I just got back from a rally for Trump, took these photos a couple hours ago. Given they are recent and have a smile, I suggest changing the main photo. Although the microphone is in the photo, I highly doubt you will find any future event where the microphone isn't near his face, as that is how his podium is almost always set up. Personally I prefer #1. Calibrador (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Side note. I will have a wide selection of photos up later from the same rally. Surely one can be good enough to replace the current 'puzzled' look photo. Calibrador (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
None of them are good. All the photos have the mic blocking his face and ones which he is smiling, you can't see his eyes. TL565 (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
His eyes and facial expression are unnatural, plus there is a large microphone disturbing the view. I support the current photo or any photo of him making a natural face and no microphone. I should also note that for those who want a picture of him smiling or making a smile-like face, you may also want to consider these photos (perhaps one of those could be cropped): --Proud User (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
In order for a real NPOV of images, Trump also has to be smiling, it's currently blatant anti-Trump bias with only Clinton smiling. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@ShadowDragon343: If you can find a picture that the community can agree on and is free use please present it. Calling it blatant anti-Trump bias is nonsense as the same can be turned right around. It could be said that it is blatant anti-Clinton bias since her photo is the only one that is not head-on. Don't call something bias without presenting alternatives to attempt to eliminate said bias. --Majora (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The 2012 election page has Romney not facing at the camera but still smiling, same with Kerry in 2004. You have to go back to 1988 to see a main general election candidate not smiling and that's because there are no pictures of Dukakis smiling in Commons. A better picture can also be used for Johnson that is not of him mid sentence in a speech. Your argument for Clinton's not being head on could apply to Trump as well as is not head on either as clearly he is leaning over the podium.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
For the top two, the subjects should be facing forward. Personally, I favor these images:
The Trump photo looks great! The Clinton one however she isn't facing the screen (and looking off to the side at something like the current Trump one) and due to being not as zoomed creates an uneven appearence between the two.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe this side by side to be the best. Both parties are smiling so it's fair and more neutral, and you wouldn't have to change Secretary Clinton's photograph. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
There should never be any photoshopped images even to remove the mic. We should always use authentic images. Cropping the picture is ok but anything more than that is unacceptable. TL565 (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Third parties smiling
For those who think we need photos of candidates smiling in the Infobox, perhaps these could be cropped and the Gary Johnson photo be lightened.--Proud User (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
A photo of Gary Johnson, which needs to be brightened.
Jill Stein looks scared in that photo, I wouldn't exactly call it smiling, the current photo is much better. I don't think you'll be able to lighten the Gary Johnson photo without some serious editing that would be unacceptable. The person he's standing with would also end up with most of their shoulder in the photo which would look rather strange. Ebonelm (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This to me looks like a good photo that also compliments the Hillary Clinton photo. I don't think his eyes are too squinty, that is the way he smiles, and his eyes look that way most of the time that he is smiling, which looks perfectly fine to me. Calibrador (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
He is making the weakest of smilies and it almost looks like he's about to laugh. People who look this up on Wikipedia will not get the impression he is smiling. They might think he is grinning or trying not to laugh at at joke. Also, his eyes are not usually that squint while smiling. --Proud User (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with both of your points. How is a smile that goes nearly ear to ear, not literally of course, the weakest of smiles? Also, I looked at several other smiling photos that are not freely available, many of them had the same kind of eyes. Calibrador (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure what you're getting at with what people may think of a photo. The current photo makes me think he is trying to listen to a song being played and is about to guess what song it is. What difference does this make? It definitely does not violate NPOV. Calibrador (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Given the points constantly being made every time the current photo is debated to be changed, I do think it is better. If anything the more wide eyes in the current photo aren't necessarilly an accurate portrayal, as most of the time he does at least slightly squint, in interviews and even posed shots. Calibrador (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Paragraph breaks were removed in this diff by an IP user. I was going to partially revert this edit anyway, but didn't notice that paragraph breaks were removed. Politrukki (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
HRC portrait
There appears to be considerable discussion regarding the Trump photographs. On another topic, was wanting to gauge what everyone was thinking regarding the HRC portraits? They're now both in 3:2 dimension sizes, and the face/ photograph proportions are similar, as well as to that of Johnson and Stein's current portraits. I think looking at them both in 3:2 ratio, I'm starting to prefer photo #2 now... Sleepingstar (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you prefer Photo #1 (left) or Photo #2 (right)?
I still prefer the first one a lot better. She looks a bit flustered in the second one. Frankly, I'm grateful Clinton has a lot of good pictures on here, unlike another candidate. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
HRC's head looks rather large and bloated next to Trump's head (as big as it is), and I'm sure that's not the case in real life. Maybe a resize is in order? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The Libertarian Party now has access to 338 electoral votes, they just gained access in South Dakota. Please change this in the Libertarian Party section.
The infobox currently lists President Obama as the incumbent, rather than president before election (as per the 2008 election page). Since the election is still months away I think "Outgoing President" would suffice until November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.68.112.173 (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
When the election is over the infobox will be updated. It will read just the same as the previous elections' infoboxes. Until then the incumbent President is the incumbent President. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
An editor has placed the image at right in the "Background" section of the article, shown here at actual size as currently displayed. I have no doubt that this addition was done with good intentions, and I have no objection to the basic idea of such a comparison; however, the image in question doesn't belong in the article in its present form. There are three major reasons why, and a few minor ones; most of them could be corrected in a future image.
Major issue 1: There are no sources provided, in the text, in the image itself, or on the image description page, to support the placement of the candidates. There's no explanation for why Clinton is placed close to Stein and far from Trump, when there are ample sources that analyze Clinton and Trump's politics as near-identical in practice. There's no source which explains why Stein is placed all the way to the left when there's actually a fair bit of political action to her left even in the United States. There is no source given to support placing Johnson to the right, when the Libertarian Party nomination process fell out directly along left-right lines and the rightward candidate lost. There is no source to support showing Clinton as a hair more authoritarian than Trump when both have been attacked as authoritarian populists during this election cycle. This point alone means that the image shouldn't be there. Note that it's not sufficient to have a clear methodology for placement, since this isn't the sort of simple arithmetic that is allowed by policy - but there isn't a methodology posted anywhere, either.
Major issue 2: The actual meaning of the axes and placement isn't explained in the image, in the article text, or anywhere obvious. One has to click a link in the image caption, explore the link, and click another link to find an explanation. Likewise, there is no explanation for why the leftward axis is labeled as "Progressive" (a recently resurgent term) and not as "Liberal" (as is most common on most versions of the Nolan chart), "Leftist", or similar. Plus, once again, there are no sources to support any explanation.
Major issue 3: The political spectrum actually employed is that of the Nolan chart, which is not objective - it was developed in part as a tool for political proselytism , to convince those who rated themselves on the chart that they had libertarian tendencies. Evaluations according to Nolan's methodology essentially never rate highly for authoritarianism, and that is precisely the case in this image - Clinton is rated slightly authoritarian, and Trump as not authoritarian, even though one can find sources objecting to both major candidates on the grounds of perceived authoritarianism. This, again, makes the positioning of Clinton as slightly more authoritarian quite problematic - what's the objective justification for it?
Minor issue: The graphic is ugly and hard to read. The labels are partially obscured, and the tiny portraits nearly impossible to make out. If a chart is used in the article, those issues should be fixed. Colored dots would be entirely preferable to the current version, but the smaller text should also be made larger and clearer. This part is entirely fixable.
I apologize for the long post, but I hope anyone reading this can see why the current image is a problem. It ought to be removed, and if a newer one is added it should be done with consensus. Most of all, though, any such image desperately needs sources. If anyone wishes to argue for including this or another image, please start your argument there. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the IP's analysis. Since this is a high traffic page in a contentious election I have removed this. We should get a consensus and unbiased sourcing before posting something like this. Trackinfo (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it should be removed as what does it add to the article? Everyone is going to have a different opinion about a candidate so it is better off if the reader just reads the prosed info about their positions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Presumably the chart was compiled from the "VoteMatch Results" tables listed for each individual candidate, which do include a visual chart for each candidate. I had to reload each candidate's page multiple times to view due to the site's "optimized for Netscape Navigator 3" web design, but it is there, just not in a single chart. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out; it's not very easy to find without being propmpted, but at least it is there. I'm afraid I don't see that source as sufficient to state some of the claims called out above in Wikipedia's voice. It might be sufficient to use as an opinion attributed to that source, 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you link to any one in particular that would advocate for using it? What is in the image that cant be implied using text? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I said this above in my original wall of text, but to reiterate, I personally think that visual summaries like this can add to the article if done correctly. I happen to think that this version had problems, but if editors ere can agree on a better graphic then I would be for it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the picture should be removed. If candidates should be ranked on the political spectrum on this page (I think that would be more appropriate on the candidates' own wiki page or on the "Political Positions of X' pages), then its should consider rankings from numerous sources and it shouldn't privilege one source by giving it a picture. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added a campaign finance section and table to the page. However, it is notable that opensecrets.org references appear behind the latest news coverage. [1] Though the latest FEC page has the same data as the opensecrets.org page. Dbsseven (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I really like this idea!!! Perhaps we can add a bit of information about what an outside group is for readers? What do you think? Fritz1543 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The "Unaffiliated" subsection in the third-party candidate section was recently added without a source for its single candidate, removed, then readded with a source which claimed to demonstrate ballot access, but which only shows the registration of a campaign committee. There is no source currently given for the claim that this candidate has ballot access anywhere. Therefore, the entire section should be removed.
64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Done - Thanks, good catch on your part. The section can, of course, be reinstated if and when ballot access can be verified.--JayJasper (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Other parties which could achieve ballot access to 270 electoral votes
I follow minor party ballot access pretty closely and just wanted to point out to the regular editors of this page that there is a significant possibility that one or more additional parties could achieve ballot access to 270 electoral college votes. Specifically if either the Constitution Party nominee gets cross nominated by the Independent American Party in California or the Party for Socialism and Liberation Nominee gets cross nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, each could potentially reach 270 ballot access. This isn't a pressing issue, but I just wanted to bring it up since if it does happen it would require changes to the infobox coding and layout of the page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
If additional parties reach 270 votes of ballot access, they will be featured in the infobox. In 2012 we had six candidates listed. By all means, if you're following their ballot access, let us know as soon as any of them reach 270. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason there is a gallery for the Democratic Vice Presidential potential picks, and not for the Republican? Calibrador (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that neither needs a gallery. We didn't have one for the potential presidential candidates, so use additional bandwidth on potential veep candidates? For that reason, I have removed the gallery for the Dem. potentials.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Order "Other third parties and independents" by electoral college access
I propose that we order the "Other third parties and independents" section by the number of electoral college vote they have access to, rather than alphabetical order as it currently is. Who is in agreement? --Proud User (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Per above comments, it's best to maintain consistent listing standards throughout the page for reasons of practicality and fairness.--JayJasper (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with the proposal to list the candidates by electoral college access, in the interest of fairness and consistency.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, according to Ballot Access News, "only the August 2016 tally counts" [2], so the Greens cannot have ballot access before August 21. This should be changed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Sanders did not suspend his campaign, in his speech he said he'll go all the way to November, but offered to withdrawl from the race. He is keeping his promise as to going all the way to convention. As this article says, he does not officially drop out of the race, but supports Clinton. It's like the case for Kreml and Jill Stein in the Green Party primaries. He's still a candidate, but endorses Stein. Sanders endorses Clinton to defeat Trump, but is still in the race. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
His speech today seemed as clear of a concession as any. It's true that his campaign technically is not suspended but it's really hard for me to understand under what criteria his campaign is continuing. The goal of the campaign (for Bernie Sanders to obtain the Democratic Party nomination and afterwards the presidency) was not met and this has been acknowledged by the candidate as well as the staff. It's hard for me personally to find a justification for continuing to describe the Sanders campaign as active. 50.27.101.171 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
My goodness, is that you Jonathan Tasini? Sanders lost, he endorsed Clinton, and it's done. Not sure how much clearer it can be. I can see the 2020 election page being drafted and people will still want to say "Sanders is still in it". Just let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4705:B31D:7971:F155:7037:D404 (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Trump isn't officially nominee until he accepts it, something that hasn't happened yet so I find it controversial to list him as officially nominee of the Republican party for President of the United States, and thus I think it shouldn't be displayed on Wikipedia since it isn't confirmed and he hasn't accepted the nomination yet. I'm not from the United States but ABC News says this: Trump will not officially become the Republican Party's nominee for president until he accepts the nomination, which is slated to occur as part of his speech on Thursday night, according to the RNC counsel's office. It's like a marriage: You need an "I do" from both sides to become the nominee. The Republican convention will offer the nomination when the delegates vote, and Trump needs to accept it. (SOURCE) What are your opinions? Thanks! Itsyoungrapper (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"House Speaker Paul Ryan has formally declared Donald Trump the winner of the Republican presidential nomination. Ryan says Trump received 1,725 delegates in the state-by-state roll call." (Trump 1,725, Cruz 475, Kasich 129, Rubio 113, Carson 7, Bush 3, Paul 2, 1,237 needed to win). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The 45th president and 48th vice president. There have been presidents who had multiple vice presidents serve under them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Presumably you're referring to the last sentence of the article's lead paragraph. Look closer, it says "....the 2016 election will determine the 45th President and 48th Vice President of the United States". The statement is accurate.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Clinton's running mate selection
Should we remove the list of prospective running mates for Clinton, until her actual previous shortlist comes out? The media speculation was just that, and they were, in my opinion, quite baseless. The predictions were made without any insider information, so...
I think they should be kept until Clinton comes out at the convention with a few more on Kaine, or doesn't. Should it be changed?
This portrait: , which is a high quality official campaign portrait (made available to use as a free-use file by the way) is of great quality and composition. It has a darker background like the other non-official portraits in the infobox. I made this change and it was removed for no good reason. The current image of Johnson is a candid shot, by no means professional, poor expression, angle, etc. We die for excellent quality recent photographs and here the campaign gives us their portraits as free-use and we don't use them in favor of inferior candid crops? Spartan7W§14:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
While it's a great image its too dark for the infobox. Because the images in the infobox are relativly small most of this images detail is lost and the shadow becomes a lot more prominent. While the current image isn't perfect it does a better job than the proposed image within the context of the infobox. Ebonelm (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No Spartan7W, I ignored that image even though its official because its dark, you removed a better image from his article because you did not like the 'color/contrast'..there is nothing wrong with the color or the contrast, It's your PC that cannot read color correctly (Are you on an intel video card by any chance?), anyways the image proposed by Bensin is from 2011, not 2013 so its over 5 years old, we should not use it if a much recent image is available..the image with black backgrounds is not suitable for use in infobox for politicians, the best images are those where the person is looking straight forward, not sideways..--Stemoc16:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Stemoc's proposed image at 135px
Stemoc's proposed image is superior to the one currently used. It is also more recent than the one I proposed. I support changing to it. --Bensin (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I support the above file (stemoc), good contrast, its from this year, high quality, official, etc. Spartan7W§19:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Trump Picture
Is this a good picture to replace the hunched over the podium glancing off to the side one currently being used.
But it's not consistent... have you looked at the other three pictures? Take five seconds and do a google image search. 68.110.99.8 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
"the hunched over the podium glancing off to the side" was never my favourite either, the image you chose is kinda perfect (bar it being too orange lol), so i made a slight color change, the only issue perhaps is that its 4 years old, theDonald is less orange now :P ..--Stemoc02:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we just agree to keep the pictures the same? After the election this can always be revisited but for now it just causes pointless disruption. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Unless a portrait-quality photograph of Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, or Jill Stein emerge, dated 2016, we shouldn't keep changing. We could use a better image for Clinton, Trump, and Stein, but we don't quite have them, but its better to keep these acceptable ones and change only if truly excellent ones arise such that we do not keep altering images with questionable merit superiority. Spartan7W§02:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
+1, can we have an agreement that the images should now only be changed unless there is a clear reason to do so? We could argue forever about which image is marginally better, but it won't help! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Running mate format
So when Trump confirms officially that Pence as his VP and that Weld is the official VP for LP. Can we format running mates like this under the header Running mate on the party ticket header?
The VP candidates should be listed more prominently than they are now, but basically I agree with William S. Saturn; there's no need for overly fancy formatting. Incidentally, the list of "possible" Republican candidates nees serious trimming; not only is it out of date, but it appears to list every person who's ever been the subject of a ghost of a rumor. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Showing a 23 pixel portrait looks silly. Most of the presentations I've seen in visual media show the two candidates side-by-side, something like this:
In the section of withdrawn Republican candidates, Bobby Jindal is shown to be still governor of Louisiana, even though his term ended in 2016 when John Bel Edwards took office.
Similarly, in the Democratic section for withdrawn candidates, it lists Jim Webb as having been a U.S. Senator from Virginia from 1984 to 2013, when it should be from 2007 to 2013.--64.61.79.236 (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I really don't think they should be in there. Whatever your political position, I think we can agree that they will not be a major player this election. I support including the Libertarians, but the Greens I oppose in the wikibox. If support for them grows, it can be reconsidered, but I don't think they are important enough now. Baconheimian (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a consensus that any party with access to at least 270 electoral college votes should be included in the infobox. Your proposal violates WP:CRYSTAL. --Proud User (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I very much think they should be there. Many Bernie Sanders supporters have flipped to supporting Stein. And donations and social media attention for Jill Stein has exploded. She will be on the ballot in 45-48 states. She definitely deserves to be there until election day.Cax17 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:1RR violations
A user is making more than one revert per 24 hours:
See WP:AE for arbitration enforcement requests. Please note, that editors must be warned and aware of such sanctions before anything will happen. I have placed a DS alert on their talk page. Nothing more to do at this time. If you want to talk about the consensus for that edit fine, but beyond that enforcement doesn't happen here. --Majora (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of bureaucracy, one provision of the 1RR restriction is specifically that "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction". You shouldn't be afraid to revert edits that are clearly vandalism; that includes both of the above. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I am more than a little embarrassed that I jumped right into the bureaucratic red tape of everything instead of taking the half a second to actually register what was going on. I saw "1RR" and didn't think twice. Apologies. Yeah @Proud User: you can revert vandalism as many times as you want without restriction. The sanctions alert I placed on their page is still useful though as it lets them know that the level of behaviour expected on this page. --Majora (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Those blog links aren't good enough sources to establish any such thing, especially since the Libertarian Party disagrees. If they do get nationwide ballot access, we can expect it to be covered in much better sources than these, and in particular the LP will be certain to mention it somewhere. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The Libertarian Party is still actively petitioning for ballot access in various states whose deadlines to submit petitions has not yet passed. For example, the party has not yet submitted its petition for New Jersey.XavierGreen (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Constitution Party Candidate in infobox question
I'm not proposing we do this, but has there been any discussion on adding the Constitution Party candidate, Darrell Castle, once he attains ballot access to 270 electoral votes?Cax17 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Its also a small yet signifigant chance that the Party For Socialism and Liberation candidate may reach ballot access to 270 electoral college votes as well. Given the deadlines that have passed, it appears that the PSL and Constitution parties are the only ones that can feasibly still get to 270 ballot access.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Clinton image
Hi, we haven't discuss Clinton's photo yet, I would like to propose you one. What do you think about this image? Good, bad? thoughts? From my own perspective it looks far more better than the one we have right now.
to be fair Majora, this was the photo chosen by all of us for use on this article, but as you know Gage Skidmore likes to forcefully use his pics in all articles related to entertainment and politics (with his byline)..I personally like this image much more cause she is looking towards the camera, not a sideview, its pathetic that it was changed from this to the current one without discussion..--Stemoc01:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
What about creating Controversies section or something similar to that which will include alleged Russian hacking, Clinton controversies, Trump controversies etc.? Just a small description of controversial things that happened during the race. Or it can be included in Background category, I think this will be appreciated. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmm. But what of the verbal sparring and Trump's trash-talking the Clinton supporters, or the "Jill not Hill" chanting? To have in candidate pages might be redundant; or alternatively, to put here might be a summery of what may be lengthy stuff in such pages, but somewhat relevant here.199.119.232.216 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Such content is doomed to recentism and wastes valuable editing resources. I suggest making note of prominent or enduring events on a sub-talkpage somewhere and then after the election we could add a sentence or two (not an entire section) about anything that proves to be significant or determinative in retrospect. Sparkie82 (t•c)00:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of Controversies, I personally have some conspiracy theories going in my head. What if, after all this time, Trump is supporting Clinton and all of his stupid remarks/attacks/controversial conspiracy theory is just to help her win the election? And he is doing his part eliminating other candidates from the GOP in order to make way for the Democrats to win. Remember his statement in 2008 saying "She's fit for president"? It's my opinion though.—SquidHomme(talk)03:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Finalization
Hi All,
As previously suggested, I have moved the Swing states section entirely onto this page. If there are any suggestions for improvement, please feel free to express them. Also with the user's request, the "Pundits' Projections" are now in a new section; however, it does seem like it needs some polishing. If it could be linked to one of the other pages, it may look more professional under a different umbrealla. In addition, I would also like to a stronger or more accurate name for the section regarding the states' ratings. Thank you!
Could whoever keeps adding ballot access without valid sources PLEASE stop? Just because we turn in petitions does NOT mean we have ballot access there. Secretary of State has to announce it. Green Party has NOT gained ballot access in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Nebraska or New Jersey. Those are all pending, unless you can cite the campaign itself or the secretary of state. The New Jersey citations are UNOFFICIAL. Secretary of States can invalidate signatures. Libertarians are NOT on the ballot in Pennsylvania, New York or New Jersey. Blog and c-list news citations do not count - they're just talking about filing petitions. Filing a ton of signatures makes it more likely, but it is not confirmed. Gloria LaRiva, Rocky DeLa Fuente, Monica Moorehead and Darrel Castle also need to have their New Jersey access removed from this page until further confirmed. 2601:283:8300:A75A:4113:9F4F:AFDD:5614 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong, the petitions submitted in New Jersey are valid unless challenged. Richard Winger is the premier expert witness in ballot access law cases in the country, he is the editor of Ballot Access News. Ballot Access News is a printed publication and thus a valid source.XavierGreen (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Winger and Ballot Access News certainly are valid, high quality sources. However, Winger himself is careful to distinguish between submitting a valid petition and obtaining ballot access, since even a "valid" petition might be disqualified. Reports of ballot access for minor parties need to be based on sources that say precisely that the party has ballot access, not merely that they are certain or likely to do so. I haven't looked to see if there's a problem, but it's reasonable for the IP editor above to bring it up if they believe there is one. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Ballot Access Table
I am proposing to place in a ballot access table for all parties that have access to over 50 electoral votes. Please reply about any ideas or concerns about this. An unfinished prototype is available below to update and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaunaKeegan11 (talk • contribs) 22:24, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as unnecessary, clunky, and not to mention a violation of WP:COLOR. And also, blatantly wrong. The Democratic Party is on the ballet in every state. As is the Republican Party. Also, please sign your posts. --Majora (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose As much as a lot of people would wish that the Democrats/Republicans weren't on the ballot, they both are in every state & DC. This incorrect info, and the above makes me oppose this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both because it's a giant ugly thing that's both redundant and inferior to material in the article already, and because it's more or less comprehensively wrong. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
What are the sources on the current Libertarian ballot access map? Because the official LP site still has only 36 states listed and several of the states currently on the article map (Pennsylvania, New York, among others) are not on the official party map. 50.27.101.171 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I do believe we should reverse that edit, which made Trump first. He is generally losing in the polling averages, as well as the betting and prediction markets! And, besides, some on the other page's discussion forum had decided that incumbency would determine the order as a tie-breaker, until the real results came out.
It looks like that change has already been reverted. This has already been discussed multiple times here, and indeed there is broad support for using incumbency as a tiebreaker. For the record, I agree with that conclusion. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Biased Image Result on Google Search
Lets not speculate on how Google does things. Wikipedia has zero control over what Google displays. If you have a problem with them you have to contact them. Closing this as it is pointless to keep open. Contact Google. --Majora (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Set first image or Title Image to a generic Election of 2016 Title Image. When you search in google "When is the next election", currently first thing you see is picture of Hillary. This to some creates bias and should be reviewed to either show a generic election image or show all up for election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanarp (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest a complaint should be sent to Google (you notice that they are ignoring the actual very first image, which is the US flag. What makes you think if we put a generic image, they will really show that instead?). Editorial decisions here on NOT made based on how others reuse Wikipedia's content. The current consensus is that the candidate from the defending incumbent party is listed first. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm having trouble posting around some obnoxious edit filter, so hope this goes through: the Clinton image actually is fetched first (see "view source" in your browser, not the wikicode). 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not the first image is declared/fetched first, or automatically rendered by an infobox template, my point still stands: editorial decisions here should NOT be made based on how Google or others reuse Wikipedia's content. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes indeed. I'm personally disappointed with Google for getting this wrong, but that's nothing to do with Wikipedia. I was simply offering a technical point about how they are screwing it up. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
To the best of my knowlege, Google looks for faces in an article and if it finds one, it will show it. Showing a generic image will only clutter the article itself while you will still see Clinton's face on Google. Besides, Wikipedia's purpuse is to build an encyclopedia, not make sure Google results are unbiased. --Proud User (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trump image
I changed the picture of Trump from the current one to this one but was reverted. The reason is simply to have a different picture from the one we currently have in the Donald Trump page, just like we're using this one for Clinton and not this one. Is there a particular reason to keep using the same picture here and in the Trump article ? I just find a bit dull to use always the same photo. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It itsn't about which picture you like, we have to use picture where we show how Trump really looks like, the picture should have high quality, show him in neutral position where he doesn't have opened mouth and where he (if it's possible) looks directly to the camera. Image of Clinton on her article is used because there's consensus on Wikipedia that we will the most current official picture, in case of Clinton - that is from 2009. Unfortunately, for Trump we don't have any official picture we could use because he hasn't held public office (yet). The image that is currently being used is from 2015 and shows him in neutral light. If he's elected, Wikipedia will use official image of his presidency published by the White House on article page and this picture that is currently being used will stay, unless someone brings better where consensus will be reached. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It isn't about a picture I, personally, "like", it's just about having a little variety. The quality of the pictures I showed is pretty much the same than the current one's, IMHO.
I wasn't thinking about neutrality - I'm not an American citizen so my opinion on the US election has no importance whatsoever - but, yes, as Squidhomme has mentioned below, having a picture of Clinton smiling and one of Trump looking grumpy is, indeed, "far from neutral-lighted". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should search for a Trump image that meets the specifications as Itsyoungrapper described. The current one looks grumpy and far from being 'neutral - lighted'. It's my opinion, though.—SquidHomme(talk)22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
There are countless images out there that would probably be suitable but very few that are licensed under something we can use. Remember, images here must be free use. --Majora (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I like the "shit" one better :P its impossible to get this guy a perfect image, he just makes ugly faces even when his mouth is not moving, a bit like that other republican, scott walker.. --Stemoc08:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the reason why he can't keep his mouth shut is to hide the fact that he keeps making ugly faces even when his lips shut. Oh I think you meant the other 'Republicans' he invited to RNC, Scott Baio.—SquidHomme(talk)08:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Portraits 1 and 5 are not admissible because they are photoshopped. Only unaltered pictures (except cropping obviously) should be used for portraits. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
None of them are better than the current photo. Why is it being left out as an option? There was just a discussion on altering photos and they are not allowed except cropping. TL565 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The current one looks grumpy and his eyes aren't directed to the camera. Making impression of his evil side, in contrast of smiles and cheerful impressions in Clinton's picture. Besides, the resolution is awful.—SquidHomme(talk)20:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally prefer #2 and #4. I don't have any issues with the resolution of the current photo, but I agree with SquidHomme about the WP:NPOV problem : if the article shows candidate A smiling it shouldn't show candidate B looking grumpy, as it gives the impression that we favor A. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I support the current image, rather than any of the proposed images, for two reasons: personal preference and WP:NPOV. None of the proposed photos are compatible with WP:NPOV. --Proud User (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't always to mean smiles, but it must always mean neutrality. Neutrality here doesn't mean the face looking neutral, but avoiding bias toward one candidate.—SquidHomme(talk)13:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
He's not really making a neutral face in the current photo. He looks grumpy, especially when compared to Clinton's large smile. A casual reader, when looking at this page, will probably think that wikipedia is trying to convey the impression that "Clinton=good" and "Trump=bad". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Images 3 and 4 are worse. There's something else non-neutral about Image 2. Image 1 does not show Trump's eyes. We should leave things the way they are until we find an image of Trump that does not raise any concerns. --Proud User (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe Rocky De La Fuente should be removed from candidates. My removing him from the campaign finance table was reverted as he is still listed as a candidate for the American Delta Party. However, this is a party he founded as a vehicle for his own candidacy.[1] He has since registered as a candidate in the 2016 Senate election in Florida. [2][3] His campaign website is solely focused on the Senate campaign and describes his presidential candidacy in the past tense. He does not appear to be actively campaigning for the presidency. [4]Dbsseven (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Mr. De La Fuente's campaign seems to be going strong according to the information I can find; e.g. [4][5][6][7][8] and especially [9]. He is, in fact, running for multiple offices under multiple party affiliations, but that doesn't disqualify him as a Presidential candidate. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"Rocky" is as much a candidate as most of the others listed, if not moreso. He received nearly 70 thousand votes in the primary and thanks to his lawsuit winnings, he's got more than enough money to burn. If we list the Nutrition party, then why not him?Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The Better for America petition in Arkansas has been officially accepted; see http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/10/better-for-america-petition-in-arkansas-is-valid/ . Therefore, please list them in the Other third parties and independents section as having access to six electoral votes. Please note also that they have not declared a Presidential candidate there yet - they will almost certainly nominate Evan McMullin, but this has not yet happened and he should not yet be listed as the candidate. Thank you.
I hate to use an edit request to request a revert, but this edit which claims to "update" the Libertarian ballot access numbers is pure wishful thinking. Compare it with the Libertarian Party's official ballot access statement [10] and note that, in particular neither the LP nor the Johnson/Weld ticket yet has access in Ohio [11]. Therefore, please change this to use the previous count; better yet, use the map found on the Libertarian Party website above, since the older count here also seems to be wishful thinking. Thank you.
Not a semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2016
This is separate from the above since it isn't a specific request to change one thing to another, but I strongly suggest verifying both the the Libertarian and Green Party ballot access numbers against a good source. The best summary for the greens is at http://www.gp.org/ballotaccess with a similar map at http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access ; the best one for the LP is https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map , and neither of the counts in this article agrees with those. If a state is added here that isn't on one of those maps, a specific source should be provided for it; that is required already but it ought to be enforced. There is way too much wishful thinking in the current numbers. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
If you can provide the exact changes that you think should be made along with a reliable source to verify it, then someone will be glad to change it for you. Topher385 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Massachusetts refers to Green Party as "Green-Rainbow Party"
Massachusetts refers to the Green Party as the "Green-Rainbow Party" and should be referred to that way in the Green Party Pages.
Actually, a fair number of the state Green Party affiliates officially go by variant names like this. So do many of the Constitution Party affiliates, and the Minnesota Democratic Party affiliate is officially the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. If the article mentions any of these naming variations, it should mention all of them, or not devote space to any of them. I personally vote for not mentioning it here. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The #NeverTrump group Better for America (the same group that attempted to recruit Ben Sasse and David French) has just announced Evan McMullin as their chosen candidate. Better for America currently has no ballot access anywhere, so McMullin doesn't currently qualify for a listing on his own merits, but should this candidacy be mentioned in relation to Trump? I'm starting a preemptive discussion, because editors will be adding his name in good faith and a consensus about this will help. So, opinions? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I wish to add or see Evan McMullin added to the list of candidates running for President of the United States.
Zorseman (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add McMullin. He's been on all three cable news networks and is going to be on all the sunday talk shows. That means he's recognized. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Many of the key people in his campaign team are from Better for America, but I don't believe McMullin himself has made any statements linking himself to the group. I know some people here would like a harder link beforehand, so we might just have to wait for a more formal announcement. --Ariostos (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
See also section
I'm withdrawing my "Keep" !vote and deferring to Majora on the point of this specific article in See Also; I have a better idea for how to resolve. LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is linking to a conspiracy theory article in this article appropriate? I really don't think so. I removed it, I was reverted. So a discussion is necessary. Seems so incredibly WP:UNDUE on this article. Remember, this article is going to be viewed millions of times in the next few months. To have that link on here makes it seem like Wikipedia is encouraging these conspiracy theories against a major party candidate. Not only that, it makes it seem like Wikipedia is one sided against one candidate. Completely inappropriate link in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep LOL - which candidate? It's a ridiculous tin-foil hat idea that paints both Trump and Clinton in a negative light for those dumb enough to believe it. Nonetheless, it's important because it was so heavily covered in RS during the campaign that it became a central element in the cultural milieux. As per our policies WP:ALSO the See Also links might be only indirectly related to the topic because one purpose of "See Also" is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. The only restrictions to "See Also" - as per ALSO - are in the case of (a) completely unrelated topics, (b) redlink articles, (c) articles that are already wikilinked in the article, or, (d) articles of supplementary importance provided the See Also section has become long and unwieldy. You need to make a case it violates one of these, not just vaguely defame the GF of other editors. (But, it sounds like what you really want to do is AfD the article but don't think it will pass so are trying to orphan it instead. Right?) LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I already gave you a policy link. WP:UNDUE. You want a guideline link too? Fine. WP:FRINGE. We do not give undue weight to fringe ideas. Putting that link in this page gives it undue weight simply by the sheer number of views this page gets. And you really need to get a hold of yourself. I did not "defame your good faith". I don't want to AfD anything. If you can't discuss matters you are involved in without flying off the handle, leave them to other people who work very hard to keep these political articles neutral. --Majora (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, calm down! First, the article in question is, itself, a neutral article, so NPOV doesn't apply. Second, FRINGE doesn't apply here as it refers to fringe ideas perpetuated by fringe sources. (BTW - you can't just slap up a steamer trunk of policy links without quoting relevant text, silly! Like this: as per WP:ALSO See Also links might be only indirectly related to the topic because one purpose of "See Also" is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.)
Secondly, paranoia and fringe conspiracy are central to U.S. politics as an element of collective American mental psychosis. Read Hofstadter's formative academic work "The Paranoid Style in American Politics", for instance. Cataloging and linking incidences like these is sociologically crucial. It's not UNDUE when it's a central theme.
Remove - We don't need fringe theories here per WP:UNDUE. The Trump plant theory has shown to benefit Trump as it implies that the election is rigged in favor of Hillary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Why? Democratization of information and maximizing access is a normative goal of WP. I'd like to hear why we're better off censoring it. American politics has been marked, for 100 years, by the psychotic and conspiratorial mindset of the American voter. Like it or not, this is part and parcel of it. We don't destroy knowledge because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We don't destroy knowledge because it's not pretty and reflects poorly on society. If American elections are ugly, we present them as ugly. Not our job to put garnish on a shit sandwich and make it look appetizing. LavaBaron (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Criteria for putting third party candidates in the infobox?
I noticed that there were 2 third party candidates in the main infobox, but when I looked at the pages for previous elections, most of them just had the two candidates (other than the obvious ones like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader).
Will the two added candidates be deleted once the election is over (assuming they don't have any significant effect on the results)? Or have they already met the same criteria for inclusion that Nader and Perot have met? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nikki Lee 1999:The archives have the answer you seek. They have a chance to win the election AKA 270 possible electoral votes. We can decide what to do with them after the election and the actual results are tabulated. But generally, if they don't get any electoral votes there is no reason to keep them in the infobox. --Majora (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Prior to the election, candidates who have access to 270 electoral college votes or more are listed in the infobox. After the election, any candidate that achieves 5% of the popular vote (IE United States presidential election, 1980 or wins a state (IE United States presidential election, 1948) is listed in the infobox. Given the ballot access deadlines that have already passed, most of the third parties not listed in the infobox do not have a chance at making 270 ballot access, though there are one or two (like the Constitution Party) which may make it. If any other candidate gets to 270 ballot access, they will be added to the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Harry Byrd won 1.5 states in 1960 and got 15 electoral votes and he's not on the infobox. Checking out the discussion going back at least a year, The criterion was anyone who was listed in major polls. Stein and Johnson are listed in all major polls. So until the election is over, when the article's going to be ripped to shreds and reconstituted like a pupa into a butterfly, let's leave it as is. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Harry Byrd isn't included in 1960 because unpledged electors are considered to be the same as faithless electors, though the exact reasoning why remains fuzzy to me. Third Party candidates however are presently for the Presidential Election included as soon as they are validated to have access to 270 Electors in the Electoral College; the polling bar they used to clear has largely been cast aside as until recently most Polls did not include Third Party candidates, and it made it extremely difficult to judge whether a Third Party candidate had really cleared the hurdle or whether it was just an outlier. Once the election is done and we have hard vote totals however, then the 5% rule comes into play in terms of candidates like Johnson or Stein staying in the infobox. --Ariostos (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Former Candidate Boxes
It is justifiable to include former candidates in the boxes for the Libertarian and Green Parties since they both have enough ballot access to theoretically win the election and former candidates may run again in four years. The edits already exist for both parties with candidates being included. All that would be necessary is reverting their deletions.Computermichael (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Proud User (talk·contribs) I reverted your removal of Green Party "Major Candidates" section. The sections on primary candidates should be handled consistently. A consensus should be reached before relegating all primary candidates to the various party primary articles. Bcharles (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Featured Other Candidates
I believe there should be a cutoff on who gets featured on the main page, otherwise 20 candidates with access in only state will be listed. WaunaKeegan11 (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The blurbs for the various small parties and independents are short enough that listing 20 is not a problem. It is also helpful to have a brief overview of all of the choices out there. Bcharles (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
talk 20:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_closeup.jpg)
A photo of Gary Johnson, which needs to be brightened..jpg)
.jpg)
talk 16:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Paragraph breaks were removed in this diff by an IP user. I was going to partially revert this edit anyway, but didn't notice that paragraph breaks were removed. Politrukki (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Not done This page is not protected and can be edited directly. — xaosflux Talk 22:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Not done: That would be WP:OVERLINKing. We only wikilink the first occurrence of a particular word. --Majora (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Already done --Majora (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed photo
.png)
, which is a high quality official campaign portrait (made available to use as a free-use file by the way) is of great quality and composition. It has a darker background like the other non-official portraits in the infobox. I made this change and it was removed for no good reason. The current image of Johnson is a candid shot, by no means professional, poor expression, angle, etc. We die for excellent quality recent photographs and here the campaign gives us their portraits as free-use and we don't use them in favor of inferior candid crops? Spartan7W § 14:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Proposed photo
Possible other photos
Same as Portrait 3, only edited for comparability with other photos that may appear alongside this image in the infobox.
.jpg)
proposed photo_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}