Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Bias in lead once again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct me if I'm wrong...but most politicians lie. Vice-President Harris has lied before as well, as has her campaign, yet you might notice there is no mention of "The Harris campaign has had many false and misleading statements". Despite her now saying Mr Trump is a fascist who is a threat to democracy (this would be fearmongering), there's no "engaged in fearmongering", either. Nor "promoted conspiracy theories" (despite Ms Harris and her campaign often citing attack stories against Trump that have no evidence or corroboration). Yet, again, that isn't part of the Democrat paragraph even though it would be easy to source. Is VP Harris lying not an issue to voters? If Trump lying is, one would think Harris lying would be as well. So why is that not in her paragraph? The OBVIOUS REASON: Because the writers and the people who have left that on the page are biased. Again, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Renathras (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The extent of Trump's lies have been absolutely unprecedented, and Harris' lies aren't even barely close. Harris hasn't lied about migrants the extent Trump has. Harris hasn't lied about the election being stolen. Here is a reliable source, where it was shown that just in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 alone, not even counting the years after that when Trump's lies have only increased, he made over 30,000 false and misleading statements.[Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/] EarthDude (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I read it and think it's blatantly biased. I don't generally edit Reddit pages (never, actually, after my very first attempt), and I don't think I've ever posted on a talk page. That paragraph is TERRIBLY biased. The Democrat paragraph is written in neutral tone, the Republican one seems like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. Something can have sources AND BE BIASED at the same time, and just a cursory reading of that paragraph would lead any neutral person to thinking wikipedia is biased. It led me to that conclusion. I don't want to read any of the rest of the article because I can't imagine with a lead like that the rest would be neutral or fair at all. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for this. Renathras (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I am European and this article is the most biased article I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia. I have ctrl+F Kamala and there's nothing about her. Whole article is solely about Trump and mostly consists of stretched comparisons with Hitler. How is this allowed? B.fly87 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That's because Trump has engaged in absolutely the same shit Hitler was in. Spreading extreme libels against Minorites (blood libel, Springfield pet-eating hoax, etc.), extreme hatemongering and fearmongering, wating to deport millions of millions to "purify" the country, which is exactly the same as the Madagascar Plan. He says he'll be dictator on day one. He even praised Hitler openly. I want Wikipedia to be neutral but facts are anti-Trump EarthDude (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No, he didn't engage in "Hitler shit." You're just taking everything the biased US media and the Democrats say about him as if it were unvarnished truth. And you know that he won the majority popular vote, so you're saying that over half the voters heard "Hitler shit" and still elected him. That is utter poppycock. I want Wikipedia to be neutral, too, but your "facts" are not facts. Cyberherbalist (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As a non-American who dislikes most American politicians, IE as an outsider, I have to say that if the Republicans didn't want their nomination of a convicted criminal for president to draw attention they maybe should have started by not nominating a convicted criminal for president. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to be aware that the American news media, and for that matter European news media, hate Trump unalterably and report on him accordingly. Believe it if you want, but the American people have seen through the lies that have been told against Trump. You need to look at what he was "convicted" of. In New York he was convicted of fraud because he applied for a loan to buy property, and for the purpose he estimated its value to be more than "certain people" thought it ought to be. The bank that he borrowed the money from had no complaints, loaned him the money, and later he repaid it with interest. Everyone involved was happy. The New York prosecutor brought him to trial as a matter of politics. She ran for election on the platform of eventually "getting" Trump for something. The New York appellate court is in the process of throwing the conviction out. I read the indictments against Trump in Georgia, and there was no way those things could even be called "crimes". Cyberherbalist (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And yet, the TONE is not neutral and reporting at all. I read the Democrat paragraph and was thinking "Sounds about right", then was shocked with the first few lines of the Trump one. This seems like something written by the Harris campaign, not something deserving of the title Humanity's encyclopedia. Something can be well sourced AND BE BLATANTLY BIASED at the same time. Renathras (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

She very much does, but very little news sources ever bring that up as they are often pro-Harris. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, we reflect the weight and focus of what reliable sources as a whole say. If you believe one particular source is biased and is being given too much weigh, that is something that can be discussed and corrected; but if you believe the media as a whole is biased, then Wikipedia is ultimately going to reflect that bias, because we're an encyclopedia (meaning we summarize the best available sources), rather than a publisher of original stuff. We're not the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in terms of "correcting" media bias or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

She fully backs Israel and their apparent right to defend themselves. I'm sure I can find a RS that will cover this but of course Wikipedia will remove it because it does have so much bias. Your personal views here are not needed Apeholder (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Oh you will review it? Do you have some sort of special sway or influence at Wikipedia? Do you know Jimmy Wales!? Apeholder (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally,

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a hardcore Kamala supporter myself…sheesh this is harsh for Wikipedia. Maybe cut down on some of the "fascism" parts as that's being thrown around a lot, like how Trump calls Kamala a communist (and we all know Wikipedia should be better than Trump). Authoritarian and populist I'll take. Maybe we should include some criticism of Kamala too, like indecisiveness about the Gaza conflict.

RidgelantRL (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Your clearly biased towards Trump. Also, Kamala never said anything about supporting what’s happening in Gaza Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What???? Mate just because I think we should rewrite part of an article doesn't mean I'm pro Trump. I never said anything about Kamala supporting Israel in Gaza anyways, I said they should write stuff to include that there's some backlash from younger voters about that (should've worded it better I admit). Do I really need to prove to people online my political opinions online?

RidgelantRL (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to include a few sentences similar to what's on there for the Trump campaign (e.g., "The Harris campaign has been noted for ..."). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of RS about the controversy surrounding her nomination without a Primary vote. Still, there are articles from major news organizations about the controversy surrounding her record as a California prosecutor (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/harris-prosecutor-scrutiny-invs/index.html) and her positions on contentious issues (or lack thereof early on - one voter called her an "empty vessel" in this article because she had little to no campaign platform at the time: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/slice-voters-explain-wavering-harris-trump-rcna178535), including her support for continuing to arm Israel's genocide in Gaza (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/us/politics/harris-israel-arms-embargo.html) and fracking (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmarkind/2024/11/05/will-fracking-determine-the-next-president/; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-11/kamala-harris-and-fracking-her-position-on-the-controversial-practice). These policies have made her less popular among certain groups, especially young voters (https://english.elpais.com/usa/elections/2024-10-29/young-voters-on-the-left-reject-kamala-harris-she-has-made-it-clear-that-she-doesnt-value-my-vote.html). Keep the Trump stuff, but add Harris stuff as well. Perhaps there hasn't been as much coverage, but there has certainly been some, so a sentence or two would be appropriate. AwesomePorcupine (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This I’m fine with. I just felt like we needed something to balance it out??? Also you're much better at explaining the stuff I said (or more accuracy tried to say) lol.

RidgelantRL (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It took me about half an hour to write all that and find sources. Then I realized some of these things are already mentioned and sourced in the main text, so finding new sources was not really necessary. haha AwesomePorcupine (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is biased, bt there is no need to dig up the dirt about everbody. This sort of thing is strictly for the "Controversies" section of their page. Also, the "genocide" that you refer to is in itself a hotly debated topic. To add it to the page would be a further violation of NPOV. The best solutio would be to just remove it all. 23emr (talk | contributions) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Second this. This whole page reads like an article straight off CNN. Wikipedia as a whole has been trending in this direction, it's annoying. Formaldehydemaster (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

She has called her opponent a fascist and a threat to democracy, which is fearmongering. Clearly, that was worth including in the Trump paragraph, thus it must be worth including in the Harris paragraph. I could go on, but just like that, I've already defeated your position. Renathras (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Renathrax: I'm personally biased here, but considering the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the several things he has said or done and the people he has associated himself with, I feel as if that's a fair statement coming from Harris. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with Harris, it's still very much fearmongering. Due to by personal preference for Harris than Trump, it's justified fearmongering to me, but fearmongering nonetheless. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That's true. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:

"Fearmongering is the act of intentionally fomenting feelings of fear by using exaggerated rumors of impending danger."

"The House of Representatives [] adopted one article of impeachment against Trump of incitement of insurrection, stating that he had incited the January 6 attack of the U.S. Capitol."

Kamala referring to Donald as a "threat to democracy" does touch the fear button, but I see no possibility of this qualifying for "exaggerated" given the judgment rendered at the highest level of the US government.

You can only argue that this is exaggerated relative to the judgment of the House you would have preferred. Perhaps you believe the House exaggerated Trump's involvement. That would still not be Kamala's exaggeration.

Moreover, the spirit of fearmongering is to gin up fears where people don't already have settled opinion, and the prospective voter would really have to live under a rock not to have a settled opinion about Trump's involvement on 6 January.

When I did a quick Google scan for reputable sources framing Kamala's remarks as fearmongering, I mainly found Fox News, and one opinion writer from USA Today. That's about a 2 on the Richter scale, where most people sleep through the barely perceptible shaking.

Where the pictures started to fall off the walls due to the vigorous shaking was on the issue of Kamala actually standing for a political position, rather than her identity as a woman. As I see this, her extremely tepid reference to Donald's known history of saber-rattling around the peaceful transfer of power was a non-entity compared to this issue with her campaign. — MaxEnt 02:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Hello @Personisinsterest:

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

I think we should improve the lead section of the article with a newly created section before user:Personisinsterest suggests an updated section/suggestion.discussion: it is the updated discussion for this topic.[[1]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to find ways to improve the article by choosing one of several topics, including economic issues. For example, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry poses risks to both candidates in the US-China dominance race. [[2]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

But coverage of that aspect is marginal compared to what's already in the lead; trying to give additional weight to it in order to water down criticism of Trump (which is essentially the rationale you gave above) would be both WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you want to argue that the balance of the article is off, you need to demonstrate that there isn't that much criticism of Trump in mainstream coverage - ie. you have to argue that we're giving it undue weight relative to its prominence in sources. Do you believe that mainstream coverage is precisely balanced in how critical it is of the two candidates? Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it reflects not just the content but the weight of mainstream coverage; if coverage is overwhelmingly more concerned about one candidate than the other, then the weight of our articles are going to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

agree with Aquillion. Many of the stuff proposed is small potatoes. Harris has the advantage of running as a clean state having been the VP which is basically a ceremonial role. while Trump was president for 4 years. (did that really happen or was it a dream?) Andre🚐 19:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Many users have raised the issue of improving bias, such as recording positive and negative opinions about Harris, but in order to record them, users must agree on the relevant part, and I understand that it has not been recorded yet because there has been no agreement on this yet. Regarding the opinion that it was recorded biasedly about Trump, there is related content in the link below,

[[3]], so You can write a proposal to ask users for their opinions and reach an agreement by referring to the relevant part in the relevant section, which is a neutral improvement of biased content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:Billionten, regarding your previous suggestion, If time permits, please suggest how you can improve the original proposal you suggested. This talk subject, which is directly related to your request, was created early, but has not been resolved yet, so I think it should be resolved as soon as possible.

Your original proposal: Come on, the third paragraph is just "trump sucks he's so hateful and racist and wrong and makes conspiracy theories" to the point it might actually genuinely influence the election. I would shorten the third paragraph and also simply state that they are generally considered as wrong and not just directly saying it, maybe move that stuff to later in the article. Nothing criticizing the democrats aside from the first debate and Biden, and even that's a stretch. AT LEAST add . It's not the writing that's the problem, it's the fact that it's in a "neutral" encyclopedia that's the problem. I would edit if the article wasn't extended confirmed protected. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Personisinsterest,Kafkasmurat , User:Catboy69,User:Earl of Arundel, User:PackMecEng,User:DuneEnjoyer333,GoodDay, HAL333,User:Billionten, User:Spf121188

As per the many users' concerns and suggestions, a Political POV was placed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Man oh man, this article is just dripping with anti Trump bias. Well, this election was a spiritual battle in the Heavenlies with the forces of God versus the forces of Satan. My source is Daniel 2:21 - “It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; " Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Human-Authority,-Instituted-By-God -- Trump is certainly not perfect, but he is the man selected to lead us at this time. All the bias laced throughout this article could not stop or override God's choice. Spparky (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns over interference in US elections by POV-pushing of FALSEBALANCE

Can someone please reinsert the template:

at the beginning of the article? This was deleted by a user who does not follow WP:BRD, emphasizing the POV and created the WP:FALSEBALANCE, At least 9 users have raised the issue of the political neutrality of this Article, and the election interference concern has been ignored without consensus of many users.

[[4]] Template removal criteria - All three criteria are not met: 1)Consensus through discussion, 2)neutrality concerns are satisfactorily resolved, and 3)there was no existing talk on the issue. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

1) There is consensus. 2) The neutrality concerns have been addressed per WP:FALSEBALANCE explanations. 3) This has been discussed extensively. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you post the link(s) of the consensus? I don't think there's RfC for this. From my understanding, If there are problems of WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should see the previous discussions. In summary of Wikipedia's policy

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by the editor consensus.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Arguing that policies are "non negotiable" is exactly why we have WP:5P5, though this is to the detriment of the article by leaving people with a firm impression of political bias. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

"Trump" appears 648 times, "Kamala" appears 45 times, this article is missing lots of information, those who know about it should contribute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I8TheCompetition (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"Harris" appears 207 times, you're using the wrong search term. 207 is still significantly smaller than 648 - possibly lower than it should be - but there has certainly been a significantly greater focus on Trump than Harris in this election. It makes sense he would have many more mentions in this. Michaelofg (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In the interests of neutrality, might I suggest that the word "false" in the lede be changed to "unproven" or "controversial"? Funnyhat (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting that it be changed to "controversial" is a good idea, other than providing a "template" for the article to indicate that there is an issue and that it needs to be improved. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Orwellian scam. The only "reliable sources" are left-wing bias sources that lie for the Democratic Party, so posting the left-wing lies is okay because it is "verifiable." Only special people are allowed to edit the important articles. The people on here aren't savvy enough to realize that stuff like this article is a big part of the reason they lost. Unfortunately, their Orwellian machine doesn't always work. Some people can still think for themselves and rely on empiricism rather than what they are told to think. People are tired of the garbage put out by the left-wing legacy media, which Wikipedia is an arm of as they just aggregate all of the garbage. Take the Hunter Biden laptop for example. Anyone with any ability to think independently knew it was a real and an obvious problem, but since the media lied about it and the former intelligence agents, etc. reinforced the lie, the misinformation campaign was parroted by Wikipedia. It's a clear-cut case. It's been going on for awhile. It's a shame because there are lot of good things about Wikipedia. JimmyPiersall (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Article is excellent, especially the statistical graphics. Anti-Trump bias is laughable, keep it up. Readers understand -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think some readers may understand, but there are others who don't, so why not mark it as a template for future improvements, as there are multiple users who have been asking for bias or left-leaning content? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

I'm not sure the hatnote is needed because the title of this article is not ambiguous. I removed it per WP:NAMB but someone else restored it. Any thoughts? Cyber the tiger (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE Analysis section

Can we please clean up the analysis section..? For starters, it is extremely verbose. It reads like a news article which is a no-no per WP:NOTNEWS. We really do not need a big wall of text analyzing why Trump won and Harris lost. This is taking up a big chunk of the article and seems WP:UNDUE since most of the election coverage isn’t even about why Trump won. Seems weird to say this pundit said this, this pundit said that; it’s not very encyclopedic to give so much undue weight on why the pundits think Trump won. Also, please keep in mind it is frowned upon to remove clean up tags and templates before the issue is addressed. Prcc27 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think Trump was the first

Wasn’t Nixon the first to be convicted? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What… can we further elaborate? Qutlooker (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blackmamba31248 Reagan was never convicted of any crime. I believe you may be mistaken with Richard Nixon and Watergate possibly. If so, Nixon himself was not convicted but resigned and faced the possibility of criminal charges related to the Watergate scandal. TheFloridaMan (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I get Reagen and Nixon confused sometimes. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Extreme bias

I know a lot of people have brought this up, but I think the main issue is that this article fails to bring up what made Kamala Harris and her administraton hated for, and only brings up what Donald Trump and his administration was hated for, exaggerating their views as well, and also saying uneeded things such as ‘’ Vance brought up more false claims than Walz’’ among others. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blackmamba31248 that is why Trump won big! Chensiyuan (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

MAP mistake

Near arizona, for some reason there's some weird gray stuff. Epicepiccoolman (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Epicepiccoolman Looks like it was fixed a few minutes after you brought it up. Let us know if you notice any further issues. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove false descriptions of Trump campaign

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
False comparisons of the Trump campaign to “fascism, authoritarianism, and hateful rhetoric towards minorities and immigrants” absolutely must be removed. Wikipedia cannot stand as a fake propaganda tool of the Democrat Party and the mainstream media. MrElculver2424 (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately Wikipedia considers mainstream media a reliable source. I don't think that you can get it changed as others will say that is it well sourced. Just be thankful that, Trump is in office at last!!! They can say what they want about Trump, but that does not change a thing about him. He will not have to face reelection so all of this will die down in a while. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC) To pick just one example, "they're eating the dogs" was hateful rhetoric towards minorities and immigrants. Or have you already forgotten that? If he didn't say and do horrible things, no one would be writing about him saying and doing horrible things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) There is *ample* evidence showing that these things were indeed happening. And yet they tried to paint him as a liar and a racist instead of addressing the issue, which is that immigrants should simply be properly vetted (remember, the US took in at *least* 10+ million illegal immigrants over the passed four years!). But of course this site has basically become the mouthpiece for the extreme-left, happily parroting its propaganda while pushing its pro-censorship agenda. As such, Wikipedia NPOV is functionally dead. Earl of Arundel (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I wouldn't worry too much about this. The way WP is set up, with legacy media outlets being considered "reliable," this won't change. It'll only damage the credibility of this project moving forward as it pertains to politics, and eventually, change will be forced. In the meantime, people are obviously not buying it, as evidenced last week. It's a shame since in every other topic, WP has pretty reliable information. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC) There is, in fact, ample evidence that these things were not happening. Springfield pet-eating hoax. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC) See here [[5]] for one such example. Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC) A video of a man, of unknown nationality, in an unknown place, butchering an unknown animal? Not exactly air-tight proof. Especially when presented by a person who is, herself, making unsubstantiated racist allegations. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC) This isn't about racism. It is about being honest about what was actually happening there. Do Haitians traditionally eat animals which the average American typically does not (including cats and dogs)? Yes. Were new-comers from Haiti observed in communities doing so? Yes. Did the mainstream-media lie about it? Yes. The leftist media has silenced conservatives and that is the true reason why we have pages such as the "Springfield pet-eating hoax". It is flat-out propaganda and just another example why the un-American censorship machine must be dismantled. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Can someone archive this already? It's gone off the rails. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Had this project not "gone off the rails" in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There was a time (believe it or not) when Wikipedia administrators were committed to neutrality in editing. Clearly that is no longer the case. Now, would you like to actually address the issue? Why indeed are we allowing such partisan yellow-journalism here? Does it hurt or help the credibility of the project to reflect such biases? Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC) The article is severely biased and something needs to be done about it. I suggest we start by re-writing this section entirely (or perhaps even the lede?). Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC) This passage, for example: "Trump, who lost the 2020 election to Biden, ran for re-election again, this time for a non-consecutive term. He was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Vance, after winning the Republican primaries. The Trump campaign was noted for making many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, engaging in anti-immigrant fearmongering, and promoting conspiracy theories. His speeches were widely described as marked by authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents. His campaign and populist political movement were characterized by several historians and former Trump administration officials as featuring parallels to fascism." A more neutral phrasing would be something along the lines of: "Trump, who lost the 2020 election to Biden, ran for re-election again, this time for a non-consecutive term. He was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Vance, after winning the Republican primaries. Various commentators have accused the Trump campaign of making many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, engaging in anti-immigrant fearmongering, and promoting conspiracy theories, his speeches described by some as marked by authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents. His campaign and populist political movement were characterized by several historians and former Trump administration officials as featuring parallels to fascism."Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) The Wiki-community a while ago, decided (via consensus) what media outlets are reliable or what media outlets are not. That's all we can go on. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC) The issue is the wording of the article. Spouting DNC talking points as facts is both misleading and uncouth. The majority of Americans voted for President Donald J. Trump and so they obviously disagree with such a narrative. Just state the facts and let the people decide for themselves. Is that really too much to ask of editors and administrators of the Wikipedia project? Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Nice job, this wording adds necessary grains of salt Shoshin000 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of the election, more sources, needs shortening

I believe the analysis section of why Harris lost and why Trump won, is largely accurate.

I have some more sources for it:
1. https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/populisms-rise-in-u-s-isnt-only-about-anger/
2. https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article/23/5/951/7126961
3. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/americas-era-violent-populism?check_logged_in=1&utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=article_link&utm_term=article_email&utm_content=20241109
4. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/09/democrats-working-class-exodus-sets-off-reckoning-within-party/76117107007/

Here's an article by the Washington Post, about how nearly every county in the country had its voting pattern shift to the right: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/11/05/compare-2020-2024-presidential-results/

Also, I think the section should he shortened a lot. The article as a whole I think is already a bit too long EarthDude (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

On NPR yesterday, I heard about an extreme reaction to the result of the election. I have been hearing for weeks that European countries are very concerned about Trump being elected and think it would be negative for them. Why am I not seeing anything here?

In particular, I was hoping to find out if what I heard was really true, but it was bleeped on NPR and censored elsewhere. Although a source for that exact information would have to be found first. And I guess a screenshot, should one be available, is a copyright violation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about "extreme" reactions, but BBC World News had daily reports about Trump's intent to impose protective tariffs that would make European exports too expensive for the American market. It also had frequent interviews with American business owners who expect their production costs to rise because they will not have access to cheap European components for their products. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There was, according to NPR, a German newspaper with a one-word headline about the election, a word that could not be used on NPR, but one for which the English translation started with F. That seems extreme to me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Swing states section wording

In the Swing states section, there is wording:

Most states are not electorally competitive and are usually certain to vote for a particular party. Because of the nature of the Electoral College, this means that a limited number of swing states—competitive states that do not clearly lean towards one party over the other—are vital to winning the presidency.

The phrase I put in bold implies the Electoral College itself is the reason for swing states being vital to winning. This is not correct. It is the winner-take-all method that most states use to select their electors that makes these states vital. The winner-take-all method has nothing to do with the Electoral College itself.

I propose rewording the quoted portion to say:

Most states are not electorally competitive and are usually certain to vote for a particular party. Because of the winner-take-all selection of electors used by 48 states and Washington DC, this means that a limited number of swing states—competitive states that do not clearly lean towards one party over the other—are vital to winning the presidency.

Thought I'd propose this here before updating the article myself. Timmeh 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be ok to add, it would give the reader more information than the other format. And give a clearer picture too.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Format needs to be improved

The page's format is so messy compared to every other Presidential election page. The background needs to be dramatically shortened/moved into "Campaign issues", on top of that the nominations section needs to be moved above "Campaign issues" and "Electoral map" as it is listed in every other Presidential election page. TheFellaVB (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a "Nominations" section and moved the "Republican" and "Democratic" sections there. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

“the first at a rally in Butler Pennsylvania”

There should be a comma after "Butler" in this phrase in one of the introductory paragraphs WumBis (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if there's any more, I added a comma to the paragraph which talked about assassinations Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Starlink conspiracy theory

might be good to include under the "Stolen election" conspiracy theories subsection: AllSides: Newsweek User Mag 🐦DrWho42👻 03:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

These would need to be discussed per WP:ALLSIDES and WP:NEWSWEEK. User Mag has only existed since October 2024 per this article, though it appears to be run solely by Taylor Lorenz. Digging for more sourcing, I found this Al Jazeera article which briefly refs to Starlink though WP:ALJAZEERA might apply. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

NOTNEWS, NORUSH, could probably name a few other things too. As of right now, this "conspiracy theory" is the result of a relative few accounts opining on Twitter/X and is not actually something that should be included per DUE. If it results in court cases - big if there - then it will tell us whether it's actually a conspiracy theory (if they lose) or a valid concern with the election (if the court cases show there was misconduct on Elon/Starlink's part). But as of yet, it's probably not DUE weight to include as a conspiracy theory - we are not a database of everything some people said on X from any viewpoint. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 09:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"Harris' result of 226 electoral votes was the worst performance for a Democratic presidential ticket since Michael Dukakis in 1988."

Could a link to 1988 United States presidential election either replace the link to Michael Dukakis, or be included as a link for 1988? I'm not sure the biographical link is the best link, considering the subject of the sentence is the election, not the person who ran in it (at least not directly). Perhaps:

"Harris' result of 226 electoral votes was the worst performance for a Democratic presidential ticket since Michael Dukakis in 1988." ScruffyUnicornBeard (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a major change and does not change the content of the article. It also helps the reader with the context and provides them with a link to the election in question.

I have boldly added the link per your request Artem...^Talk 04:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is an improvement! User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe seems like more of a minor arbitrary “fun fact” fit for the body than a definitive historical statement fit for the lede, but that’s just a thought. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Arizona

Why is Arizona still undecided? Jack Upland (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia decided beforehand that a collection of reliable networks had to all call a state before Wikipedia added it. Not enough networks are calling it now. WP:NORUSH BarntToust 04:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They are refusing to call it. Why wait for networks when the states have basically confirmed who has won the election at the presidential level. Qutlooker (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

...? We still need reliable sourcing for who won Arizona. That is why we are waiting. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

At this moment, all five networks (ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC) are reporting Trump at 1,492,266 votes and Harris at 1,310,383 votes with 82-83% of the expected total finished. (AP says 82%; ABC, CNN, NBC at 83%; CBS says nothing.) To add, NBC says it estimates there are 591,000 votes outstanding that have yet to be counted, which falls in line with the 82/83 percent estimates. Trump needs half of the remaining vote after minusing his lead plus one vote (or more) to win Arizona. Since Trump leads Harris by 181,883 votes, that would mean he needs 204,559 more votes which would put him at 1,696,825 votes. If Harris reaches 1,690,000 votes instead, then she likely wins the votes. (Depends on the actual remaining and votes for other groups.)

So, in short, we are waiting for one or the other's vote count to hit around 1.6m to 1.7m votes, which would likely allow for a call to be made. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump is going to win AZ if I’m being completely honest. But we are an encyclopedia, not a news article. There is no rush for us to declare a winner before the major media networks. And it would be WP:UNDUE to rely on only one network. Prcc27 (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit late to reply, but exactly. Regarding NBC, the main reason I focused on them was to cut out a bit of math. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Give it time. The grand EC total will be 312 for Trump to 226 for Harris. That's assuming there'll be no faithless electors. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It's over - the score: Trump 312, Harris 226. Harris was soundly defeated, by any measure. TopShelf99 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Umm.. the tally has already been on the article for a while. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove false descriptions of Trump campaign

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
False comparisons of the Trump campaign to “fascism, authoritarianism, and hateful rhetoric towards minorities and immigrants” absolutely must be removed. Wikipedia cannot stand as a fake propaganda tool of the Democrat Party and the mainstream media. MrElculver2424 (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately Wikipedia considers mainstream media a reliable source. I don't think that you can get it changed as others will say that is it well sourced. Just be thankful that, Trump is in office at last!!! They can say what they want about Trump, but that does not change a thing about him. He will not have to face reelection so all of this will die down in a while. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC) To pick just one example, "they're eating the dogs" was hateful rhetoric towards minorities and immigrants. Or have you already forgotten that? If he didn't say and do horrible things, no one would be writing about him saying and doing horrible things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) There is *ample* evidence showing that these things were indeed happening. And yet they tried to paint him as a liar and a racist instead of addressing the issue, which is that immigrants should simply be properly vetted (remember, the US took in at *least* 10+ million illegal immigrants over the passed four years!). But of course this site has basically become the mouthpiece for the extreme-left, happily parroting its propaganda while pushing its pro-censorship agenda. As such, Wikipedia NPOV is functionally dead. Earl of Arundel (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I wouldn't worry too much about this. The way WP is set up, with legacy media outlets being considered "reliable," this won't change. It'll only damage the credibility of this project moving forward as it pertains to politics, and eventually, change will be forced. In the meantime, people are obviously not buying it, as evidenced last week. It's a shame since in every other topic, WP has pretty reliable information. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC) What happened last week? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Can you rephrase that so we know what you refer to. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC) There is, in fact, ample evidence that these things were not happening. Springfield pet-eating hoax. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC) See here [[6]] for one such example. Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC) A video of a man, of unknown nationality, in an unknown place, butchering an unknown animal? Not exactly air-tight proof. Especially when presented by a person who is, herself, making unsubstantiated racist allegations. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC) This isn't about racism. It is about being honest about what was actually happening there. Do Haitians traditionally eat animals which the average American typically does not (including cats and dogs)? Yes. Were new-comers from Haiti observed in communities doing so? Yes. Did the mainstream-media lie about it? Yes. The leftist media has silenced conservatives and that is the true reason why we have pages such as the "Springfield pet-eating hoax". It is flat-out propaganda and just another example why the un-American censorship machine must be dismantled. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Can someone archive this already? It's gone off the rails. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Had this project not "gone off the rails" in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There was a time (believe it or not) when Wikipedia administrators were committed to neutrality in editing. Clearly that is no longer the case. Now, would you like to actually address the issue? Why indeed are we allowing such partisan yellow-journalism here? Does it hurt or help the credibility of the project to reflect such biases? Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC) The article is severely biased and something needs to be done about it. I suggest we start by re-writing this section entirely (or perhaps even the lede?). Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC) This passage, for example: "Trump, who lost the 2020 election to Biden, ran for re-election again, this time for a non-consecutive term. He was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Vance, after winning the Republican primaries. The Trump campaign was noted for making many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, engaging in anti-immigrant fearmongering, and promoting conspiracy theories. His speeches were widely described as marked by authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents. His campaign and populist political movement were characterized by several historians and former Trump administration officials as featuring parallels to fascism." A more neutral phrasing would be something along the lines of: "Trump, who lost the 2020 election to Biden, ran for re-election again, this time for a non-consecutive term. He was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Vance, after winning the Republican primaries. Various commentators have accused the Trump campaign of making many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, engaging in anti-immigrant fearmongering, and promoting conspiracy theories, his speeches described by some as marked by authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents. His campaign and populist political movement were characterized by several historians and former Trump administration officials as featuring parallels to fascism."Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) The Wiki-community a while ago, decided (via consensus) what media outlets are reliable or what media outlets are not. That's all we can go on. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC) The issue is the wording of the article. Spouting DNC talking points as facts is both misleading and uncouth. The majority of Americans voted for President Donald J. Trump and so they obviously disagree with such a narrative. Just state the facts and let the people decide for themselves. Is that really too much to ask of editors and administrators of the Wikipedia project? Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Nice job, this wording adds necessary grains of salt Shoshin000 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Thanks, yes, a few simple changes is that is needed to bring this article back up to a standard worthy of Wikipedia's core values. Earl of Arundel (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Well you can feel free to add it Shoshin000 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Apparently not, Shoshin000 and Earl of Arundel. Looks like it was both reverted and Earl was taken to Admin's noticeboard. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC) I can’t believe people are actually trying to argue that Haitian migrants were eating dogs and cats, even though there is no reliable evidence of this. Prcc27 (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Prcc27, I wasn't really referring to that. More just the reasonable edit that Earl made in regards to a paragraph in the lead, where they attributed some of the accusations to the media, where we have information verified. That's all. Wasn't making a comment about pets and Springfield. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC) As I explained in reverting that edit, it added WP:WEASEL wording, removed valid wikilinks, and lessened our accuracy by taking out that the alleged 2020 fraud is "false", suggesting there could be validity to that nonsense. And I took Earl to WP:3RRNB for a blatant 3RR violation on this talk page and continued edit warring. I can't speak for anyone else, but I welcome attempts to rework this page. I certainly don't welcome edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentalities. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC) I agree. We should be working together to rework this page (ie. less tabloid-ish and more encyclopedic). Do you have any specific suggestions? Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Having issue with section

When I am closing Results section all other sections are closing Ktdk (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a similar issue. I can't see the See Alse and References sections independently. If I want to see them, I'm having to open the Results section and go all the way down which is really inconvenient. Not sure why this is happening EarthDude (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, when I checked the mobile version with the Chrome Developer Tools, it was erroring out in jQuery. Not sure what the issue is, though.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) --19:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed it a few days ago [7]. I was able to figure out that this edit here [8] caused the error, but I'm not sure what the problem is.

You can see that the previous edit [9] renders just fine on mobile. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to show up on Firefox 132, but should it be reported as a bug since it appears to be unintentional behavior? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It was fixed earlier today by Ammarpad here: [10]. There was a divider that wasn't properly closed, and that was messing up the formatting. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't see the issue when looking at the revisions provided, but it seems I misunderstood and it was just an issue when using mobile (and only because of a formatting issue, so no report needed). --Super Goku V (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Introduction (2024)

Trump, who lost the 2020 election to Biden, ran for re-election again, this time for a non-consecutive term.[15] He was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Vance, after winning the Republican primaries. The Trump campaign was noted for making many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, engaging in anti-immigrant fearmongering, and promoting conspiracy theories.[20][21] His speeches were widely described as marked by authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents. His campaign and populist political movement were characterized by several historians and former Trump administration officials as featuring parallels to fascism.

Putting this paragraph front and center in the introduction approaches being laughable. Regardless of the veracity of any claims by Trump or his campaign or lack thereof, would any election covered 100 years ago be this focused on electoral editorializing in its introduction? Here is, I guess, the equivalent paragraph from the 1904 election (and that introduction is, tellingly, 3 paragraphs rather than 6):

As there was little difference between the candidates' positions, the race was largely based on their personalities; the Democrats argued that the Roosevelt presidency was "arbitrary" and "erratic". Republicans emphasized Roosevelt's success in foreign affairs and his record of firmness against monopolies. Roosevelt easily defeated Parker, sweeping every US region except the South, while Parker lost multiple states won by Bryan in 1900, as well as his home state of New York. Roosevelt's popular vote margin of 18.8% was the largest since James Monroe's victory in the 1820 presidential election, and would be the biggest popular vote victory in the century between 1820 and Warren Harding's 1920 landslide. With Roosevelt's landslide, he became the first presidential candidate to receive over 300 electoral votes in a presidential election. This was the first time since 1868 that Missouri voted for the Republican candidate.

Surely it would be far more in line with Wikipedia's remit to provide a tight, concise paragraph that sums up the mechanics of the election and the issues relevant to its result in the simplest and cleanest fashion, than something which reads like a very childish and frankly desperate safeguard against imagined readers interpreting an article which states someone won an election as meaning the person who won the election must be good, something which does not credit the reader with any critical thinking skills, or really any intelligence at all. In summation, the introduction is far too long and reads like shit. ColonelBustard (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:DEADHORSE territory, since this is the third or fourth time in the past week the wording in the intro has been brought up. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The only "dead horse" I see is Wikipedia's so-called "commitment" to WP:NPOV. Earl of Arundel (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hear, hear TheRazgriz (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Go away. I will rewrite the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelBustard (talk • contribs)

Not without consensus. — Czello ^(music) 12:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Tactics Democrats used to try to win

WP:NOTFORUM – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There should be some mention of all the strategies the Democrats / left used to try to win the election. Certainly there should be some mention of Lawfare (the questionable suits in Manhattan and Georgia), as well as the lack of sufficient Secret Service protection for Trump even after the first assassination attempt, the overwhelmingly biased media which made no secret of their desire for Harris to win, social media sites which were "encouraged" by the Biden administration to delete pro-Trump accounts, Saturday Night Live not penalized for a last-ditch appearance by Harris the weekend before the election, attempts to link Trump to Project 2025, blatantly false claims in political ads against Trump, etc. TopShelf99 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC) And of course the lack of voter ID in plenty of states... Shoshin000 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) It's funny when you claim Democrats / the left are biased, and then we see posts like these that are full of Republican / right-wing bias. Prosecutions of Trump are legal processes, not campaign tactics. Secret Service failings are now related to the Biden and Harris campaigns? Voter ID is used to suppress the vote. NBC gave Trump equal time after Harris went on SNL. Twitter / X is literally owned and operated by one of Trump's biggest donors. Project 2025 will be implemented in 2025, to the extent they can. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC) There are many problems with your claims, which you are likely aware of. First, the prosecution of Trump in New York was politically motivated. Trump could never get a fair trial in NYC, hence the chosen venue. The jury instructions by the judge will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, as will the entire case. And sentencing was stayed until after the election so the ridiculous convictions could stand during that time. Second, Secret Service failings are not related to Harris' campaign per se; that was a nice diversionary tactic by using the term "campaign" rather than "administration", as the Biden/Harris administration was clearly responsible for Trump's Secret Service protection. Third, Voter ID is used to make sure only registered, legal voters can vote. Democrats always claim voter ID is suppression, but the only people "suppressed" are those who are not registered or voting illegally. And why shouldn't voter ID be required. ID is needed to rent a car, drive a car, check into a hotel, buy an airline ticket, buy beer, get a bank account, get a job, get married, etc., etc. Yet it shouldn't be required to vote? Fourth, NBC did not give Trump equal time. That is simply false. How could it give equal time after giving Harris a sweet Saturday evening time slot right before the election? Finally, Trump has repeatedly denied any connection with Project 2025, and your statement that it will be implemented by Trump is simply opinion. TopShelf99 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Spending all your time on a golf course leaves you exposed to assassination attempts to a degree that makes it impossible to adequately protect you. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC) According to wiki policy you first need to find and provide some sources. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sentence flow in the last paragraph of the lede

I've noticed that the sentences in this last paragraph are a bit silted; many of the sentences feel a bit more like trivia, as they're presented, than a properly coherent paragraph. Particularly, a lot of the sentences open with 'Trump <x>', which feels almost point form (but it's possible that this is deliberate wiki style thing too). I would like to suggest something like:

"Trump achieved a decisive victory, sweeping every swing state in addition to holding all of the states that he had previously won in 2020 [citations], as well as winning the popular vote, the first Republican presidential candidate to do so since George W. Bush in 2004.[citation] He also saw significant improvement in his vote share among almost all demographics nationwide, particularly among Hispanic voters, in a working class coalition described as the most racially diverse for a Republican presidential candidate in decades [citations]. Having previously won in 2016, and lost in 2020, Trump became the second president to be elected to a non-consecutive second term since Grover Cleveland in the 1892 election[citations]. Trump also became the oldest person ever elected to U.S. president, at age 78, while Vance is the first millennial to be elected vice president[citations]. Harris' performance of 226 electoral votes has been noted as being the worst performance for a Democratic Party presidential ticket since the 1988 election[citations]."

I left off the line about New York here, simply because I think it's probably better elsewhere in the article, presumably in the analysis section. I also find myself thinking that the one sentence about Harris either needs to be bulked up (more things of historical note for Harris) or removed, since the paragraph is almost all about Trump's campaign with this sentence tacked on at the end. Hopefully this suggestion is a bit of an improvement. I would try to make these edits myself, but I don't have the levels necessary unfortunately. ScruffyUnicornBeard (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be a nice cleanup, it currently reads poorly and almost as if it were lazily written with no real flow to the sentence structure. I will wait a few hours for the opinions of more experienced editors before I implement any changes Artem...^Talk 22:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It is better in not sounding like trivia and other things. But it needs improvement for sure. I would add some more things about Harris as the opening paragraphs hardly mention her. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote total

I've noticed that Trump's pop-vote total in the infobox, is bolden. Does that mean Harris can't overtake him, in the pop-vote? I'm asking since there's still votes to be reported, particularly from California. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think he did win the popular vote. But I am not sure if that is something media outlets even make a projection on, so I didn’t even bother to come up with a criteria for bolding the popular vote. Prcc27 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t they project Hillary to win the popular vote early on in 2016? Bjoh249 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In 2016, I remember CNN had a confusing infograph on their website which made it look like Trump had been projected to win the popular vote. I was so confused. I don’t really think networks go, “we project Donald Trump has won the national popular vote”. It’s a beauty contest, so unfortunately, it gets overlooked. Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

CBS News has stated that he has won the popular vote [11]. The article says "It's the first time in Trump's three campaigns for the White House that he's topped his opponent in the popular vote, and only the second time since 1988 that any Republican has done so." CountyCountry (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that article is from a few days ago now.How is that going to stack against the remaining votes to be counted? California gave Hillary the popular vote in 2016. Is Trump projected to win the popular vote? I can’t remember how it went in 2016 and when it was projected Hillary would win the popular vote back then. Bjoh249 (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it took long for Clinton to lead in the NPV. If Harris does win the popular vote (doubtful), I would except it to be by a significantly slimmer margin. But anyways, we should do our best to stick to what the sources say. Prcc27 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the news agencies should at least project the winner of the popular vote. It won’t make any difference in determining the winner, but it will determine the incoming administration’s mandate. If Trump loses it it will also give more ammo to the popular vote movement to try to eliminate the electoral college. Most of what’s left to count is in California around 25-30% left. Certainly someone can look at where the outstanding vote is and make an estimate. Bjoh249 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No news networks have called the popular vote for him as of 11/12 11:20 Trump has a 2.1% lead John Bois (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They have now. Trump won the popular vote also. By any measure, Harris was soundly defeated. TopShelf99 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting count meter

Trump has won the election. Nevertheless the voting count meter says that 99% of votes have been counted my question is what is the source of that since I can’t seem to find a source for that? Any answer would be greatly appreciated. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, how does it equate with 76/77 % in California. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed it back to the last reliable meter % based on sources. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If we do want to attach a source to the meter, I would suggest The New York Times unless we are consistently using another source. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Salandarianflag (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell (though I could be missing something of course), many reliable sources on this either directly or indirectly differ to the AP. If someone could show where that isnt the case on this very specific point, it would be appreciated. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the AP show an estimate? I have searched their election results page for anything and couldn't find a single number for the national estimate. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"2024 election voter demographics"

Under Results article, there is a voter demographics graph using exit polls from NBC conducted on Election Day. It's inaccurate to add a page like this to begin with, without all votes counted, but displaying the last exit poll by NBC as the voter demographics for the election is inaccurate. There is no national results voter demographics. Should be removed. Minnesotawaterballer (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific with your reasoning please, I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't really follow why you have an issue with the exit poll data from a WP:RS being presented here Artem...^Talk 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, with the point made here.

User is saying that whoever added that to this page has conflated "media polling prior to election results" with "actual election results", specifically as it relates to demographics. In this manner, NBC is not an actual WP:RS on this. "We asked some people, here is what they said" is not the same as "Here is the factual final dataset on the results of an election".

I second that the source and the mention of demographics should be removed until such time as actual voting demographics from the final results of the actual election are publicly available. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You realize that's not actually possible, on the account of voted being secret and such? So the only indications of demographic breakdown for any election come from exit polls. This should not be mistaken with the opinion polls before the elections, which generally ask potential voters who they're going to vote for. Exit polls ask people who actually just voted ("exit"ed the voting place) who they voted for and are generally much more reliable. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Part of your reply is sort of the point that the other User and I are making here, the fact that there is no way to actually verify this information.

But more to the point is that this demographic is being presented in the form of a fact, when its just 1 media networks poll. I doubt NBC is the only media network that conducts exit polling, and there is bound to be exit polling by (other media networks) in areas/counties/communities where NBC polling was not present or less effective at data gathering. One poll by one network should not be misused to assert its findings as a presumed fact. TheRazgriz (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct as they can not be everywhere asking people, they likely were only at a few select places. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My reply was only responding to "until such time as actual voting demographics from the final results of the actual election are publicly available". That part is not going to happen, so if we want to present voter demographics, as we have for other elections, exit polls have to be relied upon. That said, I agree that there should be a clear indication that the information is based on the exit polls, maybe a similar explanation as for 2020 elections can be used? No longer a penguin (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

1st para of Analysis section

It seems to be just trivia. I don't really think it belongs in the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it just seems like an amalgamation of facts to form a paragraph, with only two sources, a clarification needed template, and two citation needed templates. It also does not seem to provide any analysis and therefore not fit into the section of which it belongs. I will wait a few hours to see if anyone else has comment on this before I make a WP:BOLD edit and remove the entire paragraph - worst case scenario someone can just revert my edit Artem...^Talk 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the section seems problematic and WP:UNDUE. Why are we saying “this pundit said this, this pundit said that”? Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

County results

When will results by county for the statewide election results be added? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history of three states for the 2020 election: Florida, Indiana and Colorado. I live in Indiana, and I thought I would take one other red and one blue. None of them had county by county results posted before Nov 25, 2020 and one wasn't posted until the first week in December 2020. It takes a while for this information to be finalized and published. Some states still haven't counted all of the votes. rogerd (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Better map

This Boston Globe opinion piece points out that psychological studies have found that maps that show party strength with gradations of red and blue (as opposed to starkly 100% red and 100% blue) give readers a more accurate impression. The top map in this article could be improved along these lines. -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure a gradient map actually would give a more accurate impression. The map, as far as I can tell, is showing who won the electoral votes in each state (or district). It might be useful as a map of the popular vote, however. ScruffyUnicornBeard (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am open to other maps for secondary maps in the body. But the nature of the electoral college is winner-take-all, which is what the map reflects in the infobox. Margins don’t matter in each state, plurality (or majority for rank choice states) matters. Prcc27 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A map that uses two dimensions of color still accurately depicts who won all the electoral votes in a state, in the hue dimension. It just also adds saturation as a second dimension, indicating the relative strength of support for the winning party.

Margins do matter for lots of lines of inquiry. To what degree does the elected president have a strong mandate, and if so from which states? Where is the core base of support for each party? Which states could be flipped in a future election? To what degree are the political parties geographically segregated? The studies in question indicate that people who saw an all-or-nothing map have less accurate guesses about per-state political party strength, and degree of political polarization. For the popular vote, I'd probably want to see something at the county level to avoid giving inaccurate impressions about the uniformity of opinion in states. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would think a President’s mandate is actually based on the National Popular Vote. I don’t think Trump had a mandate his first term, but he will likely have one his second term. I think the current map is our best option. Prcc27 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's one very simplistic way to look at the question of mandate, for which we don't need a map and which I don't find particularly useful without more detailed information like demographics, issues, or geography. -- Beland (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)