Talk:Timeline of the 2024 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

WP:Crystal and all that other stuff

Okay, as of now, there are three dates certain: Some schnook announced he was running for the Libertarian nomination. There will be an election on November 5, 2024, and a president will be inaugurated on January 20, 2025. Not enough for a full article, but I was asked to move the stuff I had already done to here from the draft election page. So here we are.

AS to the WP:Crystal situation: Today is the first day of Fall, and it will snow in January. That is sort of WP:Crystal but not really. We know what the cycles of the world are. We can accurately predict when the phases of the Moon will take place. US presidential elections since 1972 are like that. Each cycle is different and each the same. There will be primaries. You can take that to the bank. Will there be a convention like the ones in the past prior to 2020? I don't know. But there WILL be conventions of sorts. Assume normality and what you get is what's on the main page. Whether the 2024 election is a sham like those in Russia and Turkey or genuinely democratic like 2016 and before is a question for later. But it will take place on November 5th. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of Template:Checked box and Template:Unchecked box

Template:Checked box and Template:Unchecked box and other resolution templates are originally intended to mark the status of a talk page discussion, vote or other process, not for the article mainspace. And they are definitely not going to be needed after Inauguration Day 2025. Note that no other article currently uses them.[1][2] I would like reassurances or consensus that they would be updated regularly until January 2025. Otherwise they are just MOS:DECORATION problems. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11: I added the checkboxes just to keep track of the events which have already happened and the ones which haven't happened yet, and of course I intend them to be removed as the future events happen. I realize these templates are intended for talk pages, but I couldn't find a template for use on articles (does anyone know of one?)

This warrants a deeper discussion: I realize people are burning with interest about potential candidates, but I really think this article is crowded with too much future information which is inappropriate per WP:CRYSTAL. These future events (at least the ones constitutionally and legally anchored such as election day and inauguration day) should either be checked off as they happen, or else removed from the article (especially as yet unplanned events like the conventions). We don't need our noses rubbed in the constitution as our current President is doing; this timeline should not be used as a civics lecture to make a point about "how Trump tried to steal the last election". JustinTime55 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The thing about future events, as WP:CRYSTAL says, "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place" ... "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified". But again, they can be postponed or canceled for whatever reason, emergency or otherwise, even for something mandated by laws like the U.S. Constitution. In 2020, there were multiple primaries that were postponed due to COVID, and you had Trump's legal challenges between Election Day and the certification of the electoral votes. And you never know if 2024 will see the first brokered convention or contingent election in this century. This is probably why I do not think checkboxes are a good idea because it may give the false implication that these events are 100 percent going to happen. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What I would not object to is something like 2022 in American television#Future events, where there is already consensus there to have a separate section listing such verified, planned future events. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they are highlighted as planned, future events I would not object. (JiT55 Sorry but I'm typing this on my stupid phone which won't let me type a tilde to sign.) JustinTime55 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nikki Haley reference as being first candidate in modern era from South Carolina?

I noticed this was included in the blurb mentioning Nikki Haley's candidacy:

Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her bid for president against President Trump, making her the first former UN Ambassador to run for president since George H. W. Bush in 1980, as well as the first candidate since Charles C. Pinckney in 1808 and the first ever presidential candidate since the founding of the modern two party system to have in South Carolina.

I know he didn't make it to the primaries; but the "first presidential candidate since the founding of the modern two-party system" part of the quote overlooks Lindsey Graham's brief run in 2016. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this is wrong. Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I think all trivia, including but not limited to the bit about her being the first former UN Ambassador, should be removed as the trivia claims categorically aren't sourced and from my experience with other articles of similar topic and scope, I generally don't get the sense the trivia is considered relevant by reliable sources, certainly not for the purposes this article is for. As a result, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the unsourced claims. Przemysl15 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Third party candidates in candidate participation timeline

I think that we should add third party candidates to the candidate participation timeline, because the timelines for 2020, 2016, 2012, and 2008 all have third party candidates in their candidate participation timelines. Opm581 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding them to that section, using the same guidelines/criteria that was applied in the previous articles. Sal2100 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Why did the August 8th raid of trumps home get taken down?

JustinTime55 decided to remove the entry, just curious as to why. Did he decide that the raid didn’t happen? Or was he afraid it would embarrass his cult leader 209.251.128.246 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, smart-ass; I didn't decide the raid didn't happen, and snarky comments about "my cult leader" are WP:UNCIVIL. You obviously do not have a neutral point of view which we require here. If you can read the edit summary, you see I explained "This is not an election event" and including it here would give it undue WP:WEIGHT. There is also the policy Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; its effect if any on the election is unknown at this point. Are you the one who added this using the other IP address? We call that WP:Sockpuppetry and highly frown on it. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely struck a nerve, which makes me think you are not as neutral as you claim to be. As a likely candidate for the 2024 election i would say that potential voters would see this as a major event in the timeline of the election. Anything found during the raid may have a profound impact on the election. ChunkCa (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not an election event. If in the future it happens to have an impact on the election, as backed up by reliable sources, only then does it becomes notable enough for this timeline. And yes, the IP's remarks above were uncivil. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that you would consider a raid (and the legal persecution) of a former president and the opposition party's most likely candidate to not have an impact on the election. According to Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union, before elections in the Soviet Union multiple candidates were arrested by the faction that was in power at the time to cement their rule as the only option in the election. There are countless examples for this behavior in the history of pseudo-democratic countries. Can you please clarify your position?! EDIT: I see the legal actions and the raid have been re-added, proving JustinTime55's edit was biased, which should be documented. 75.212.124.103 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

75.212.124.103, please observe WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The fact that the content is question was re-added in no way "proves" that JustinTime55's edits were based on personal bias or in any way made in bad faith. It only indicates that another editor (or possibly multiple ones) differed with JustinTime55's view on the content's relevance to this article (honest differences of opinion among established editors is a fairly common thing around here), and that thus far (as of the time of this posting, at least) no one has seen fit to dispute the content's re-inclusion. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Sal2100 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

While that might be true and would show at least some diversity of opinion among established editors, the fact he wishes to dissimulate political events of this importance in favor of one party would suggest bias to me. After all, this event was a first in at least one aspect and had consequential impact as shown in polls as well as media reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4ca4:5acc:0:6732:1e15:da12:8c22 (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It was impossible to know what effect this event had on the polls right after it happened and before Trump officially entered the race. The removals by JustinTime55 and others (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th) were done for valid and expressed reasons (its impact on the election was not established) and not any political bias. The event was re-added to the timeline after the indictment in June 2023, as it relates to subsequent events that will likely have an impact on the election. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if this reasoning holds up to the current contents of the page. We are today August 1, 2023. The page contains the following event:

August 1: Former President Donald Trump is indicted a third time for his alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election.[105]

If the standards you are mentioning in defense of previously mentioned editor apply, they would also apply to this event (its impact on the election is not established). Otherwise the page would also have to mention the fact that former Vice President Biden has had legal challenges. 2002:4CA4:5ACC:0:636A:571E:63E7:4363 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Biden Document Case

If we mention Garland appointing Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate Trump's document case, I think its also worth mentioning the appointment of Robert Hur to investigate Biden's case.

Both cases are similar in nature and will likely play significant role in the 2024 presidential election. BrendonJH (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Except that there's very little actual evidence of wrongdoing by Biden, regardless of how MAGA tries to frame it. No significant role for 2024. 137.188.108.203 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

What evidence is missing? According to CNBC January 22 article, a reliable source even according to Wikipedia's **** standards, the FBI found even more classified documents that he shouldn't have been in possession of. Using the term MAGA doesn't somehow absolve you of all requirements of proof or supporting your claims with any kind of evidence. 2002:4CA4:5ACC:0:636A:571E:63E7:4363 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Trump’s trials

Yes, I know. The Trump trials’ dates are subject to change. However, these can be easily changed should it be necessary. But the trials, although unique in history, are major campaign events and should be listed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.104.139.72 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Robert Hur's Investigation.

If we are going to mention Jack Smith's investigation I believe it would also be important to mention Hur's investigation.

Hur's report and subsequent testimony to congress was widely reported and contributed to concerns over Biden age.

Thus I believe excluding it from this article would be a mistake. BrendonJH (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be okay with including the Hur investigation. It has relevance to the election, after all. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case maybe someone could add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I will add it now. Smobes (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)