Talk:2024 United States presidential election

RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

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

(non-admin closure)This discussion was complicated and involved evaluating many overlapping criterion. This discussion also got auto-archived by the bots, which further started another discussion, which was also considered when deciding this consensus.

Overall, there is clear consensus in favour of Criterion 6 and Criterion 1a being applied to this article. Before the elections, candidates can be included in the infobox if they have ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.).

A supermajority of editors preferred or were okay with both the criterion stated here. While some editors argued in favour of using reliable sources' as an alternate barometer for "seriousness" of candidacies, nothing precludes us from using polling directly as such a threshold.

The subsequent discussion below resulted in similar positions and a proposed compromise, resulting in more variety of final positions. Overall, said discussion involved fewer editors and did not have a strong enough agreement to overturn the original RFC consensus.

There is precedent for a similar threshold via Wikipedia:Five percent rule, although some editors disputed whether or not it applies to pre-election polling. Regardless, there is a clear local consensus established here in favour of Criterion 6 and 1a. Soni (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

---

There has been a longstanding debate on this page about the criteria required for a candidate to be eligible for the infobox.

• Criterion #1a: A candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
• Criterion #1b: A candidate who generally polls at 10% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
• Criterion #1c: A candidate who generally polls at 15% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
• Criterion #2a: Media coverage that considers them to have a significant chance (>5-10% or above) to win the national election.
• Criterion #2b: Media coverage that considers them a major candidate in the race, regardless of whether they have a significant chance of winning.
• Criterion #3: Reaching and participating in a presidential debate hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
• Criterion #4: Nomination from a major party only. Third-party candidates shouldn't be listed.
• Criterion #5: If the candidate holds political beliefs that are non-fringe, mainstream, and polls above a certain percentage. (Whether 1%, 5%, 10%, and 15%.)
• Criterion #6: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and meets criteria #1a, #1b, or #1c.
• Criterion #7: Another criterion not listed or a requirement that they fulfill multiple criteria of the above. (Explain how and why.)

The results of this RFC should not be interpreted as WP: PRECEDENT outside of this article. KlayCax (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• IMO if the media coverage deems someone will be a major candidate - the polling will eventually reflect this. Henceforth I don't hold very great weight on media coverage on that. Wikipedia included Johnson, Stein, and McMullin in 2016 within the last quarter of the 2016 election when this was a concern too. In 2020, needless to say, third parties didn't have a very great effect on polling, and ballot access historically is not very indicative of successful candidates (see Reform, Green, Libertarian party in the past 20 years).
  Of all these, polling tends to be the most reliable and neutral way to approach it. Participating in a debate is optional and just adds more grounds for unnecessary contestion if someone barely makes it to a 15% threshold during a certain polling period. And #5 would be used to exclude countless candidates from infoboxes across the world, no use in trying to think this one out, for this is argument's galore. Of all these I think #1a makes the most sense and is line with candidates that have been included in infoboxes. If there is any way you have to look at this, you should look at what gets a candidate to an infobox in past elections and use that as your baseline. Borifjiufchu (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• This cannot possible be serious. You've got scare quotes in four of the options. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  KlayCax: Stop removing candidates from the infobox! We have consensus from this page to have Biden and Trump listed. You must gain consensus BEFORE making the change, not change it first then act like reverting requires a new discussion. Separately, several editors you list as supporting your perspective are transparently sock-puppets. Please refrain from reading consensus as supporting your own position, especially when the support comes from newly creates single-purpose accounts. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  They're not scare quotes. They are italicized to place emphasis on generally. Meaning that one strange outlier poll would not qualify a candidate in the infobox. (As often happens with third-party candidates.) KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  You changed them after my comment. There is a page history. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  At the risk of prolonging this tangent, they were indeed italics markup from the beginning and never scare quotes. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Meeting #1A, and 2B is probably enough. Ballot access is important as well so some sort of small requirement would probably be helpful, see Evan McMullin 2016 presidential campaign for why Ballot Access is neccesary. I also agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. We have long standing consensus to include presumptive nominees from the two major parties, removing them because you aren't getting your way around Kennedy is very disruptive. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  If Evan McMullin would have won Utah, his ballot access in other states would have been moot. You only need 1 pledged Electoral Vote to be include post-election. If RFKJR was leading in the polls in one state (and had ballot access there), I'd say include him. Prcc27 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  My point was more than Evan McMullin failed to get the national attention he needed to win a state because he didn't have ballot access. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've made several points about why ballot access doesn't really guarantee this. In-fact of the people planning to vote in protest against Trump - many were leaning towards Gary Johnson, with polls as high as 5-10% generally speaking. You really think people didn't vote for Evan McMullin because he wasn't on the ballot when some of those people were planning to vote for a third-party anyways (i.e. not Trump)? In-fact 30% of all his votes were write-ins. Now let's say in some unforeseen circumstance that RFK Jr doesn't get ballot access (despite polling and having recognition similar to John Anderson/Ross Perot), would he not get tons of write-in votes, and still be polling just as highly? That's the line in the sand that I don't get with regards to why ballot access is a serious qualifier, since it doesn't disqualify someone from winning, nor does it seem to be reliable at all considering the amount of parties that do get ballot access, yet little in the way of substantial votes beyond a decimal percentage impact. Borifjiufchu (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think "ballot access" should include write-in access. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion #7:: 5% of the national popular vote, or winning a state (or electoral vote in the cases of Maine or Nebraska). I could be convinced to change my mind to criterion #6. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are you arguing for the fourth criterion? Nomination from a major party only. Third-party candidates shouldn't be listed [until the results of the election are known].

  Since the RFC is about whether third-party candidates should be included before the 2024 presidential election is held. KlayCax (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  If this is only about pre-election results, then yes, criterion #4 would be my vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  So, if we went back in time and had Wikipedia in the past, you wouldn't put Perot in the infobox for 1992/1996, Wallace for 1968 or Roosevelt for 1912? Not to mention Anderson, La Follette, Weaver or the others? Greeley for 1872, when there was no Democrat candidate?

  Why discard third-party candidates wholesale - what makes the USA's elections unique that they can't be included when they get included in Russian (even less viable candidates than the USA), Brazilian (similarly polarized to two candidates like the USA), French, Ukranian, Portuguese (a strong two-party system between the PSD and PS when it comes to presidential elections), South Korean, Mexican (SK and Mexico have no second round akin to the USA) and other presidential election pages? Should Javier Milei have been discarded from the Argentine election's infobox when he was a third-party candidate in the beginning of 2023, occupying a space in polling similar to RFK at the beginning of 2024?

  Inherently disqualifying third-party candidates seems to, at least according to my perception, fall under WP:CRYSTAL because this stance seems to pass judgement over who "has a chance at winning" and who doesn't. This is obviously absurd to do, as Wikipedia is intended to present information rather than editorialize about chances of victory.

  It is better to choose a different metric than #4 because it follows objective metrics - "major party" is also subjective as the two parties may potentially (although not plausibly) change as they have done several times throughout the history of the USA. Collorizador (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion #1a (ideal) or #1b — best in line with the WP:5% rule and WP: PRECEDENTs established on other election articles. I'm willing to raise it to 10% before the election simply because of the fact that third-party candidates tend to decline in polling before the election. As the United States elects its presidents through the electoral college, rather than a national popular vote, requirements that candidates appear on a X amount of ballots simply don't make sense. KlayCax (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #1b before the election to ensure candidates will likely secure at least 5% of the vote in the election. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Generally #6: Ballot access (including write-in access) in 270 Electoral Votes, meets national polling requirement; OR #7 a serious contender in at least one Electoral Vote (state, district, etc.) in which they are likely to get a pledged electoral vote post-election. Prcc27 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• I think it's best to do this sui generis, as the issue to me is a certain level of success at a certain point. 10% in October would be enough, as would 10% plus ballot access to 270 votes, as would participation in the debates. I don't see any of those things happening, but I would support something lesser, but I'd have to know it when I see it. Perhaps 10% after the conventions? I don't know. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #1a due to this being precedent in other articles, and is in good condition. Lukt64 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with Criterion #1a too. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion #6 (with #1a). As has been previously discussed, criterion 1a is widely used.
  • No matter what you say regarding this decision being unique to this election, all decisions should be reasoned by general rules and not specific whims. Otherwise, we risk this decision coming down to pure bias for or against a candidate.
  • Using 1a alone as a rule across articles sets a confusing precedent, since party candidates may poll over 5% in hypothetical matchups before winning their nominations. To then require them to get their nomination to be included would actually create an irrational bias against party candidates.
  • But because getting ballot access in states representing 270 electoral votes is sufficiently analogous to being a presumptive nominee (and therefore getting automatic access in most states), we should include this requirement.
  • Requiring access in sufficient states to theoretically win the election avoids WP:CRYSTAL and relies solely on objective metrics, avoiding endless debate over reliability of sourcing and precise meaning of language.

  Let me know if this should be clarified; I realize it's a complicated argument with several steps. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add an addendum here that the subjective purpose of the infobox is to "tell the story," so to speak, of the election and not simply show candidates who could win. Thus, if we're going to fall back on a subjective perspective, Kennedy should be included whether or not he has a shot in the eyes of the media, as it seems clear that he will have an impact on the race. With that said, I think we should fall back on objective principles given the likelihood of controversy. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion #6 - DEFINITELY ballot access. It being mathematically possible to win the presidency should be a given. criterion 1b or 1c is also preferred - third parties almost always don't hit the same numbers as the polls may indicate. Longestview (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #6 and 1a (though prefer them not being added until results, as we do with every other US based election)
  We include folks on the infobox for other US based elections if not of a major party if they get 5% in the final results. A third party candidate polling at a certain percentage has yet to actually net that high of a result, especially so far out, and especially with the weird skewing of polling that we have seen the last two cycles. Actual results, and polling are two vastly different things.
  However, if the third party candidate is not even on enough state ballots to get 270, then they flat out should not be included in the infobox.
  Honestly, would prefer third parties not be included in the infobox until they have actually shown to even get 5% of the vote in national elections. Something that hasn't happened in nearly 30 years. Tipsyfishing (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  We do include independent candidates before the election on state-level articles if they are polling well. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Criteria #6 & 1a. Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1996 set a clear precedent about infobox inclusion. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #6 It's the percentage of the vote that counts, polling is provably unreliable and therefore irrelevant. GhulamIslam (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #7. 5% of the national popular vote, or winning a state. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Should we include the Libertarian nominee then, even if they poll below 1% of the vote? -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  We never do in the infoboxes. Tipsyfishing (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, and my understanding is that this is because we use polling as a criterion. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC is about the pre-election inclusion criteria. The post-election criteria are already set. Prcc27 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion #6. Without a path to 270 electoral votes, inclusion in the infobox is just plain undue weight. Okay with either 1a or 1b after that. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #1a: This aligns with Wikipedia precedent as prior U.S. presidential elections' infoboxes generally display candidates who received over 5%. Okay with 6 in addition to it. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #1a: This is the closest to consistency with other countries' election wikiboxes-in the 2024 Russian presidential election, for example, candidates are included despite the fact that some are polling below 5%, while the German state elections seem to be using 5% as the criterion Cas2024 (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criteria #6 & 1a. With write-in states counting as ballot access. Cuddle567wow (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #6 - is sufficient. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #6 works. Whether it's paired with 1a, 1b, or 1c I'm not as sure of, but #6 keeps us from putting someone in the infobox who could only win in a highly unlikely write-in scenario. The Savage Norwegian 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add that this is my opinion for before the election only. If any candidate gets over 5% nationally in the results, that'd warrant infobox inclusion, like in 1996 United States presidential election. It's undue to add it before the fact if the candidate has no electoral path. The Savage Norwegian 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  You can theoretically win 5% of the national popular vote post-election with a mix of ballot access and write-in access. The goal is to include candidates in the infobox pre-election, if they have a fair chance of being included post-election. Having actual ballot access (rather than write-in status) is not a criterion post-election, so it should not be one pre-election. Prcc27 (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, but we can't add RFK based on what he theoretically could get, because there is no way to know that. The Libertarian candidate will have their name on the ballot in every state, and so could theoretically get 5% (or 50%!) but they will not be in the infobox before the election. Why are we treating RFK different? Because of his actual achievement: elevated polling. Getting your name on the ballot is another achievement. Write-in access is an achievement, too, but a much lessor one. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  @GreatCaesarsGhost: Who said anything about special treatment..? Any candidate that meets the ballot access and polling criteria should be included; I simply think write-in access should count as “ballot access”. If the Libertarians meet the threshold, I say include them too. Prcc27 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Write-in access quite literally means nothing. In most cases, you just send a document to the state, no fee or signatures required... If you can't even get enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, that means you probably don't even have the grassroots support to get enough votes to be placed in the infobox. In many states, they don't even report these numbers even if you get write-in access, and just report it as "scatter." Longestview (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Write-in status can mean something if you actually win.. Biden recently won NH as a write-in, Murkowski became a Senator as a write-in. I can’t speak for all states, but California does report write-in totals. That’s a huge chunk of popular votes up for grabs. Grassroots support is important, but when you have a lot of name recognition and media coverage, it certainly is not the end all, be all. Prcc27 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  A) Murkowski did not become a Senator as a write-in. She was a 8-year sitting Senator running for re-election when she won by write-in. Similarly, Biden was the sitting president, running virtually unopposed, when he won NH as a write-in. Neither situation is remotely comparable to an outsider candidate that no one has suggested is even a remote threat to win a single state. B) I never said special treatment. I said different. As in, here we are discussing RFK, and why is that? The reason is that he's polling well. For some that is enough, for the majority it's not. That majority wants something more, and this RfC discussion confirms that something more is name on the ballot. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  @GreatCaesarsGhost: I also agree that polling alone is not sufficient, because you have to actually be a candidate that gets votes to actually win 5% nationwide. You are right, RFKJR is no Murkowski or Biden, but the threshold for the infobox post-election is relatively low: 5% popular vote nationwide. Wikipedia is not a crystalball, but if a candidate has a *fair* chance of winning 5% nationwide or 1 pledged Electoral College vote, I say include them in the infobox pre-election, then remove them post-election if/when they get less than 5%. RFKJR may not be able to win as a write-in like Biden or Murkowski. But does it not seem plausible he could win 5% nationwide as a write-in and/or ballot access/write-in hybrid? Especially if it was something like ballot access 269 votes vs. write-in access 269 electoral votes? Prcc27 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  "if a candidate has a *fair* chance of winning 5% nationwide or 1 pledged Electoral College vote" is a reasonable standard, but I think we will have very different ideas about how to evaluate that chance. Personally, I think that if RFK starts registering as a write-in, that's a giant red flag that he's not trying to actually contest the election, and we should not elevate him to the infobox, period. However, I also very confident that will only happen if his polls continue their decline. It's silly to consider these these factors as if they are independent from one another. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion #6 works well and makes sense along with #1a. I feel that 1b and 1c are a bit excessive especially when a candidate already has enough ballot access to win the needed number of electoral votes. Also should they qualify for the presidential debate, it's an automatic no-brainer to include them in the infobox too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Criteria #6 and #1a seem fair due to how the system works and the WP:5% rule. Although this RfC won't create precedent, we should still follow it. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• 2b: The purpose of infoboxes is to summarize key facts about the subject (MOS:INFOBOX). How do we know whether a candidacy is a "key fact" for this race? If reliable sources about the race are talking about it in that way. I'm not sure that's exactly what 2b says, but it's the closest. Basically, editors need to be reading reliable sources, and summarize them. Even if there are reliable source articles about a third party candidate, I don't think it's until the more general articles about this race generally are consistently talking about those candidates that it makes sense to include them in the infobox. There is no reason to make up a rule, such as criterion 6; we just need to follow the reliable source reporting and do some thinking about whether a candidacy is a "key fact" about this race. As a ridiculous hypothetical, if the grand wizard of the KKK started running and developed a big enough following, even though he didn't get ballot access in enough states to satisfy criterion 6, it seems at least plausible that reliable sources would talk about it a lot to the point it became a "key fact" about this race.--Jfhutson (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I would recommend closing due to near unanimous consensus to include Kennedy after he gets ballot access. Lukt64 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, and once Kennedy reaches ballot access he must be added. No more buts. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's still not a consensus on whether 1a, 1b, 2b, or 6 (with 1a, 1b, or 1c) is best yet. That's why the RFC is still going. KlayCax (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Primarily #6 w/ 1a but also #2a or 2b if a candidate can achieve it. Any candidate that has ballot access in 270 electoral votes of states and is getting 5% in national polls is a significant enough candidate to potentially affect the outcome of the election even if they don't win, and therefore should be included. But even if a candidate doesn't reach this threshold, if the sources agree they're very significant they should be included anyway. Loki (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: If a candidate is almost certainly going to pass #6. Why should we wait for it to be de jure rather than de facto? It's no different from including Biden and Trump in the infobox now; people who claim it is WP: CRYSTAL are being inconsistent here. Present exclusion violates the WP: PRECEDENT established on other candidate pages. Considering that third-party candidates are still polling in the upper-10s to low-20s. KlayCax (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur that the waiting for BA to 270 votes officially is probably too long, which is why I advocated for a sui generis decision as facts emerge. I believe this RfC only requires us to add him when he reaches 270; it should not prevent us from adding him earlier if consensus deems appropriate. Aside, it is VERY different from Biden and Trump for reasons too obvious to state, and there is no precedent for WP adding a third candidate to the infobox on a US Presidential race before the election. Even if there were, consensus overrules precedent every single time. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with a sui generis addition is that *someone* will inevitably revert it as soon as it is done. Meaning, we'll be quickly back at this debate treadmill over and over again for the next few months.

With Kennedy's VP pick, it's already a fait accompli, and stated as such in reliable sources. It would just save us a ton of time and a ton of energy to just place him in the article now. KlayCax (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Best to let the RFC run its course. I'm confident that all will respect the decision, when it's closed. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It is very much NOT a fait accompli that RFK will achieve ballot access, or that by the time he does he will still be polling well enough to meet the standard set here (he has already receded from a peak ~ 19% to ~ 9%[1]). This was seen by some (including me) as somewhat inevitable: as the campaign season begins in earnest, support moves from novelty candidates to the more credible. If RFK bucks this trend, that is proof that his campaign is more serious and warrants adding to the infobox. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• #2a or #2b. Ultimately Wikipedia's role is to reflect what reliable sources say; it isn't to try and second-guess them. This is especially true for infoboxes, where we can't really present much context. If the sources treat someone as a major candidate, we should as well, regardless of how they poll and regardless of ballot access; if they do not, it is WP:OR to dig through polling and ballot access to try and present them as significant ourselves. The only complex part of this ought to be figuring out what sort of coverage makes someone a major candidate, which ultimately does have to be decided on a case by case basis; this gives me some preference for 2a (which provides a clear example) but it's probably not sufficient, which leaves us with only 2b as a realistic choice. Oppose #6 in strongest possible terms - based on that, a candidate with no coverage at all could be added to the infobox; that simply isn't how we write encyclopedic articles. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax

1a

per Wikipedia precedent, 2b should also be considered if Wikipedia's reliable sources "perennial sources" guidelines are reformed. (I am not getting into the whole RS/PS thing, that would be for that page and not here) Buildershed (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax This was just closed, then reopened, what happened? Buildershed (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Buildershed:, the closing was done by a brand new account (not necessarily a new editor). Someone took exception to that and reverted the close. -- Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Status read I am applying a ranked voting logic here by assuming that those who support a lower standard would move to the next lowest standard if their preference is rejected. By my count, there are 22 contributors so far. 4 support 5% only. An additional 2 support 5% + write-in access - TOTAL 6. An additional 7 support 5% + ballot access - TOTAL 13. An additional 3 support 10% + ballot access - TOTAL 16. By my reckoning (which is not authoritative), we have consensus for ballot access + 10%. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, yes, most of us can agree that a candidate with ballot access (270+?) and 10% polling should be included in the infobox. Arguably, there is a consensus, albeit weaker consensus for a 5% threshold. I have expressed support for a 10% threshold in the past, but I will yield on the 5% vs. 10% for now. Prcc27 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion #6 along with #1a. Out of all the options. This is the one that is the most impartial. And makes the most sense for the infobox pre-election. In terms of #1a, until there's another RFC for polling we shouldn't change the precedent. Which at the time is WP:5%. As for the 270 electoral votes. That is how many are needed to win the election outright. So if a candidate achieves access to those votes. And meets the polling precedent. They should be added to the infobox. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you are looking for the pre-election equivalent of the 5% consensus for results, bear in mind that a candidate polling at 5% but with access to only half the votes would only get 2.5% of the vote (if they match their polling). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if polls in the near future will adjust themselves based on ballot access. If not, yes, the 5% threshold could be too low for candidates that lack ballot access. Prcc27 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm open to the idea of a 50 states or a 50 states + DC rule. Don't entirely agree with it since it's not required to win the election. But if that's something we wish to entertain the idea for I won't offer any pushback. Now whether or not that would change the polling criteria is another question. If there was a rule for ballot access in all 50 states is 5% still sufficient? Or should it be raised to 10% in national polling? This is the problem I'm seeing with this RFC. Since it's not going to set a new precedent. I don't see a reason as to why we should alter what is established. Dr. Stein, Mr. McMullin and Mr. Castle were all in the infobox in 2016 based off the 270 (including write-in) + 5% rule. I'm all for a 10% national polling threshold (and maybe could be convinced to get behind a 50 states rule) if this was a discussion to change the precedent going forward. And I do believe that is the discussion we should be having. Since we are not though, that is why I'm sticking with previous precedent. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most users here including myself agree to add Kennedy until he reaches enough ballot access to 270 electoral votes. Now you wanna push it to "must be in all 50 states?" Come on, now. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Only one person in this entire Talk page has made the argument in favor a 50 states rule. And that argument was made outside of this RFC. I said I do not agree with such a rule in the next sentence and followed that up again saying I would need to be convinced. I could be convinced. Hence is the nature of being open to something. The likelihood of my mind changing on that however, is slim. Now if you read the rest of what I said after the first sentence. We are both in agreement that the ballot access requirement to be in the infobox is 270. That is the one thing this RFC has created a consensus on. Which I do need to make a correction to my argument including the 2016 election. Upon further review of that article. The polling average was ignored outright. Only three of the six candidates met the polling average. But all six had access to 270+ electoral votes. The question we have now is what should the polling requirement be? Which again we're in agreement at the 5% threshold. Our reasoning may be different, but we agree. However, there is no consensus on what it should be. There is a majority for 10% that has been counted. But a two vote majority (adding myself to the minority side) is not a consensus. And I don't think we'll come to one with this RFC not changing precedent. Which is why I proposed the idea of one. Which if the majority of editors here are not open to that discussion. That's perfectly ok it's just an idea to try and end the stalemate. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  There was considerable acrimony on this issue in 2016 right up to Election Day, so I don't believe we have anything approaching established consensus on the issue. Still, that was 8 years ago and consensus can change. The discussion here has been oddly much more civil. My argument is simply that if 5% in actual voting is the standard, we should apply a similar standard to polling, but with a multiplier for ballot access. A candidate on the ballot in states with 270 EVs would need about 10%, a candidate in every state needs 5%, etc. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I failed to locate the archives from the 2016 election. I admit fault in stating any falsehoods. Your argument is a good one. And largely I agree. The only reason I can't get on board is due to the fact WP:5% applies to polling not just raw votes. There was an RFC last year that agreed to not have it strictly enforced in parliamentary elections. That is something I believe is something we too should discuss. But since this RFC doesn't apply long term. I'm sticking with those parameters. Think we see where each other is coming from. There's agreement, but also disagreement in implementation. But as you even said things change with time. So I'm going to stick with what I originally said we should do. And rest in a sort of "agree to disagree" standing. I'm not entirely sure a consensus will be reached in terms of polling. So I'm going to let it rest there and accept whatever outcome is decided. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Criterion #1b and #3 or #6. 5% for polling is too low. Third parties usually underperform, so 10% consistent polling should be required. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Criterion #2a, #3, and #4 necessitate immediate inclusion. For anything less, #2b should be used. I am opposed to using a specific polling percentage or electoral votes as used in #1, #5, or #6. We should first and foremost rely on what reliable sources are saying rather than these other criteria which is borderline original research. Yeoutie (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• If a candiate has ballot access to 270 or more electoral college votes, they should be added to the infobox. There is not likely to be more than 4 such candidates, so there will be no issue with crowding.XavierGreen (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Criteria 2b should be a given, as media coverage in reliable sources basically defines notability as far as wikipedia is concerned. I'm also inclined to allow one of the Criteria 1 options in addition to 2b, not supplanting 2b (so a candidate that has low or non-existant polling data, but is still covered extensively by reliable sources who take the candidate seriously, should still be allowed), but I'm ambivelant as to what the exact threshold should be. 5% seems popular above, and I don't object to that, but I can see an argument that 10% would make for a better cutoff. I'd lean more on the 5% side if you really pushed me for my opinion, however, since taking 5% in the general election means that the narrow thin margin between the two major parties is going to be significantly effected. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

2b (and 2a) does nothing to settle the discussion, as it requires us to interpret whether media coverage of a candidate is "considering" them to be a major factor. Each additional article mentioning the candidate would be seen by someone as cause for a re-evaluation (or by WP:BOLD fans to readd him without discussion). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• criteria 1a. You'd put him on once he gets 5% of the vote, so you should also put him on if he's polling over 5%. I'd be okay with adding criteria 6 as well, but it feels unnecessary to me because he would still be added to the infobox post election if he made 5% of the national vote but failed to be on the ballot in some states. Chipka (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Propose to close as RFC has been open over a month and contributions have slowed. I believe we have consensus to add when and if a candidate has achieved ballot access in states holding 270 electoral votes AND received 10% support in recent polls. In addition, there is sufficient support that the discussion can be reopened should the candidate be at 5% when 270 votes are accessed. Otherwise, the issue should be considered closed absent substantial deviation from the status quo. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost I see more consensus on 1a than 1b Buildershed (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies- I intended this as in updated to my prior status read, but neglected to copy it to my comment. My read is there are certain lesser standards that, if they lack sufficient support to carry, may reasonably be applied to the next lowest standard (for example, those that support 5% polling only would certainly support 5% plus write-in access as a backup). By my count, there are (UPDATED) 28 contributors so far. 4 support 5% only. An additional 2 support 5% + write-in access - TOTAL 6. An additional 1 supports BA only - TOTAL 7. - An additional 8 support 5% + ballot access - TOTAL 15. An additional 4 support 10% + ballot access - TOTAL 20. But I would suggest that the 15 of 28 supporting 5% + ballot access is insufficient. But 20 of 28 supporting 10% + ballot access is sufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure where I fit in this tally.. But I support write-in access and lean towards a 10% threshold, unless we can somehow account for margin of error. We also need to account for the fact that candidates may be included in polls even in states they do not have ballot/write-in access. Prcc27 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

We can take this RfC as reading the temperature of the room. There are a lot of hypotheticals involved, and I think the discussion will be easier once events come to pass. If RFK decides to go the write-in route AND hits 10%, we could discuss adding. If he goes for ballot access and hits 5%, we could discuss adding. But if he goes for ballot access and hits 10%, we already have consensus to add (in my estimation). But we shouldn't discuss again until he hits 270 votes (write-in or BA), gets invited to a debate, or something similar. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is backwards. Those with lower standards can't be imputed to support the higher standard. There are five votes for 10% against fifteen for less stringent standards, and given that there is no particularly compelling argument one way or the other for either standard. This whole RfC has been poorly conducted. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996- I wouldn't say poorly conducted.

We ought to figure this out now because the longer we don't, the dumber this whole situation ends up.

If there's clearly 15 to 5 for 5% polling, then that is what this should close on. Buildershed (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, no. It's 15-13 for 5% polling (plus ballot access). And you only get to 15 by adding up several different similar opinions. So clearly not consensus and that is why it is poorly conducted: there are too many options and variables. Now, we could take the outcome of this RfC and start a new one with a more specific standard. For example, "5% or greater in all major poll aggregators plus name on the ballot in states holding 270 votes" that has two options: adopt the standard or do not adopt. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost I honestly agree with starting a new RFC, or splitting this one. Buildershed (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1a + 6. 5% is the standard for other elections, and should be applied here. Fryedk (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• How do you determine which polls to use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMisty (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The original post specifies a "candidate who generally polls at XX% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)" Those aggregators currently show RFK between 7.2 and 8.8% - well above the 5% but not meeting the 10%. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Trump image RfC

Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article: Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Screw it, let's use his mugshot. Goes hard and is also quite recent. Buildershed (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Updated: five more options - Option E ,Option F ,Option G ,Option H and ,Option I - total five additional choices. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• A - A seems to be sufficient enough, I don't see why we need to change it, it looks recent enough. I would note though that none of these pictures seem inaccurate enough to not serve the general purpose.

MaximusEditor (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option F

I want to laugh whenever I come to this article, because American politics has become a circus. Buildershed (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Option F is okay for me as long as Trump is smiling. my 2nd preference is option C Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump infobox images

• 
  Option A (Current infobox image)
• Option B (Nominated for deletion)
  Option B (Nominated for deletion)
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option C (Cropped)
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E
• 
  Option F
• 
  Option G
• 
  Option H
• 
  Option I

They're 5 years old. What's the point when we have suitable options A and C from just last year? GhulamIslam (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

While the 2017 photo is a bit dated, the 2019 photo offers a more recent and positive representation (it was taken just one year ago). Compared to the frowning 2023 option, the smiling 2019 image feels more fitting for an official photo.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option B: it is a recent photo, and it looks more presidential. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close: A discussion on this was just opened above and thus WP:RFCBEFORE hasn't been satisfied. Let people try to reach a consensus before starting an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  There are actually several sections open, and it is becoming very difficult to try to discuss and form a consensus. Better to centralize the discussion into an RfC. We typically decide photos via RfC anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Tend to agree. Multiple discussions (mostly among the same handful of people) about what amounts to the same thing but not producing a clear and actionable consensus, isn't helpful. RfCs are useful for several things, and agreeing on the best option among a choice of available photos is often one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  My bad. I missed the 4/8 discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• B as first choice, A as second. C looks ridiculous. A is arguably a better picture from a portrait perspective, but has distracting background elements. B doesn't have those, and is a reasonably good as a portrait, and is not a silly, hammy thing like C, so let's use that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  PS: The later-added F and H also look fine (though the images need cropping, especially H). PPS: The even more newly added option I would also work, but should be cropped; it's very smiley, but looks much less fake or leering than several of the others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding C, Biden and Kennedy both have the same fulsome smile in their photos, it's fine from a portrait perspective. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Trump just looks like he's faking it when he does it. F & H are more natural-looking smiles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• B or C are equally fine for me. "A' looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy, but we're supposed to be neutral here, for almost anyone that means using a positive-looking picture when one is available. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• A or C - The lighting on B doesn't look good for an infobox. Longestview (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B is the cleanest looking. There's no guideline relating to the lighting of photographs in infoboxes. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• A: It is somewhat recent with it being 9 months old and, in my opinion, looks visually pretty good with him not having a awkward smile and is well lighted. B is not a bad pick but it is soon to be 1 year and 9 months old, so this is an important reason why I am holding this option back Punker85 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think it has to be that recent, after all, Biden’s presidential portrait is older (2021). I think the main argument with regards to recent photos was that Trump’s 2017 portrait was way too old for an infobox in 2024. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• A or B. C just looks ridiculous, as User:SMcCandlish said. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B. He has a more neutral expression. Senorangel (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) After the update with additional options, D seems to be the best photo overall. Senorangel (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• If I had to choose a photo of Donald Trump, I would still choose his main presidential portrait, but if one of the three above is complete, B would be better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• B. C looks very unnatural, as said by many people. While A Isn't really Presidential like. InterDoesWiki (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option C. Most representative of how he currently looks, especially in regard to his weight loss, and the best match with Biden's picture out of the three. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The new “option D” is not good; eyes looking away from camera, mic in the way, head slanted. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• A - used in our article for the Republican primaries. In B he's blending into the background chameleon-style and C and D are fairly poor. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B - neutral expression, portrait-style. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B — neutral, non-distracting. A would be my second choice (per Herostratus: "[A] looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy"...) and C is my last choice, as it looks entirely ridiculous. What's a picture from, the dentist's office? Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B per reasoning given by other editors here. It definitely should not C. KlayCax (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• B - seems quite moderate looking, to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or a more recent photo of him from his trial. He looks pale and sickly in B and not his usual orange self! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• A because C and D are poor for reasons others have mentioned, whereas B makes Trump blend in. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Option B is currently nominated for deletion, which could impact this RfC. [2] Prcc27 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume That is going to be the deciding factor, because it seems more than a majority have reached a consensus on using B, though the RFC is still ongoing. InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• A first choice, D second choice. There's too much shadow in B and C looks a bit goofy. Some1 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A first choice, B second choice if B is not deleted. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A is my only choice. B is too shadowy, C is too smiley, D has a mic in the way and his head is slanted head, so those are out of the question IMHO.
  Which is not to say there can't be some other picture E which is better than any of these, but that's a bit besides the point.
  Subjectively, A also seems more representative of his personality—which precise adjectives it conveys is left as an exercise to the reader, as different people may assign positive or negative ones, but in any event it is very, very much a quote-unquote "Trump" look
  167.88.84.136 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• A. B's nominated for deletion, C looks ridiculous, and his head is cockeyed in D. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  @JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333: In the event that B does not get deleted, would you still prefer A? Prcc27 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm...like others said, B does seem pretty shadowy. Yes, I would still prefer A. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• A is the best option here. C and D have downsides, A does not; it's neutral. I was going to add that the lighting on B is a tad dramatic, but seems like we don't need to worry about that anymore. TheSavageNorwegian 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we should assume Option B is an option if/until it is actually deleted, but of course users that prefer option B should have a backup option just in case. Prcc27 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's a fairly open and shut case. The user uploaded a number of Getty images because he did not misunderstand the license, and they are subsequently getting pulled. There is zero reason to think we would retain it. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. But as of now, it has not yet been deleted. Prcc27 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• A - For the high visibility contrast. B looks likely to be deleted, but is also low contrast and fades into the background. C is ridiculous and objectively doesn't even look like the subject. D would be my second choice. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Updated opinion with new options added: Expressly unchanged, adding that for all options added (E-I) are not as good as option A or D, primarily because the lighting is really bad. E also has another ridiculous facial expression which makes it inappropriate. The contrast for F, G, and H is so bad that he basically whites-out into the background. I is slightly better in this regard, but only slightly... it's also too small, and the straight face-on angle does not accurately reflect his appearance. And because it's come up a few times, I agree that his official portrait should not be used. Fieari (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• C “a photo of Donald Trump with a warm smile instills hope. I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024. However, if Photo C is not chosen, could someone locate an alternative picture of Donald Trump wearing a cheerful smile?
  For instance, could anyone locate a copyright-free photograph of a smiling face, (in other word: A winning smile), akin to the "4 big smile" featured in The Guardian News below? Additionally, may anyone peruse the collection of photos taken at the White House or any potential copyright-free locations. thus far? If we cannot find an appropriate photo now, I hope we can replace it when a suitable one becomes available. News link: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Why the heck should "I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024." factor at all into our analysis LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As the person who took 3 of these photos being considered, why isn't his official portrait just being used? He doesn't look that different. Calibrador (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good point !

  Since the official photo clearly identifies Tump, and serves its purpose well, would it be acceptable to use it again instead of replacing it? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because of the consensus reached at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#Biden and Trump pictures that a more recent picture of Trump should be used instead of his 7 year old presidential portrait that fails to reflect his current appearance. GhulamIslam (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t necessarily disagree with that consensus, but I really do not like photos A, C, and D. If we are not going to use the presidential portrait, I feel like we should still use a photo that’s presidential. And these photos fall short of that IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• C, similar to Biden's picture and doesn't have a weird facial expression. Nosferattus (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• A. Not going to repeat the same arguments made above, but B has the large shadow, C is alright but is not the best photo, D has a strange facial expression, and I am against using the official portrait. Yeoutie (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Official is my preference. A is my second choice. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option H - I like the "Option H " because this photo has a professional and reliable look. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment What brought about the need to change the image? He doesn't look that much different in each of the options so what caused the start of this RfC? Tepkunset (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment The concern seems to be that the official photo, chosen in 2017, might be outdated. While some agreed to consider a replacement if a better recent option emerged, there appears to be no significant difference between the current choices. Given five new options have been added, it might be helpful for those who previously commented to revisit the selection. SMcCandlish , voorts (talk, Herostratus , Longestview ,voorts,Punker85,Senorangel,InterDoesWiki,Tim O'Doherty,Cremastra,KlayCax,GoodDay , LegalSmeagolian,Wikipedia1010121,InterDoesWiki,Some1,Grahaml35,JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 , The,GreatCaesarsGhost,Fieari Additionally, Dear Prcc27 (talk), the agreement to change the photo wasn't mentioned on this talk page. Could you please point the link us to where that discussion took place? e.g. "Archive_7" or any other place? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here's a link to the discussion to change Trump's photo

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7#Biden_and_Trump_pictures David O. Johnson (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: My concern with the new photos is that though they're not as old as the presidential portrait, they're still not new; correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all from 2019, right? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Biden photo is from 2021, while the current Trump photo is from last year. The whole impetus for changing Trump's photo was that it was out of date compared to Biden's.

  [3] David O. Johnson (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I still think A is the best out of those options. Regarding the new additions: E has a noisy background; F is blurry; G is not bad, but the text in the background is distracting; H has his hair blended in with the background; I is blurry. Some1 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I know there's a consensus not to use Trump's portrait, but some of these pics are during his presidency. Can't see why the logic behind not using Trump's official portrait doesn't pertain to some pics taken 2-3 years after the official portrait was taken. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Prcc27: @SMcCandlish: @InterDoesWiki: @MarkiPoli: @Cremastra: @KlayCax: @GoodDay: @Herostratus: Those of you who preferred option B, what do you think of this photo from July of last year? (same date as current infobox image)

  

  Meh. Looks confused/doubful/skeptical/worried. Not a very flattering image.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option C is still my preference for reasons already stated. GhulamIslam (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• I actually think it is the best photo proposed so far (aside from Option B). Prcc27 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• If option B is going to be deleted? Then stick with option A. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• B first choice (neutral expression), A second choice. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What should the criteria of inclusion be for the state infobox?

Should a candidate be included in the state-level infoboxes when:

A) They are added to the national infobox

B) They have achieved ballot access (not write-in) and 5% average polling for that state (per the major aggregators)

C) something else?

GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Bish. Not sure whether or not aggregates are necessary for states if not available yet. On one hand, using major aggregates could establish due weight in the polling. On the other hand, if a candidate is polling well over 5%, we may be capable of doing our own calculations to come to that conclusion in lieu of having aggregates available. Prcc27 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• A - Best to keep consistency, across the board. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If Evan McMullin can be included on the Utah infobox despite not qualifying for the national infobox post-election, RFKJR should be able to qualify for a state infobox regardless of whether he is included on the national infobox pre-election. A 5% threshold and ballot access for states and a 5% threshold and ballot access (albeit 270+ EVs) for the main infobox is consistent. Prcc27 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Evan McMullin obtained 21% of votes in Utah, 6 points above the threshold in polls that the Commission on Presidential Debates imposes on third party candidates in order for them to participate in debates.

5% in polls is too low a threshold. Esterau16 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

5% is the current threshold for the national infobox pre-election & post-election (whether you support the threshold or not). Why would we have a higher threshold for state infoboxes? Prcc27 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a new RfC on that topic because I consider that the Rfc you refer to is ambiguous and did not produce a clear and solid consensus. Several of those who participated in that RfC did not fully decide on 5% or 10% Esterau16 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Esterau16: If users said 5% or 10%, what makes you think all of the sudden we would go higher and say 15%? 15% was already suggested at the RfC, it was rejected, and you are being disruptive by starting yet another RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with A. I also agree that the candidate must have official ballot access (not write in).

Disagree with the 5% threshold in the polls. 5% is too low a threshold. Third party candidates tend to be above 5% in the months leading up to the election and drop off as election day approaches. A very clear example was candidate Gary Johnson in 2016. In the months leading up to the election polls consistently showed him above 5%, there were even several polls that had him above 10%. However, Gary Johnson only received 3% of the nationwide vote. I believe the threshold in polls should be 15% nationwide and statewide, the same threshold that the Commission on Presidential Debates imposes on third party candidates in order for them to participate in debates. Esterau16 (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

C - If a candidate meets the established inclusion criteria nationally, they must be included in the infobox. If a candidate is polling at 5% or higher in a state, but not nationally, they should be included in that state's infobox (akin to the McMullin situation last election).XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• B is sufficient. I like the McMullin example for why national inclusion shouldn't determine state infoboxes. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  B - Another One that didn't make the National Infobox but Did with the State Infobox (Vermont) Is Senator Bernie Sanders, Through Write-in Votes. Also, Countering Esterau16's Statement, A Clear example of Third party candidates can do as good as their polling is Ross Perot in 1992 (specifically after he rejoined the race.) While yes, he lost a lot of steam, but he ended up with 18%-19% of the Vote. InterDoesWiki (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  It does seem WP:CRYSTAL to assume a third party candidate will underperform their polls. Prcc27 (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not when it happens every election. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  InterDoesWiki just gave an example of an exception. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• C 5% of the vote in November. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  That introduces a bias for or against candidates. It's also a clear instance of WP: CRYSTAL. KlayCax (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's a reflection of reality in a two-party system and in no way involves CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn’t shut out third party candidates completely from the infobox. We don’t do so post-election, so we shouldn’t pre-election. Prcc27 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why not? The U.S. political system mostly does, so why shouldn't we reflect that? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don’t for the national infobox, so why would we for the state infoboxes..? Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am saying that we should not put them in any infobox before the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good luck with that. We already agreed that third party candidates should be included in the national infobox pre-election (if they meet the threshold) per the RfC. It looks like there is consensus for state infobox inclusion too. Prcc27 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't need luck. I have the fact that no candidates have access to 270 and are polling at or above 5% other than Biden and Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, stop the persistant pushing of the viewpoint that the U.S. is a 2 party system. It is VERY TRUE, but that does not mean that Bobby is irrelevant and that he will not perform well. That is a clear bias against him. And, I am saying that just like KlayCax is saying the same thing from the same viewpoint, I do NOT LIKE BOBBY. But there are examples of people just as relevant in a 2 party system. Such as, I don't know, ANOTHER presidental election here! 2 of them, actually. Just because it was a 2 party system when Ross Perot performed well TWICE in a row does not mean he should not have been included in the infobox, which he was IN A 2 PARTY SYSTEM because he exceeded expectations. Now, I know what you are saying, "But Jayson, that only happened because he got enough votes in the election to meet such expectations, whereas now the election has not happened yet" and I understand what you are thinking, but Bobby has exceeded expectations for a third party candidate so much, he has gained so much grassroots support from the ground up and polled consistantly high, similar to what Perot did. This IS a 3 way race in a 2 party system, and if you just keep saying that same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, saying that its a 2 party system and thus any third party candidate cannot be in the infobox because they are automatically irrelevant, then you are wrong. Jayson (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  You do not know what I'm saying. Two-party system's lead sentence: A two-party system is a political party system in which two major political parties consistently dominate the political landscape. That fits the U.S., no? Saying it's a three-way race does not make it so, especially when one of those three candidates is only on a few ballots. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not always a two person race for states though, and this thread is about states. We included Evan McMullin in the infobox pre-election since the polling suggested he was going to do well in that state, and he ended up getting over 20% of the vote post election. Are you saying we should have waited until after the election to add McMullin to the 2016 Utah infobox? The current state polling does not necessarily suggest a “three way race” per se, but it does suggest RFKJR is likely to meet the 5% post-election threshold. A third party candidate only needs 5% to qualify for the infobox, they do not have to be anywhere near the number of votes as the major party candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  And we should wait to see if they get 5% of the vote in those states. Listing McMullin in 2016 before the election was a mistake, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  More revisionism, goal-posting, and attempts to rule by mob on Wikipedia. No surprises here!

  People would've burned Anderson and '96 Perot alive if those circumstances were present today. But when it comes to candidates on other country's elections, suddenly there's no discussion. Just shows how dysfunctional the current revisionist consensus is. Wikipedia's American bias is certainly coming into play here, that part is undeniable. Borifjiufchu (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• A or B Either the candidate is on the national infobox or they are (on the state ballot + polling above 5% for that state). I disagree with Muboshgu's logic as it's forcing subjective POVs against all other candidates. If we are listing any candidates pre-election, we must use a neutral metric, instead of favouring just 2 of them. Both A and B are reasonable metrics imo, so combining them is logical. Soni (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• A I think B would be reasonable if we had robust, diverse polling in every state, but we won't. States will get more polling if they are competitive between Trump and Biden; RFK's potential will be immaterial. So the decision to include or not is going to be based on very light data, especially given the low threshold. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• B Ballot access and 5% polling seems reasonable to me. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• B is rather apt here, and is in line with past precedent. People pushing for A are just goal-posting further, and have not treaded outside of the Presidential election articles, no offense. I can't see why people keep making up new rules and consensus changes and passing it off as mob-law just to prolong their side of the edit wars.

Borifjiufchu (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

B Isn't this how it's always been? 5% polling in the state, then you should be added to the state infobox. This shouldn't be what we're debating. What we SHOULD be debating is how many polls with a third-party candidate with 5% or more are needed for inclusion. In Utah, RFK Jr. has polled with 5% or more. However, it's only one poll. So, should he be included with only one poll, or does he need two? Or three? 65.129.55.67 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We have no history or precedent, as there has not been a third-party candidate in WP's history that polled as well as RFK is. We do have a consensus to 5% in results, but that is very different because third party candidates in US presidential races tend to under-perform their polling. Ergo, a candidate that is polling barely over 5% is almost certainly not going to get 5% and be in the infobox after the election. Some here (myself included) think this would be undesirable, so pre-election inclusion should attempt to reflect reasonable expectation of post-election inclusion. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy now has 270 electoral votes

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.

---

Including write-ins, Kennedy now has 270 electoral votes if you count credible petitions (201 electoral votes) and write-ins (69 electoral votes).

As many states do not certify their ballots until weeks before the election: arguing for official certification is de facto arguing that Kennedy Jr. shouldn't be in the infobox. A clear violation of the spirit of the RFC.

Either Kennedy is added now or when 270 electoral votes are credibly petitioned (next week). But let's stop with the Wikilawyering and endless goalpost shifting. There's a clear consensus to add him. At least by next week or so. KlayCax (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The goalposts have not shifted. The consensus at the RfC clearly does not include write-in status, and the closer recently clarified that. Prcc27 (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about write-ins, @Prcc27:. I was talking about those who want to exclude RFK Jr. entirely: despite the fact that >270 electoral votes are a fait accompli.

We can exclude write-ins in that calculation. But if we're only going to include official certifications, due to the nature of how states do it, then it's guaranteeing that RFK Jr. will never be in the infobox until after the election.

The latest deadline for independents is September 6, two months before the election. Ballot access in the 2024 United States presidential election#Deadlines David O. Johnson (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax, here's another source for the September 6 deadline. [4]. It's unlikely Kennedy will make the first debate, but the second debate seems fairly possible. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

That is, as you mentioned what we should avoid on this article (not sure if you agree with this), setting up different standards between candidates and thus a violation of WP: NPOV and WP: CRYSTAL. KlayCax (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

After the election? Pretty sure the cutoff for qualifying for the ballot would have to be before the election.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't count "credible petitions" or write-ins per the RfC, as we've been telling you. Stop creating new sections to push your POV that is clearly against consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax seems to be operating in bad faith at this point. We've had the same discussions multiple times. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's normative for users to disagree with one another, @David O. Johnson:. (And multiple users agree with me here.) The problem with an "official certification" standard is that it will be impossible for RFK Jr. to be in the infobox if it is used. It sounds at first glance logical. However, as states often don't certify their ballots until the last month (or less!), it serves to guarantee that he's not in it, despite appearing neutral at first glance.

It would establish an American exceptionalist standard (once again). Instead of treating the U.S. as engaging in a typical election.

As I mentioned above: I'll hold off until 270 electoral votes — even excluding write-ins if need be — but then I'm adding. If we include routinely include candidates like Leonid Slutsky, Vladislav Davankov, and Nikolay Kharitonov in the infoboxes of articles, such as the 2024 Russian presidential election infobox — all of which were essentially puppet candidates for Putin with absolutely no chances of winning — then we're including Kennedy Jr. There's no realistic argument for this double standard. (Outside of "he's crazy" or "I don't like his views". I don't either. Both facts are irrelevant.) It's once again a ridiculous instance of American exceptionalism on Wikipedia..

There was no consensus to "exclude" fait accompli ballot access cases. KlayCax (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: If you add RFKJR yet again without consensus, there should be dire consequences. As other users pointed out, you are being disruptive. There was literally an almost the exact same section started only a few days ago. The RfC said ballot access, and that’s what we should stick with. Prcc27 (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That serves as a de facto ban on Kennedy Jr. from the infobox for the vast majority of the election cycle. Most states don't certify until the last month. Directly contradicting the spirit of the RFC.

I'm fine with excluding write-ins. But once it becomes a fait accompli that >270 electoral votes have been credibly petitioned then the matter is settled. KlayCax (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax I agree! I stand by Mr.Cax here. He has repeatedly shown that there is no good reason to oppose his inclusion on the grounds of "but ballot certified no yet" because he told us something I did not know: if these are such reasons, then he might as well not be in the info box until October or something, because states don't certify their ballots for a while anyway. Bobby has shown that he has gotten a lot of electoral vote potential, and is certainly a major candidate. Bobby has gotten enough signatures in enough states to have the ballot petitions be valid. Jayson (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No. We cannot not assume every state he has “enough” petition signatures, he will qualify for. The bureaucratic dispute regarding his Nevada petition is a perfect example of why we should wait for the states to officially qualify. What if not enough if the signatures are valid? Prcc27 (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Taking my "neutral closer" hat off, I kind of understand this request. I personally think Nevada's petition [5] is actually a point in favour of RFK's campaign (There can be bureaucratic mistakes and delays from the states). But generally, I understand the standard is to trust Biden and Trump campaigns when they state they have ballot access or similar (which they obviously do). I personally feel like it's a reasonable ask to do the same for the RFK campaign unless we have good evidence they'll fail their petitions.

This is still a future problem, but between "Are we WP:BURO keeping RFK out of the article infobox for a few more months" and "Are we predicting things if we consider 'pending certification' as ballot access", I'm a bit more sympathetic to the former, myself. It's ultimately a question of source reliability and US politics precedents here, which I'm not as experienced on. Soni (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Biden and Trump qualify because their parties met the threshold last cycle. If RFKJR qualified for the infobox post-election in 2020, he would automatically qualify for 2024. My issue is do we take candidates at their word when they say they have “enough” signatures? How many of those are actually going to be valid? Prcc27 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course we shouldn't take his word for it. No candidate is a reliable source about their own campaign. Candidate signatures get challenged all the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We're similarly assuming that Biden and Trump will be the nominees through presumptive reasoning. Why can't we state the same for Kennedy? Ballot access in states with 270 electoral votes is ensured at this point.

As @Soni: stated: the RFC never stated that we should "exclude" fait accompli ballot access cases. KlayCax (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Presumptive reasoning? Biden and Trump won their primaries and their opponents for the nominations dropped out. They will have ballot access in all 50 states. Ballot access to 270 for RFK Jr. remains dubious at best. Stop gaslighting us. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's possible that Biden or Trump will suffer serious health conditions, for instance, despite the fact that they presently have enough to clinch it. Similarly, RFK Jr. is presently in states with ~201 electoral votes (whether presumptive or official), and has write-in access in an additional 69. I fail to see how his ballot access is "dubious" in character. Politico and other neutral observers have stated that the actual campaign has been surprisingly effective in getting ballot access. There should be no serious doubt that Kennedy will fulfill the requirements of the RFC at this point. We make similar "presumptive" judgements in the infobox for Biden/Trump.

I'm failing to see the issue, @Muboshgu:. We even include infobox access for countries with non-democratic "elections" and single-party states. What makes Kennedy Jr. such an issue? KlayCax (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me. I'm following this discussion.

It's possible that Biden or Trump will suffer serious health conditions, for instance: See WP:CRYSTAL. Similarly, RFK Jr. is presently in states with ~201 electoral votes (whether presumptive or official), and has write-in access in an additional 69. No, that may be what he claims to have, but he's not certified in that many states, and Soni was clear that write-in access does not count to the EV total. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrote more on this below. (To prevent needless fork.) KlayCax (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, Biden and Trump should not be listed in the infobox at this point, because their nominations have not yet been certified by their respective conventions.XavierGreen (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We should not treat Biden and Trump the same way that we treat RFK Jr. and other independent/third party candidates given the two-party system. You can propose removing Biden and Trump from the infobox until the official nomination at their conventions, but I doubt that would gain consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're applying a straw man's argument. People aren't proposing removing Biden and Trump from the infobox. They're saying "Biden and Trump are listed despite not being officially certified by convention", so we should apply reasonable logic for other candidates as well. In this case, the argument for said reasonable logic is "If certification is pending, we can still take things at face value instead of delaying until nearly the election".

You can disagree with this logic, but it's still fair. Soni (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm responding to Xavier, not making a strawman argument. Treating the two party candidates the same as third party and independent candidates would be giving special WP:UNDUE consideration to the third party and independent candidates. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Russia, Singapore, South Africa, and many other nations are functional one-party states, but we include other parties in the infoboxes, how is it not the same here? @Muboshgu:? KlayCax (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about how Russia, Singapore, or South Africa do things. It's not relevant to how the U.S. does things. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there exceptional circumstance(s) that justifies a much stricter criteria for the United States, than, say Russia? The burden of evidence, and onus, lies on justifying different standards between them. Kennedy will almost certainly not win. But he has a much better chance than Kharitonov, Slutsky, or Davankov ever did in Russia. Or Pritam Singh/Hazel Poa in Singapore. Or Julius Malema in South Africa. If we have to include a third-party candidate every 30 years or so on articles surrounding the United States. (Which we already do in 1968, 1980, et al.) I fail to see why that's a problem. Maybe Wikipedians of 2060 can debate that.

Now? Not an issue. KlayCax (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, whatever is done on wiki pages for other nation's presidential elections does not have bearing on what is done on this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing. But why should election infoboxes on American articles be radically different from every other country, @Muboshgu:? It comes across as American exceptionalist.

Why do you believe we should treat them differently? If we include fringe candidates in Russia per the 5% rule before the election: does the same not apply here? KlayCax (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Different pages do different things. You are convincing me that fringe candidates shouldn't be in the infoboxes of those other pages, especially Russia re: Putin. But that's still not relevant to RFK Jr. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Is 10-15% in polling fringe? I wouldn't label RFK Jr. a fringe candidate. He certainly has fringe views (in the sense of contradicting the overwhelming scientific consensus).

But so does Trump in many ways. So I fail to see how that's a criteria for exclusion. KlayCax (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Let him cook!

Anyway, I wanted to give some of my opinions on this subject.

Now, when you say that we shouldn't just assume that Bobby's ballot petitions will be accepted, then why do we make assumptions that Trump and Biden should be nominated by their parties? Why list them in the infobox when they haven't even been nominated by their parties officially yet? Why are they the presumptive candidates? The convention could technically change things. The delegates could backstab Trump or Biden. Its the same thing that you are saying with Bobby and his petitions. Both are not official yet, but we can safely presume that it will happen. Sure, it might change in 1 or 2 states, but why do you trust that the Old Men will be nominated and not trust that Bobby will get 270+ EC vote potential.

Furthermore, you have said that Bobby is a fringe candidate because the 2 parties dominate everything and have for decades. While it definitely is a 2 party system, that should never automatically disqualify Bobby even if he is polling very highly. You can't just ASSUME, like you accuse of us doing, that he will not do well since no third party candidate has done well in years and therefore cannot do well at all with 110% certainty of failure. It is like flipping a coin. You got heads 4 times in a row? Wow, I think that is a 1/16 chance! Surely it will happen again, right? But no. The odds are against it. You cannot assume that since it happened last time it WILL happen again. Jayson (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, that message was directed to @Muboshgu Jayson (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This nonsense again? Kennedy’s own website, which you linked, doesn’t say he has access to 270 electoral votes. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The related-RFC is quite clear on this matter. Until/if Kennedy meets the inclusion criteria called for? he's not to be added to the top infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As @Soni: noted: there was never a ruling to exclude fait accompli ballot access cases. Waiting for official certification is a de facto exclusion criteria for the vast majority of the election cycle.

That at least directly violates the spirit of the RFC. If we're going to include presumptive ballot access for Trump and Biden: we can't exclude Kennedy without violating WP: NPOV.KlayCax (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Overall, there is clear consensus in favour of Criterion 6 and Criterion 1a being applied to this article. Before the elections, candidates can be included in the infobox if they have ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.). Not if we think they'll get certified, only when they have ballot access. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrote more on this below. (Don't want to start two conversations at once.) KlayCax (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly does not have access in enough states yet, and write-ins obviously shouldn't be included.Yeoutie (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I try not to assume bad faith but at some point the persistent Kennedy pushing here starts to look like WP:NOTHERE. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

A substantial portion of the editors agree with me. As a social democrat: I don't like Kennedy. But opposition to his inclusion appears to based predominantly on his views rather than standard infobox inclusion guidelines. KlayCax (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it Kennedy pushing? @KlayCax is just trying to do what is right, generate consensus that he should be in the infobox because he has met the guidelines! Jayson (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

He has not met the criteria. Prcc27 (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This gaslighting is unbecoming. So is Jayson's attempts to add RFK Jr. to the TX and NH article infoboxes claiming he meets criteria. This is disruptive to the point that I may request an uninvolved admin get involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As @Soni: noted: there was never a ruling to exclude fait accompli ballot access cases. Waiting for official certification is a de facto exclusion criteria for the vast majority of the election cycle.

Again, this directly violates the spirit of the RFC. It's not "gaslighting" or a ridiculous question to ask at all: as Soni noted. KlayCax (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read Soni's RFC closing statement. They said that Overall, there is clear consensus in favour of Criterion 6 and Criterion 1a being applied to this article. Before the elections, candidates can be included in the infobox if they have ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.). Not "if they think they will have ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes". 270, not including write-in access, officially official. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Many states don't certify their ballot access until weeks (or days) before the election. That's de facto the same as excluding him from the infobox for the vast majority of the electoral cycle. To say that this doesn't directly contradict the spirit of the RFC is disingenuous. We already make similar assumptions for Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Is there a consensus to treat Kennedy Jr. differently from them? If not, then the RFC consensus is clear. Even a candidate with confirmed ballot access in every state wouldn't have enough electoral votes for a majority of the cycle by the hypothetical standard you're suggesting. I'm fine with excluding ballot-access. Once ballot access in states with >270 electoral votes is presumptive: then there's no need to wait for official certification. This comes across as a WP:BURO and WP:LAWYERING situation. (As @Soni: briefly mentioned as a concern of his.) If we're going to make presumptions about fait accompli situations with one or two candidates: we need to do it for all. We can't set different standards on the basis of "one has beliefs that are funny". KlayCax (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is "wikilawyering", it's you, because you don't like the result of the RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: never stated that it excluded fait accompli cases. The only axiom I'm making (which I'm aware you disagree with) is treating fait accompli cases for Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and RFK Jr. similarly.

(Pinged him so a response from him can be given on the matter.) KlayCax (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Soni said "ballot access". Only you have mentioned "fait accompli". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to this comment by @Soni:. He never expressed an opinion on fait accompli cases, to my knowledge, so where are you getting the impression that the RFC excluded it?

We already include the "faith accompli" nominees Biden and Trump in the infobox. Doing the same for Kennedy's ballot access isn't a radical idea. It's a logical extension of what we've already been doing. Why should we wait until official certification? Is it not the exact same type of argument that has already be dismissed against including Biden and Trump until the party conventions? KlayCax (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Since no one else has pointed it out, you are not using the term fait accompli correctly. It describes something that is done and irreversible; effectively (if not literally) having already happened. This in no way describes the state of RFK's ballot efforts, as much as you may wish that to be the case. Nevertheless, the consensus is firmly in favor of including Biden and Trump and excluding RFK at this point. No attempt at fancy wordplay, however misguided, is going to change that. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

He's credibly finished petitioning for the ballot awaiting certification in states with 201 electoral votes. That's an instance of faith accompli. KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"Faith accompli" may be a typo, but that seems more appropriate than "fait accompli". A wise man once said "it ain't over 'til it's over". Given how often signatures are challenged, that fits. Obama got elected to the Illinois Senate after challenging the ballot petition of the incumbent, who was deemed to have not submitted enough valid signatures. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, there's a lot of potential things that could happen before the nominating conventions, but the chances of Kennedy Jr. having 1/2 of his petitions in every state overturned is ridiculously low.

Biden or Trump could have a health scare. Maybe RFK submits invalid petitions in 10+ states. Both are heavily unlikely. KlayCax (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You know, you don't need to ping me five times in the same thread.

As a closer I saw consensus on the two criteria, consensus against using write in access as a substitute for ballot access, and no clear cut "When are we considering ballot access as confirmed".

As a now involved regular editor on this (and perhaps it was a bad idea to be, but we Wikipedians can't stay away once we stick around enough), I thought the arguments for considering "Candidate submitted for ballot access" as "reliable enough to count EVs" to be reasonable. The arguments against didn't convince me they were fair, and the arguments for had "We carve other exceptions for common sense anyway" doubts.

None of this will matter until RFKJR actually does hit 270 ballot access EVs. But it would be good to get another uninvolved editor to clear up this question (and the state RFC) before we get there.

As for me, I don't think you should take my 'regular editor' concerns and arguments the same as 'the closer'. That would be a supervote. All it means is that I didn't see clear cut consensus on "When is ballot access confirmed" beforehand. Soni (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I often use my mobile phone to comment, @Soni:. Didn't notice I pinged you five times. Could you find a non-involved editor? I think this question should be decided in the RFC. Since I don't want to waste the time of editors surrounding this. Alternatively, I could start another RFC now if a definite consensus on the matter can't be stated, as it often takes a month to complete. Would have been more explicit in retrospect. But because Trump and Biden were being included on a presumptive basis: I interpreted to extend to "credibly finished petitioning for the ballot awaiting certification" as well. KlayCax (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And Muboshgu interpreted the RFC to mean that "credible finished petitions for the ballot awaiting certification" should be excluded.

So I wanted your input on the matter, if that's what you meant, didn't intend for a type of supervote situation to emerge. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm busy without reliable Wikipedia access for the next few days, and the standard process for this usually goes through WP:CR or a noticeboard than one editor.

We need to close the state RFC, so might be good to post for that anyway. And then either ask someone to just evaluate this section or do a full question RFC, I don't mind either.

It looks likely we will wait for official confirmation of ballot access anyway, as that's the fair default unless consensus shows otherwise Soni (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Part of the problem with using a standard other than official confirmation is "who do we trust?" It clearly cannot be the candidate themselves. Reliable sources may say "the campaign claims" but are unlikely to use their own voice until the access is official. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, the latest deadline for independents is September 6, two months before election day. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Certifying the ballot is different from applying for it, @David O. Johnson:. It's two different things. KlayCax (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we should concede that the RfC excludes write-ins, since that contradicts the purpose of the electoral vote requirement. The closer was wrong to “clarify” that. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

TBH - I think this discussion should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let it be so. I will also not add Bobby to any more state infoboxes. I do not want to cause trouble. For the one in New Hampshire, I assumed he was on the ballor because of a mistake on a map just saying. Woopsie! Jayson (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The map I am referring to is this one Jayson (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussions on these matters are inevitable, and will be eventually re-warranted. Another thread will pop up, the news cycle will move, something will change, and Wikipedians will try to goalpost and stall further, until the precedent is so overwhelming it slaps them in the face. If anyone was here from the Infobox 2016 cycle, they would know that was is going on is quite a disgraceful departure from some people's rather exceptionalist interpretations based on current events. Borifjiufchu (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Should Dobbs v. Jackson or January 6th in the lead?

Should Dobbs v. Jackson, January 6th, or election denialism be in the lead of the article? This sentence was recently added into the lead of the article (that I removed):

The election notably comes after Trump's prior attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack

But it seems WP: UNDUE to me if we're going among the opinions of voters. Among most, January 6th only comes as the most memorable part of Trump's presidency among 5% of voters. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if scholars of democracy ranked it much differently.) If we're going to add anything: shouldn't it be the repeal of Roe v. Wade? If anything, that seems the most probable event to change the ballots of voters.

A similar debate on what to include awhile back ended up with a general agreement (maybe even consensus? albeit no RFC was done) to exclude everything. But wondering if that still holds.

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the removal. It may or may not be undue, but it should not be added absent discussion. IMO, the current (long standing) scheme of including a simple list of issues in the lede which are fleshed out later in the issues section is ideal. We do not have to get in endless, unsolvable debates about relative weight of each issue. Dobbs is covered by "abortion" and Jan 6 is covered by "democracy." We should not give any greater weight to any issue. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Was making sure there was a general agreement on the matter, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. KlayCax (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support the removal from the lead except for brief mentions, as the issues are expanded upon in their own section. The lead is mainly about the election and candidates themselves, per due weight. 2601:280:5C01:B7E0:183B:9BAC:6E83:EFFE (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither should be in the lead of the article, though I'm not opposed to mentioning the subjects elsewhere. These are issues that were major in the 2022 midterms, but most people have moved past these two specific events. AmericanBaath (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. In your post, you say the mention of January 6 and Trump's former attempts to overturn the election are undue because one poll shows that 5% of voters remember the events of January 6 among a list of questions about what they remember most about Trump's presidency. However, three other sources also detail how the event has impacted the election, including a Washington Post Analysis (a solid secondary source) and a poll that puts it among one of voters top concerns. Lastly, the opinions of voters should not be the sole judge of what gets put in the lead of an article. Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history, and the January 6 attack was the first attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power in recent memory and is an event of historical significance, as the provided sources stated. The fact that a former American president is now running for reelection directly after these attempts is noteworthy, and deserving a mention in the lead of the article. These events are also mentioned multiple times within the body of the article itself. Here are the three sources that were used for those who are interested.

References

Also, the sentence in question was not added recently, but has been there for several weeks (I think two months?) now. I believe you are referring to a separate edit that added a poorly referenced YouGov poll to the lead, whose removal I do support. You also claim consensus was reached in your decision to revert your deletion of the information, which is not the case. You posted this forum section at 23:05 May 21, had a response from one editor at 00:31 May 22 and removed the information claiming consensus at 22:59 May 21, before the individual who you claimed consensus from had even responded. Thus, the onus would not be on inclusion, but on removal. BootsED (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the unilateral action here was out of line. Both issues are germaine to this election. January 6 in particular is still relevant as this is a rematch between the same two candidates, and since one of said candidates is facing prosecution for his role in that. For the same reason, I might suggest that the Electoral Count Act is also germaine to include here. But in any case, one poll is not sufficient to eliminate such issues, and acting as if there is a consensus before other editors have had a chance to weigh in is disingenuous and violates Wikipedia policies. I strongly advise against any efforts to strongarm a decision in that way. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Well the addition was made a unilateral action, wasn't it? The balance of issues to appear in this lede has already been the subject of several discussions, so no one should be making large changes without discussing it first. Separately, no one is arguing that the issues are not germane. The argument is that every effort should be made to limit the size of the lede lest in become unwieldy. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to push back that the change was “unilateral”. Some users did express support for mentioning Dobbs in the lead in past discussions. Also, I believe the consensus was to wait until Trump was the nominee/presumptive nominee before we considered mentioning January 6th in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Dobbs & January 6th merit a mention in the lead. Yes, we don’t want to say too much about them because it would be WP:UNDUE, but 1 or 2 sentences is WP:DUE. Democracy isn’t usually a campaign issue, it is pretty unusual for it to be a top issue let alone an issue at all; 2024 is definitely an outlier in that sense. We do a disservice to our readers when we do not briefly explain in the lead why democracy is all of a sudden a top concern for this presidential election. The lead is where you should briefly explain the nuances/point of clarification of issues that are more complex than the usual issues. Foreign policy? The economy? Immigration? Healthcare? Those are always/almost always issues in presidential elections. As for abortion, yes abortion is usually a top issue anyways, but the landscape nationwide has changed drastically with the Dobbs decision, which might also be worth mentioning. I strongly support mentioning January 6th in the lead and I am leaning towards supporting mentioning Dobbs as well. Prcc27 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but part of the problem is phrasing these issues in an accurate and neutral way. The phrasing we are discussing here fails to do that. "The election notably comes after Trump's prior attempts..." Why is it notable that this election comes after the prior one? What we really want to say is people are afraid that Trump is going to try to cheat again, or if he wins he will dismantle systems of democracy to stay in power. But how do you phrase that briefly and neutrally? Do you give a chance for the counter argument, refuted but widely held, that the election will be stolen from Trump? ~ I'm not saying we can't do it, I'm saying it's difficult, and what we have now is better than the passive "notably comes after" GreatCaesarsGhost 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we're trying to say that Trump is going to cheat again and dismantle democracy in this sentence. I think the notability comes due to the unprecedented attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack being events of historical significance, not just because they happened in the prior election. We're not making any claims of "Trump will destroy democracy" in this sentence, but reporting on major historical events involving the same candidates in the current election. I'm not sure how you can get more neutral than that. BootsED (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So the answer to the question "Why is Jan 6th relevant to this article?" is "because the same candidates are involved." I personally don't think that's important enough for a full sentence in the lede. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I also said it is an event of historical significance? And provided sources that backed that up? The fact that the same candidates are also involved merely adds to the reason we should include it. It is not the sole reason. Don't misinterpret what I said, please. BootsED (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking why Jan 6 is being mentioned in the lede of this article, about an event that happens close to four years later. The fact that Jan 6 "is an event of historical significance" in no way suggests we should note it here. The Battle of Hastings was also quite significant! I'm not being daft here: I understand there is a connection, but in order to promote it to the lede of this article, we need to articulate the connection first, then consider whether it passes muster. We're speaking in whispers and implications, and that is not appropriate. The current handling of the issue works well; we should be cautious before throwing it out. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The simplest connection is that former President Trump made multiple attempts to overturn the 2020 election, and his supporters attacked the Capitol for the first time since the British invasion in 1814. Trump is currently facing a criminal trial for his role in attempting to overturn the election and his role in the attack. Trump has repeatedly brought up the events of the day and has promised to pardon those involved. The attack represents the first time in modern history that a losing candidate attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power. That candidate is now running for office again. I think the connection should be pretty clear! BootsED (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I know the connection you are attempting to imply: 1) He did this last time and 2) he's probably going to do it again. What I'm saying is we cannot imply something that is so controversial as #2- it needs to be stated and cited. If you state #1 without #2, you are attempting to draw an inference to a fact that you cannot support with citations. Absent #2, #1 is irrelevant. The article actually does state #2 (in so many words) down where there is room to do so in a nuanced way. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe we are attempting to say #2. No claim has been made that Trump will or will not do anything. The sentence merely mentions Trump's former attempts owing to their historical nature and his current run for office. It is background information that provides greater context to the election, especially since both candidates are running again. We are merely mentioning past events due to their relevance to current events. I see how one could infer that we are trying to imply something, but this is not the intention.

We might need more editor input on this issue as currently the discussion is mostly between yourself, me, and Prcc27. BootsED (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur with BootsED. We do not have to say anything about Trump’s role in the lead, we can leave that to the body paragraphs. A concise statement that this is the first presidential election since the January 6th Capitol attack would suffice. Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The primary issues are already stated in the lede.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

January 6th isn’t just a “campaign issue”, it’s a significant historical event that has already had an impact on the 2024 presidential election. In fact, Trump was initially disqualified in some states because of his role in the Capitol attack. Democracy is the campaign issue, January 6th is the background information. Prcc27 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump hasn't been disqualified in any states. The January 6th riots have their own article, if people want to learn about it they can read about it there.XavierGreen (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

He was until Trump v. Andersonwhich says now it’s the choice of Congress now, not the state. Qutlooker (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

To encourage more editors to discuss this point, I have created an RfC on this topic. Please move future conversations to this RfC. Thank you! BootsED (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: What shall encompass "Ballot Access"

In the closure of the recent RFC on Infobox inclusion, the RFC closed on options 1a and 6 for consensus.

Option 6 was "Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and meets criteria #1a, #1b, or #1c."

Already, there seem to be debates occurring on here over the ballot access portion on rather if it includes potential write-ins, states where enough signatures have been submitted but not certified nor rejected, or just certified only.

There are valid arguments for all sides here and it would be wise to create an RFC on this so I propose the 3 options:

• Option 1: Ballot Access shall only encompass states where the candidate has been certified to be on the ballot.
• Option 2: Ballot Access shall encompass all states where the candidate has submitted their petitions.
• Option 3: Ballot Access shall encompass all states where the candidate can possibly receive Electoral Votes from. (Certified and Write-Ins)
• Option 4: Ballot Access shall encompass all states where the candidate is presumed (submitted enough signatures) to be on the ballot, will be on the ballot, and/or can be written in. (Certified + Processing + Write-In)

I would like to mention that I am new to RFC production so if a Wiki moderator wishes to help, I am willing to cooperate.

The results should not be interpreted as WP:PRECEDENT outside of the article. Buildershed (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• We cannot hold a discussion to change the plain meaning of a term. We should especially not do so with the stated intent to indirectly modify the result of a prior RFC. If you change the meaning of Ballot Access, you are changing what people meant when they supported it. We can discuss changing the criteria from Ballot Access to something else if reasonable confusion exists. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @GreatCaesarsGhost There is reasonable confusion from all sides on this matter. Buildershed (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine. Then those who are confused can reference our own article or countless reliable sources to educate themselves. Ballot access means access to be on a ballot. It's not that complicated. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 1, if it was not clear, is the default and only valid option. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• There was a recent clarification indicating that write-ins would not count, IIRC.

Plus, per WP:CRYSTAL, option 1 is the only valid one. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson While the WP:CRYSTAL Argument does make sense, I would like to point out that we already have put up the presumed nominees for both parties even though there is a sliver of a chance something happens between. Buildershed (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s why we clarify in the infobox that they are “presumptive” nominees. Any political party that was included post-election in 2020 gets automatic inclusion in the infobox in 2024. RFKJR was not in the infobox in 2020, so he has to meet additional pre-election criteria first. Also, Biden and Trump are/were (respectively) the President; can’t say the same for Mr. Kennedy.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 not only seems the most reasonable but seems like it is easier to agree on. I do not think it will be likely that Bobby wins a state by write ins, but he could more easily win a state by having a presence on the ballot. So write ins are out of the question. But I do see how the dilemma works: There is a very fine line between excluding any candidate from the infobox by the same logic to exclude Bobby, and becoming some sort of Magic Ball that predicts the future. I am more sympithetic to the latter (lord, forgive me!) and thus will agree to having a candidate be included if they are credibly petitioned. Jayson (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Option 2 won’t work. How many signatures are “enough” signatures? If a candidate has exactly the minimum number of signatures to qualify, they would almost certainly not make it on the ballot. Why? Many signatures would be deemed invalid during the signature verification process. We will not know which states third party candidates will be on until they actually qualify. Prcc27 (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

1.3x-1.5x works for me. If a petition is reasonable: we should include it. We already make assumptions about Trump and Biden being the nominees, so I don't see the issue. KlayCax (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Clear vote for option 3. The purpose of the electoral vote requirement is to ensure the candidate is actually able to win the election; that’s all. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that is the purpose. If so, we would include the low polling libertarian, who will have EV access. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there is disagreement on what exactly the purpose of the ballot access requirement is (i.e. theoretical path to 270 vs. ballot access making it more likely a candidate will reach the 5% threshold, etc.) But enough agreement that it should be a requirement. Being required to have ballot access and poll at 5% is a stricter requirement than what we had in 2016 and 2020 where it was either one or the other. I would be more inclined to advocate for option 3, but after all the disruptions and clear POV-pushing to include Kennedy, I think it’s best we just stick with the RfC consensus, and try again in 2028. Prcc27 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Different advocates had their own purposes. My own was to avoid adding RFK merely on the basis of polling at a point in the race where polling was very unreliable. Indeed, he has lost fully half of his polling numbers in the meantime. Unfortunately the RFC result is just delaying the inevitable. RFK is now polling at 3% and 17% in different polls conducted at the same time. He will be in the infobox at some point, and he will be pulled within days when it's clear he won't sniff 5% in actual votes. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, we obviously would not, because polling is a separate criterion. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Petitions get rejected often enough that merely submitting petitions is insufficient. Here's two recent examples: [6][7] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 As this discussion continues I become less and less convinced by anything other than ballot access as announced by the state. The POV pushing and arbitrary nature of arguments (Why should we consider 1.3x-1.5x?) seems to be not rooted in arbitrary editor preferences rather than fair policy. I was not sure how many petitions were rejected usually, so the links have helped convince me. I am still okay with Option 2, but I prefer consensus over POVs being pushed. Soni (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Key Issues

Does the key issues sentence in the lead make sense if it basically just lists every issue typical of a presidential election? 2600:4040:297C:8F00:4599:AB:836E:AFC3 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It does make sense. Abortion is back on the agenda after Dobbs. Even if the issues are ones that have been typical for the past twenty years, the information will be valuable for those not familiar with U.S. politics (or even Americans in the future looking to understand this era). Bremps... 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Every single poll on issues that has been taken since at least January has shown that the economy and inflation are the top two issues that concern voters, by an overwhelming attitude. Accordingly, these should be mentioned first in the lede and in the article.XavierGreen (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a key issues section in the lead, @XavierGreen:. It's a WP: CRYSTAL and reductant listing that occurs in no other campaign article. KlayCax (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not WP:CRYSTAL if the candidates are actually campaigning on them.. Not sure what you mean campaign issues are not listed in other articles.. Yes they are. Prcc27 (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please include this great picture I took in the third parties section!

[8]

Here is the file. I am currently in the process of granting permission to wikipedia to use the image, I have sent the email and it should be all set. YangGang2024 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for comments: Should a sentence mentioning Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack be included in the lead?

Should the following sentence be added to the lead:

The election notably comes after Trump's prior attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

BootsED (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support without notably per Mac Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Support

• Support Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history, and the January 6 attack was the first attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power in recent memory and is an event of historical significance, as the provided sources state. The fact that a former American president is now running for reelection directly after these attempts is noteworthy, and deserving a mention in the lead of the article. These events are also mentioned multiple times within the body of the article itself. BootsED (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support without "notably" per SMcCandlish. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Without "notably", per MOS:INSTRUCT and MOS:EDITORIAL. The facts (which are supportable with bulk of the RS material, even if there is a strong current of denialism in far-right echochamber media) are highly pertinent to the subject, and arguably among the most important aspects of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good catch. I agree, the word should be removed. BootsED (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support: the wording without “notably” if and only if there are enough sources to back it up, per WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support for reasons mentioned above. Aiden3.14152654 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• (Summoned by bot) IMO would not be due in a lead that's barely two paragraphs. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that this would run afoul of the manual of style. I also share Compassionate727's reservation about weight. Pecopteris (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the lead of this article should focus on the 2024 presidential election, and given the lead currently mentions Trump's conviction for 34 felonies this seems a bit like overkill. There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if I'm weighing in on the overall RFC question, but NPOV does not mean we need to include criticisms against all candidates. It just merely means we should not be giving undue weightage to one over the other. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. If one candidate has much more serious and widely covered criticisms levelled against them, that's reason enough to include just that. Whether that applies here... That's for the RFC to decide. Soni (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I might have worded it poorly, but my point was that piling on criticism after criticism of Trump in the lead with no mention of criticisms against the other candidates would be undue and not representative of a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting we should mention criticism against Biden and Kennedy, but think that adds to the argument that it would be undue to add everything against Trump in the lead. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Oppose as proposed - the sentence should certainly not include the word 'notably', which is improper editorialising. As for whether it's due in the lead at all, I'm not sure that it is. It's a kind of 'sky is blue' assertion - this thing that happened in 2024 happened after something that happened in 2020 - well, yes, obvs. For it to be worth mentioning it would need to go on to explain how the former event influenced the latter one. So yeah, the sentence as proposed isn't worth adding. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  If the word "notably" was removed, would you support the proposal? I agree that the word "notably" should not be there. BootsED (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I stated previously in other sections above.XavierGreen (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• This would be undue given the length of the lead. The most important thing about Trump in 2024 is probably his convictions. CurryCity (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that at this time it is undue unless we vastly expand the lead. We could easily include a passing reference to it after the election though when Trump calls the results into question again. Yeoutie (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have said, Trump's 2024 convictions are notable, but the 2020 and 2021 events have long since passed and their only notability to this election is if those actions were among his 34 felonies, or if after the election there are interviews stating that these events are why people didn't vote for Trump. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue weight. Other issues have been shown to be more important to voters. The current arrangement elegantly addresses weight vs. thoroughness. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

For those who are curious as to where the sentence in the lead would go, it was previously located after the sentence, "His predecessor Donald Trump, a member of the Republican Party, is running for re-election for a second, non-consecutive term, after losing to him in 2020." BootsED (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

His attempts to overturn the last election are more deserving of the lead than his conviction in the New York case imo. That case concerns his attempt to illegally influence the 2016 election by preventing the MacDougall and Daniels affairs becoming public. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED: What about the fake electors plot? His involvement in that seems more clear-cut than January 6. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that would fall under attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election which mentions the fake electors plot. BootsED (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what I mean is: why should January 6 be singled out among the other attempts to overturn 2020 in the lead, and not the fake electors plot? GhulamIslam (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Eugene Debs

Currently we have the phrase "On May 30, 2024, Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, becoming the first president or major party candidate to ever be convicted of a crime"

I think it's worth mentioning since 1920, where Eugene Debs ran as a convicted felon. GeorgeMisty (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Lyndon Larouch also ran for president after being conflicted of a crime.XavierGreen (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Major" being the operative word, otherwise we could mention Lyndon LaRouche and Leonard Peltier too. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Eugene Debbs was a major party candidate at the time. He had gotten 5% in the prior election he ran in, and his party was represented in the House of Representatives at the time.XavierGreen (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the wording is currently fine as is. Eugene Debs winning 3% of the vote during the election he was in prison doesn't qualify as a "major" party candidate. BootsED (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

At the time he was campaigning from prison, he had won nearly 6% in his prior presidential campaign and his party was represented in congress. That does not equate to the "minor parties" of today.XavierGreen (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, you violated the 1 revert rule.XavierGreen (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If necessary, we can simply remove the "major party candidate" moniker. Also, where did I violate the 1 revert rule? BootsED (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the source in the article even mention “major party”? Prcc27 (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy. Someone added Trump is “the first convicted felon to run for the presidency.” Which definitely is not what the source says and is not true. Prcc27 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Should the Stormy Daniels affair be stated as alleged in the article?

There's been a debate on here (and on related pages) on whether the Stormy Daniels affair should be stated as "alleged" or simply stated as factual at this point? Many have stated that the conviction de facto concluded that Trump had a sexual affair with Stormy Daniels. (Through logical implication.) However, he was never de jure stated to have done so. What should we state? Several news stations have now taken it as a fact. Others are still saying "alleged". KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Alleged until convicted by a jury, is my understanding. If the affair didn't happen, why would you pay $130,000 and hide the payments for it? I think the logical implication is right. This discussion would probably be better on the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal page, though. BootsED (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It is plausible to pay hush money to someone if you think they are about to publicly accuse you of something that didn’t happen. Prcc27 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, if you think the mere allegation will damage your reputation and don't want to deal with that. I don't think "until convicted by a jury" is the right standard, though. That will never happen, seeing as it's not a crime to have an affair, and hasn't been in a very long time. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It does seem that neither "alleged" or "proven" is quite right under the circumstances. This article currently reads "payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels (regarding an alleged sexual encounter between them)". I would suggest a change to the verbiage used at Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York which says "payments made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about a sexual encounter between them". GreatCaesarsGhost 14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I oppose same. All the jury found was that he was guilty of charged aagainst him, misreporting payments, nothing else.XavierGreen (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, we are not meaning to suggest that affair as true or proven. Rather, we want to refrain from suggesting that it is false by using a loaded phrase per MOS:ALLEGED, given the preponderance of facts. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Chronological order for Electoral College forecasts?

Should the 2024 United States presidential election#Electoral College forecasts table be re-organised to be in chronological order from left to right? That would make it more likely to correspond to more recent data. The problem is that that would require re-organising the table's left-to-right order every time one of the organisations re-issues a new forecast. Currently that doesn't seem to happen very often: there are only three columns from the past four months - all in May 2024. But there would likely be updates more often in the remaining few months through to Nov 2024. Boud (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would have cause to complain if you wanted to do this, as there does not appear to be any other order currently employed. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

For this excerpt: …the bill was opposed by Trump who claimed it would hurt Republican's ability to run on immigration as a campaign issue. "Republican's" should be changed to "Republicans'" (apostrophe after s), since the subject is Republicans collectively.

Additionally, the commas after quotes such as "not people," and "drill, baby, drill," should be after the quotation marks, since these commas are generally not part of the quotes themselves.

Lastly, in Democracy: Trump has played down but not ruled out violence after the 2024 election if he does not win, stating, "it depends." The comma after “stating” is not needed. TavianCLirette (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done I have moved the apostrophe in Republican's and moved the commas after the quotation marks. I have left the comma after "stating", however. It has been a very long time since I studied English but I was taught that it was correct to use a comma after words/phrases like [they] stated, [they] said, [they] opined, etc. so I believe this is grammatically correct. As it's been a while and I'm a mathematician not a linguist, I'm happy for someone else to make the change if they disagree with me. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:QUOTEPUNCT, the comma is optional. As such, I don't see a need for it to be changed. SilverLocust 💬 07:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

Hello! I took this photo and it is currently in the separate page for third party candidates in the 2024 election. I think it would look great in the third-parties section of this main page, so I'd love for it to be there. Permission for use has been granted to wikipedia and everything already. Here is the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yard_Signs.pngYangGang2024 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now The third party section is a bit cluttered by boxes right now, so I'm not seeing a great place to fit in the image. I'm also not sure the image adds much to the section. WelpThatWorked (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2024

Change RealClearPolitics opinion poll from Trump +0.7 to Trump +1.1 208.65.20.180 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Polling can be updated over here, where extended confirmed access is not required. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump and Biden on the infobox

It is not yet officially known whether Biden and Trump are the candidates. Shouldn't their pictures be removed from the infobox until then? Cenbutz1 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)