given the historically unprecedented amount of intra-party dissent regarding a sitting president's reelection, the section self-evidently meets the WP:GNG guidelines. Baldemoto (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There already is a page on the topic, "calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign", though there has been a lot of opposition to the article existing (note the soon-to-be-successful AfD) since it was created. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I tried looking for the article but somehow missed it. Thank you! Baldemoto (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2024 United States presidential debate closed as merge. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Reducing redundant sections

Hi,

What do you all think of transcluding either list at the 2024 United States presidential debates#Calls for President Biden to drop out article or the Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign#List article onto the other article?

I realize that there's an ongoing AfD regarding the Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign, potentially making the issue moot, but it seems inefficient to have parallel lists that need to be updated separately.

Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 United States presidential election has an RfC

2024 United States presidential election has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. C F A 💬 20:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump propose new debate

Trump said at his recent rally in Doral Tthis week: “Let’s do another debate this week so that sleepy Joe Biden can prove to everyone all over the world that he has what it takes to be president, But this time it will be man-to-man, no moderators, no holds barred. Just name the place, anytime, anywhere.” 71.208.169.196 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It was mentioned already, but I've moved the sentence to the "Biden–Trump alternative debates" section.
Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Why

do we have “lies” in the main text clarified as “falsehoods” in the footnote? Lies and falsehoods aren’t the same. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Because "falsehoods" includes "lies". Is there a specific instance you find problematic? BTW, with Trump, reliable sources and fact-checkers have long since stopped differentiating between the two. Yes, one cannot always know what's in a person's head and whether they are just being careless, are ignorant, or are willfully deceptive. With Trump, he doesn't care about the concept of truth. It doesn't exist in his mind, other than "If I say it, that makes it true." Fact-checkers decided that since he should know better, and yet he keeps repeating lies about common knowledge that have been thoroughly and publicly debunked, they just started calling his lies and falsehoods "lies". They were hesitant to do so in the beginning, but then they gave up. He can't say five sentences without there being some form of deception in them, no exaggeration. If someone should know better, then it's a lie. They cannot plead ignorance forever. See False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Some poor analysis there. That doesn't make logical sense. Because, as you said, "falsehoods" includes "lies", it can be clarified that a particular falsehood is a lie, but there's no point in clarifying that a lie is a falsehood, as that is per definition. To make it easy: if I ask why an article says "fox", and the footnote says that the RS only said "animal", you cannot tell me that it's because animals includes foxes. If the RS says "falsehoods", it's not necessarily saying that it was a lie. Also, if you don't care about the concept of truth, you cannot lie. That is instead called bullshitting. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I have tweaked it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"lies" must be changed to "falsehoods", as that's what the RS say

In the text, it says "Numerous sources also mentioned lies", with a footnote clarifying that what the RS really said was falsehoods, which are per definition not necessarily lies. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

for vp debate add jd Vance as he is the VP candidate [1] 173.72.3.91 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

it has been done right after request 173.72.3.91 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/rnc-2024-day-1/

“terms of the debate are still under discussion”

were, past tense. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

September 4 debate

Should we list a September 4 debate on Fox News? My interpretation is that there is no such debate, it's a ploy by Trump to slide out of the September 10 ABC debate he had agreed to with Biden. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should. I'm not sure if the "Second 2024 United States presidential debate" infobox should be there either. It's not really clear whether either September debate will actually happen. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Why are either of them being listed? It seems very weird to me when both parties have not agreed to either debate to have the "second presidential debate" in the infobox. Only one debate has happened and it frankly might be the only one that ever does happen. 2600:4040:4932:700:11FE:4922:53E5:BBCD (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Biden and Trump agreed to it before the withdraw and both Harris and Trump have committed to it at least once since. We will see what happens in September, but for now it makes sense. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

New poll

A recent nationwide poll dating after August 1 showed Harris with 48% and Trump with 44%, which means that it should be added as a qualifying poll to both of them for the debate. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr.'s chances to meet September 10 debate criteria

@David O. Johnson: Your reinstatement of the material I challenged per WP:CRYSTALBALL: the source for the reinstated material is outdated. It’s a JUNE 15 article saying that Kennedy has met the "polling threshold of 15%" in three of the minimum of four approved national polls. However, to take part in ABC’s September 10 debate, he must have received "at least 15% support in four separate national polls" conducted and "released between Aug. 1, 2024, and Sept. 3, 2024". So far, three entities recognized by ABC (NYT/Siena College, Quinnipiac, Fox News) have conducted national polls since August 1. The Fox News poll has Kennedy at 6%, the other two at 4%. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that part of the sentence. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

Change " Biden withdrew from the race in July, and Kamala Harris was elected to replace him, while Trump became the official Republican nominee that same month." to " Biden withdrew from the race in July, and Kamala Harris was selected to replace him, while Trump became the official Republican nominee that same month.", as there was no democratic process to Harris winning the nomination. Chaas13 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Debates aren’t rules

Please do the following edit:

The debate rules will be the same as the first debate

->

The debate rules will be the same as those of the first debate 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi,
That's already mentioned in the Format subsection for the second debate. "The debate rules will be the same as the first debate, with no audience being present and muted microphones." David O. Johnson (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
You didn’t understand my message, David. Debate rules being the same as a debate logically entails that debates ARE rules.
I fixed the grammar. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Muboshgu!

Please don’t use adolescent short forms in the article

prep -> preparation 86.31.178.164 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like the style, you can go in and fix it yourself: I don't think many people will object. I don't think it's going to be very effective to get other people to do the changes for small issues like this.
Oops, forgot this article was semi-protected. See why you did that now. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Added a edit request template: just so you know, when you're suggesting changes to semi-protected articles people usually {{edit semi-protected}} template to mark it as an edit request, which can help attract people to answer it (it adds it to lists and things, plus making it more clear). Also, it's good to say where in the article you mean. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
 Already done Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Tense

September 4 will instead be -> September 4 would instead be 86.31.178.164 (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

September 10 debate is the first real presidential debate

The biden trump debate was a one off debate that occurred before the conventions and was not a debate between the nominees of the two major parties. The September 10 debate is the first debate in the same context of prior presidential debates such as nixon kennedy.

This is biased toward trump who won the debate. It does not mention the earlier republican debates which he did not participate in and did not win. If you mention debates prior to the convention, you should be consistent and mention them all. Also, trump is identified as president instead of former president. 98.234.167.236 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Biden and Trump were their parties presumptive nominees at the time of the first debate. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't see him being described as "president": do you mean that it says "presidential debates"? It notes that they are the presumptive nominees on the box. I think it does make some amount of sense to include the prior debates by the people who were already expected to be the nominees, whereas the debates between republican potential nominees are not as directly related towards the presidency. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Handshake

The first paragraph about the 9/10 debate mentions it was the first handshake in a presidential debate in 8 years, which is what the source says, but then the next sentence says Trump did not shake hands with Biden or Clinton, which the source does not say. If that were the case, wouldn't this be the first handshake in 12 years?

Anyone feel like checking into this critical detail? :) Seananony (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It feels pretty silly to have one whole paragraph on a handshake David O. Johnson (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@David O. Johnson @User:Richskim deleted the sentence with an edit note that Clinton & Trump shook hands.
I agree it's not really that noteworthy, though. Seananony (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Outdated Proposed Harris-Trump Debates section

Some of the info is good, but the header no longer makes sense. Suggest deleting everything that doesn't relate to a subsequent debate. Seananony (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved up the section on their debate & renamed it Prelude. Trimmed a bit, but could probably be trimmed more. Seananony (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Fact-checking section: Improper synthesis or Undue weight?

I understand the need to keep NPOV, and the opening paragraph of the latest debate’s fact checking section is technically factual, the “however, […] only Trump was questioned” way of phrasing it seems to draw an adverse implicit implication suggesting moderator bias which goes against guardian’s sourcing for that information which instead frames it as “a better than usual night for the truth”, which may cause the overall gist of the introduction have undue weight towards the opinion of the Sky News citation that the other three don’t support or offer a contrasting viewpoint to. JohnCrumpet (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the fact checking section gives UNDUE weight to Harris's false statements. At the risk of sounding inflammatory, any attempt to equate Harris's false claims here with Trump's is a tacit endorsement of the latter. It's not partisan to say that Trump lied way more than Harris, and in much bigger and more egregious ways. HunterAlexBrown (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It's citing this ABC News article which is actually trash: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-checking-kamala-harris-donald-trumps-1st-presidential/story?id=113567997
It's a terrible article because it acts like someone stating a prediction is something that can be called a truth or a lie. Harris saying that Trump will sign a national abortion ban into law can't be a lie. It's a prediction, she is not stating a fact. She is stating it with a lot of certainty, but a prediction about the future cannot be quantified as a truth or a lie unless you know the person can see the future. The article calls it a false statement, does the writer of the article happen to be clairvoyant?
Trump says he won't sign a national abortion ban. That is the actual fact. If Harris claimed that Trump said he would sign one, then that can be verified as a lie. But someone making a prediction that a certain person, who happens to be a known liar and flip flopper, will renege on their word, cannot be called a liar for that. RTredwell (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Both candidates make dire predictions about what would happen if the other person was elected. Those aren't false statements, they're just predictions likely to be proven wrong in the future. Harris said Trump will sign an abortion ban into law, but Trump wouldn't confirm that, so it's just a prediction. Something like that shouldn't be singled out in the article without due weight given to unproven predictions by Trump. It's best to remove them all, they're meaningless hyperbole that is to be expected during an election campaign. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I changed this, for the time being, to Sky News host Andrew Bolt claiming that Harris wasn't fact-checked at all, since the other sources didn't actually support the claims made. That said, this isn't Sky News stating this in their own voice, this is Sky News citing one of their own guys. I don't think Bolt's opinion on the matter weighs particularly heavy, so I suggest this is removed. Harris not being fact-checked at all should only be in the article if RS state so in their own voice. Cortador (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

“ Trump also said that "A lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, [Democrats] are trying to get them to vote"; however, it is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.”

Trump says they are trying to do something illegal. He never said it was legal! 86.31.178.164 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Quotes for VP debate

We don't want to use excessive quotes for the VP debate and turn it into a WP:quotefarm. It's enough to just briefly paraphrase. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson I prefer to read what people actually said. I often see paraphrasing on wp that twists what was actually said to present it in the light the editor prefers. (News agencies do it too, of course.) Seananony (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What is "significant"?

When I deleted the paragraph about the four dates that were proposed for VP debate & Walz was the first of the two to agree to 10/1 & Vance agreed the following day, it was reverted as "important." When I added a sentence that the two men used the word "look" 68 times, it was deleted as "insignificant." The article goes on & on with background about proposed dates for the pres debates & which networks aired them & much more info no one will care about next year. Seananony (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal for June 27th presidential debate

Consensus to split. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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 propose, given light of the news of Joe Biden stepping aside from the presidential race, that the section on the June 2024 presidential debate be split into Joe Biden–Donald Trump 2024 presidential debate. This debate was the direct catalyst of Joe Biden's ultimate choice to step aside from the race, becoming such after more than a month of coverage and analysis of the debate, meeting WP:GNG, WP:EVENTCRIT, and WP:LASTING guidelines for a separate article. The need for a separate article is clear given that the analysis of this section is significantly longer than other analyses of previous debates, with most of the analysis dedicated to the cascading effects resulting from this debate. Baldemoto (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Both given the length of the section for the June debate, and the the clear impact and notability this specific debate has had. Gust Justice (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
JFK and Richard Nixon beg to differ. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. The previous deletion discussion ended with merging, but that article was created in June, which was immediately after the debate took place. At the time, it was far too soon to know of any lasting impact that the debate would have. Now that a month later the debate has had consistent continuous coverage and has directly resulted in Biden dropping out, it meets WP:LASTING. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - the original deletion discussion closed as merge due to it being too recent to see if there were any WP:LASTING consequences of the debate. I think that the with drawl has giving credence into separating that into a new article, though I can sumpathize with the idea that it would be a little WP:FORKy. — Knightoftheswords 20:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - The events of this debate were the main catalyst in calls for Biden to resign. Now that he has, I think the debate can be considered a major turning point because of both its influence and the sustained media coverage surrounding it. Tisnec (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I felt after watching the debate that it would be the most important one in my lifetime. And for it being the catalyst that the President of the country dropped out of the race, I would say I was vindicated in the end. Give it its own article. It shouldn’t have been removed in the first place. Vinnylospo (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It was the beginning of the end of Joe Biden’s presidency. It’s pretty notable. Vinnylospo (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose . No need to split this article now. I would only support splitting it if got too unwieldy after the future debates occur. Right now it would be a clear WP:FORK of this article. Yeoutie (talk) Later update, there may not even be a second debate now, so why rush to split? Wait until after the debate season is over. Yeoutie (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. It's entirely possible that any future debates won't be noteworthy enough to warrant the 6/27 debate having its own article. We will see when/if any future debates happen Qqars (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support this debate was a before and after point. I believe it will be shown to argue against future possible candidates of old age for many, many years. I'd imagine Americans will be fed up with 80-year-old candidates after this election. Super Ψ Dro 10:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Completely agree with your reasoning, it is critical enough to warrant a standalone article. 2600:1700:F670:1490:3CC0:C0BC:327:973E (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Changing to weak support after September 10th debate. The page is quite a bit bigger now, and is about 25% bigger than 2020, and almost twice as big as 2016 (which had two more debates to cover). Nojus R (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Oppose mostly because I'm not 100% confident there will be a Harris-Trump or VP debate. This page is like 90% about the first debate anyways, so let's just be patient. Nojus R (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Why would have we two articles when there's only been a single debate? Any consensus to split should only be implemented if there are further debates and size issues may become more justified. Reywas92Talk 02:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
cause this particular debate is the catalyst that led to Biden withdrawal from the race. CViB (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support The debate turned out to be very consequential, as we have seen due to Biden's decision. TheInevitables (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, maybe earlier this did not make sense, but now it does. The move adds needed clarity and specificity. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't report things more just because media report them more. Instead, we give things their own WP:DUE weight. A debate is just a debate, it hardly ever has a WP:LASTING notability that is a prerequisite for a standalone article. Since it fails WP:LASTING, it really can't stand according to our rules. — kashmīrī TALK 13:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    Per WP:LASTING, “An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable”. The debate was a catalyst for Biden’s withdrawal. Future Chromatica (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support There's sufficient information and sourcing to make this a standalone article. Plus, quite frankly, having all the info from the first debate mashed over here makes the article extremely long and a bit slanted towards the first debate. It makes further sense now with Biden out of the race since it's the first and only debate between the two in the 2024 cycle. The aftermath effects that the debate had alone has its own article (calls for Biden to drop out). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    No, having all of the first debate content here does not make the article "extremely long"; the readable prose size right now is 4978 words, which is nowhere near the recommended size for even considering a split based on length. Yes, of course it's slanted to the first debate, because that's of course the only major one that has taken place this election cycle; if we did a split now, this page would be reduced to start class and would not provide the information a reader is realistically for — complete information on the first 2024 United States presidential debate. Just because a topic is notable and "had a big effect" doesn't mean it needs a separate article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I would rather see the June 27th debate section condensed, since it low-key reads like a newspaper. Prcc27 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Support: Definite need for a split. 90.206.212.170 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Wait, see how much room the section on the September debates takes up before deciding on whether to split. Splitting off the article on the only debate which has happened so far is premature. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Strong Support for Splitting. Things are happening and shifting and rotating so fast that if we try to contain the next few weeks/months into one article, our "long into the future" reader will be as dizzy as a top trying to make sense out of a hectic time. I suggest multiple articles with prominent linking to each other to provide each with enough room for editors to work without fussing at each other. I always think and edit with future decades in mind. Keep the steam of facts clean and clear. Don't muddy up the Stream of information with unnecessary debris and litter. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep the steam of facts slean and clear. Don't muddy up the Stream of information with unnecessary debris and litter. isn't this one reason why we don't need separate articles? If anything having three start-class separate articles for each debate would provoke editors to include any irrelevant or insignificant detail they can find about such a debate; there are absolutely no size concerns for this article right now, (as there's only been one debate; it would also be odd not to include the complete tale of the June debate in an article specifically about this year's debates) and I don't see any "dizziness-inducing and hectic time" occurring right now aside from there being (likely) two future debates, which is not anything special. While you may foresee that when November comes this article may develop into a 20,000 word hard-to-navigate cumbersome monolith if no content is split, a "finished" article covering all debates that have and will happen this election cycle will have the same amount of compactability as any other presidential debates article, which is enough that no separate articles are needed; these debates as a whole in 10 years, thinking and editing with future decades in mind, will almost certainly not be any more notable than any other set of presidential debates; this seems to be a heavy case of WP:RECENTISM. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
While I understand your point for the majority of this comment, I still don't understand the reasoning behind the WP:RECENTISM accusations with regards to this split. Surely, if this debate is recentism, then articles such as "We begin bombing in five minutes", "George H. W. Bush vomiting incident", "Betty Ford's August 1975 60 Minutes interview", "Chicken Kiev speech", and "Bitburg controversy" should be deleted as well? The vast majority of Americans did not remember these events after 10 years, yet consensus has strongly opted towards keeping them due to their long-term effects, both historically and in the public consciousness (WP:EVENTCRIT). What makes an event such as this debate any different, given it was the direct cause of an unprecedented changing of the guard prior to a presidential election? Baldemoto (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support because Harris & Walz have been certified as the ticket, Trump and Harris agreed to the September 10 debate with ABC, and the June 27 Trump-Biden debate was extremely notable and consequential for Biden's poor performance and withdrawal. Biden is no longer a candidate, and the June 27 debate would best be its own article.
JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support, as the debate was the primary catalyst for the political firestorm that followed around Biden's ability to win the election and govern effectively. I also see that the general topic more than fulfills WP:GNG and WP:N guidelines.
--WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 22:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - we already have "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election" which covers the unique significance of the first debate adequately. I don't see a need to multiply articles when there has only been one debate, and it's unlikely the second (or further) debates will be as significant. We can always reevaluate if each debate turns out to merit its own article. TocMan (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Support: This debate had massive ramifications, as it directly led to Joe Biden dropping from the race, somthing which hadn't happened in the same manner since Johnson. However I think this move should take place only after the second debate happens EarthDude (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose : This is the 2024 election cycle, it wouldn't make sense to split up the debates into 2 articles. Besides for a majority of the race, (Sense 2023 really) everyone assumed Biden would be the nominee. It's also unlikely that there will be more than 1 presidential debate, and the VP shares very close political proximity to the President. If they would have nominated someone outside their circle, or if Trump was assassinated and Haley became the nominee, it would make more sense. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Historically, the Biden 2024 campaign will be singularly defined by this event. The incumbent President dropping out of the race 5 months before the election is completely unprecedented, and this debate was the catalyst for that decision. It will be regarded as one of the most impactful and pivotal events in modern American politics, if not the entire history of American politics. If any article deserved to have a section lead by a "Main article: " link, this is one of them. TomFitz77 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: This debate has received widespread, long-lasting coverage, and it is widely cited as the catalyst for the President dropping out of the race. It seems like it meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. CipherSleuth (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for splitting. Biden's debate is clearly notable in its own right, especially if the new article were to synthesize material from other articles discussing the background and fallout of the debate. My only hangup is that (as of the minute I'm writing this) it looks like we're only gonna get three debates (Biden/Trump, Harris/Trump, Walz/Vance) instead of four or five, meaning there would be plenty of room on this page to fully discuss the first debate. Still, I think it's fair to say that the first debate was the most notable and consequential single presidential debate in decades. HunterAlexBrown (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, as it's probably the most obviously consequential presidential debate in history since it effectively ended Biden's campaign; and the Harris-Trump debate(s), along with the Walz-Vance debate, are basically a whole separate thing that deserve their own article. Relinus (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Support for two reasons. One, my computer can barely load it, and most importantly, two, Biden and Harris should be split into several articles as this debate clearly has a lasting impact. OhHaiMark (talk) 04:42, 15 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_debates/Archive_1&oldid=1260314060"