Talk:2016 United States presidential debates/Archive 1

Bernie Sanders
I'd like to add this information.

Late August polls show that about two thirds of Americans want Johnson to join Clinton and Trump in the debates. −		 −	Bernie Sanders has also said that Gary Johnson should be in the debates, and the 15% threshold is too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) 2016-09-07 01:05:05 (UTC)


 * The claim that "Late August polls show that about two thirds of Americans want Johnson to join Clinton and Trump in the debates." seems like a valid thing to have in the article. The Schouten article verifies the claim, but the Weigel article doesn't.  ALibertarianFuture.com source is not very good: It has a clear bias, and also claims flatly that "Not only did Bernie Sanders say Gary Johnson should be in the Presidential debates...", even though that's not what the video shows.  The video is from Meet the Press from September 4, 2016.  The actual exchange from NBC's own transcript is:
 * Chuck Todd: Do you think Gary Johnson should be in the debates?
 * Bernie Sanders: I think they have, you know, generally speaking, my view is that, if people reach a certain level, you can debate about what that level is, I think it's, what is it, 15 percent--
 * Todd: You think that's fair?
 * Sanders: --they should be in the debates.
 * Todd: So you think that level, that 15 percent, is a fair metric?
 * Sanders: Probably too high.
 * Todd: You think it should be lower--
 * Sanders: Probably should be lower than that.
 * Saying that 15 percent is "probably too high" is not the same as Sanders saying Johnson should be in the debates, particularly considering that Sanders was asked directly and intentionally didn't just say yes. So ALibertarianFuture is not a reliable source. --Closeapple (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How can this information be worded to be neutral?

Late August polls show that about two thirds of Americans want Johnson to join Clinton and Trump in the debates. Bernie Sanders has also said, when asked if Gary Johnson should be in the debates, that the 15% threshold is too high.

Your help is appreciated.

Benjamin (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein's protest
I'm surprised to see her protest isn't mentioned. She protested before debate at the venue and was escorted out. After that, she asked for it to be boycotted I think. I think her protest as well as position of Gary Johnson should be added. It could be seen as protest against probable bias in favor of popular candidates and marginalisation of lesser known ones. MediaConquerer (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think her escort deserves one short sentence in the sub-section 'Commission on Presidential Debates'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did this protest receive significant coverage in reliable sources? If not, it would run into issues of undue weight. I've been watching cable news most of the day and I haven't seen it mentioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If it didn't, why will I be here saying it should br included? It's covered by a lot of papers, see for yourself. MediaConquerer (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Besides 24 otgers were arrested for protests although their protests were on another issue, I haven't read about it completely. Maybe we could add protests to the article?MediaConquerer (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Accusations by conservatives that Lester Holt was biased against Donald Trump
http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/lester-holt-shows-he-doesnt-know-the-meaning-of-impartial/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/26/lester-holt-candy-crowley-moment-first-debate/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/27/lester-holt-asked-trump-15-questions-clinton-2-questions/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in-debate-trump-gets-6-follow-up-questions-clinton-gets-none/article/2602939

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2016/09/26/liberal-lest-holt-and-hillary-tag-team-trump-e-mails-barely

http://heatst.com/politics/lester-holt-the-third-debater/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264322/trump-takes-holt-and-hillary-daniel-greenfield

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/264314/lester-holt-lost-debate-daniel-greenfield

71.182.241.122 (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Every source you linked to is garbage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Every one of them. – Muboshgu (talk)

To be honest, it's just their opinion. Some sources cannot be called reliable, but they can be used for their own opinion I believe. For example X said Y and use the X source. The ones I think shouldn't be used is Newsbusters and Heat Street, as their journalism standards are borderline ridiculous. MediaConquerer (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a single one is reliable. Buster Seven   Talk  21:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not even the washington times one? that is the ONLY one that seems reliable to me. Chase (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just clicked on it, and it leads with "ANALYSIS/OPINION". The Washington Times doesn't exactly have the best track record. Not to mention, this source is from before the debate even happened. It has nothing to do with Lester Holt; it's all about fact checking in general, pushing the idea that you shouldn't do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

71.182.241.122 - as I said in the other thread above, this can be included, but you need to have a citeable article or book that covers it (e.g. Fox mentions this) and to just follow the source and convey what they say in due WP:WEIGHT of prominence. Per NPOV "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If you put in the line that 'There were accusations by conservatives that Lester Holt was biased against Donald Trump.' I think some of these would suffice -- but it would be better yet if you are citing overview article(s) and faithfully use their exact wording 'accusations by conservatives' or whatever. Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Info Box
Shouldn't the Info Box for the debates have a field for "number of viewers"? That seems more relevant than some of the fields that are currently there. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Debate list: Participants & two lists vs. one list
I edited the debate list to get rid of the list of participants ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2016&diff=741499730&oldid=741497427 ) and not include the Free & Equal Elections debate; edited it right back in.

I don't think a format that combines the two sets of debates makes any sense. (In fact, I'd argue that's an issue with this article as a whole right now, but that's a different topic.) A list of participants with checkboxes makes sense if the list of invitees varies a bunch, e.g., the Republican primary debates in 2016, which all invited varying numbers of candidates. But that isn't true at all. The "main" debates are Trump vs. Clinton and everyone knows this. Then there are the third party debates, and they will only include the third party candidates, and everyone knows this. It's not like one debate will have A, B, & C, and another debate A, C, & D, and another debate B, C, D, & E. These debates are very different entities, so why stick them all in one table with color-coding for "invitees"? There should be a table for the CPD debates, and, if we want, a separate table for the third-party debates. A single table is combining apples & oranges. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

VP Debate
One or both of the infox/picture should be removed from the VP debate section until more content is added. It just breaks the page formatting, especially for people on wider screens. Timothy Joseph Wood 20:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since no one has objected, moving the image here. This should be readded once there is sufficient content in the VP section that the stacking infobox/image are not format breaking. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Commission on Presidential Debates, September 30, 2016: "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall."
Primary source for the above quote: http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=69&cntnt01origid=27&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

Secondary source for the above quote: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/debate-commission-trump-had-audio-issues/

Also, right after the debate, Trump had said: "And they also had, gave me a defective mic. Did you notice that? My mic was defective within the room... No, but I wonder, was that on purpose? Was that on purpose? But I had a mic that wasn't worked properly, with, working properly within the room." Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/donald-trump-microphone-presidential-debate/

CNN is a highly reliable source. This is notable. It should be included in the article.

74.98.32.241 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Brianga (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Polling Data
Times and Drudge both show Trump won over Clinton, so why are they excluded from the list? 204.43.130.102 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Did they conduct an online poll? I don't know for sure, but I doubt any of the results in the article are from polls conducted online. Do correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't properly read them all. MediaConquerer (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are online polls and should not be included in the article. Mizike (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Then CNN's online polls with Clinton should be removed from the article too 204.43.130.102 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The CNN poll was conducted by telephone. All of the polls listed are designed in a way that prevents brigading, unlike the online polls at Time and Drudge. Mizike (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The CNN poll uses constraints to be representative of the voting population. The Drudge and other online polls do not prevent a responder from only responding once, and were targeted by r/The_Donald, making them completely unreliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In my earlier comment, I meant to say "I doubt any of the results in the article are from polls conducted online". Sorry for miswriting, I've corrected it now. As already pointed by other users, people can vote on online polls more than once. MediaConquerer (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

204.43.130.102 - this can be included, but you need to have a citeable article or book that covers it (e.g. Fox mentions this) and to just follow the source and convey what they say in due WP:WEIGHT of prominence. Per NPOV "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The 4.2 Reception section could use a bit more of the many views about the event -- I see 'what a mess' and 'did not discuss topics' and 'moderator slightly biased', articles that didn't look at 'win', as well as 'Trump won parts' or even a few 'Trump won'. Any poll is just a number, it is the writers interpretation and significance that apply here -- if you interpret it that would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but online polls cannot be included. As already said they can be voted more than once and have a high chance of being hijacked. They aren't reliable and can become biased. Non-online polls have a lower chance of that happening. Including online polls is like including IMDb user ratings in the critc reception for a film. MediaConquerer (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand to be corrected, but I think Markbassett's comment was more of a platonic ideal than anything else. IF reliable sources were citing these polls in proportion to the ones we currently describe, then they could be included.  Of course, the reliable sources will never cite them as evidence for the reasons you list. Mizike (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with others here that online polls shouldn't be used. Online polls can easily be manipulated. Newsboy39 (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mizike - actually, it was intended as a practical pointer on how to include such, and mild encouragement that I think "Reception" section could use more POVs/kinds to better conform to NPOV. It's OK to TALK about it, and it's OK for the article to include what RS say about it in WP:DUE weight.   Discussion by sources over online polls is part of the mix of views about the event, and examples of article content about online polls (or IMDB) exist elsewhere in WP and are even a major part of some wiki articles.   But it's not practical for a wikieditor to include a moving number, and it is OK to TALK about it but would run counter to WP:V, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH unless it's coming from an RS.     Markbassett (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Markbasset's clarification. We cannot use these online polls as a source directly. Hoerver if another reliable source mentions most of these votes were in favour of Trump, then it can be included. There have been cases where reports about the manipulated negative campaigning against a movie or video game for one reason or another by giving them a large number of low user score, have been included in the article about that game or movie by using other reliable sources. This case can be included as well if there are other sources that talk about these online polls going in Trump's favour. Newsboy39 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Newsboy39 There are, and it's gone past just the onscreen viewable to Fox report of Trump numbers there to discussions of multiple reports to report about the report -- for example the overview at Daily Mail: Trump Won Debate in Majority of Polls which talks of 17 of 21 online polls report Trump winning.  I have not seen any citeable sources saying this is manipulated, and tend to think this is just nature of Internet being demonstrated.  Mostly though I think for article edits :
 * REORDER - 'reception' should lead with the viewership as the first data and only objective item;
 * SMALLER - whole section about half as big, and 'won' theme should be shrunk to tiny -- make an overview paraphrase rather than a line for each teeny poll (and the 'online polls' part can be a closing one-line of 'most online polls reported Trump had one') -- because this is only the first and seems not that vital to topic.  (i.e. the following week overall poll numbers will show if it had ANY effect and more relevant to article)
 * DIVERSIFY - for NPOV purposes include 'reception' lots of opinions not even talking 'won' that are MIA. I think the 'that was ugly' category would be citeable, though personally I'm more at the videos of humorous utube musical renditions ;-)
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The poll numbers mostly seem to be incorrect, based on the citations provided. The NBC/WSJ poll in citation 17, for example (https://www.scribd.com/document/320223703/16579-NBCWSJ-August-Poll-8-4-Release), has Clinton at 47% and Trump at 38%. But the Wiki Page says Clinton 34% and Trump 43%. The CNN one looks OK. The Washington Post one has Clinton and Trump's numbers reversed. The CBS/NYT poll has Trump's number correct, but puts Clinton at 41%, when the citation actually says 44%. The Fox News poll numbers, again, appear to be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fencer308 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The NBC/WSJ numbers quoted in the article are not from Q6 (Trump & Pence/Clinton & Kaine) but from Q7 (Trump/Clinton/Johnson/Stein), and are correct (Clinton:43%, Trump:34%). I'll check the other pools in question and correct the numbers in the article if I can see that they are incorrect. NameIsRon (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Polling" section
Can someone explain this section to me? Is it suppose to show who won the debate? What the polls showed at a particular time? Either way, why are there numbers for "second debate"? At the very least this is way unclear.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't those numbers show who's eligible for the debate? The 3rd party people can still get in if they hypothetically reach the threshold, can't they? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to showing the polls used by CPD to determine the participants, the polls are an indication of support prior to each debate, and after the first debate show how the debates had an effect on polling. Calibrador (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the purpose needs to be clarified, otherwise it just looks like some random polls plucked into the middle of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2016
This issue seems really insignificant to me - a flash in the pan. Unless there is consensus otherwise, I'm going to remove it or trim it down significantly. Brianga (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. This made big news last night, and continues to do so this morning. There are multiple sources to support it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One way or another, I think it should be significantly trimmed. The relevant fact is the first sentence prior to the quote. The rest is just belaboring the point and comes off more gossip-column than encyclopedia. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it could be reduced to a sentence at most. The section should follow the format of the presidential debate section before it. Calibrador (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In a way, this was bigger news than the debate itself (which was pretty boring).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything in this election cycle is making big news, if you define that as having "multiple sources to support it." But having such a large subsection is disproportionate to its effect on the article's topic which is, after all, 2016 debates in their entirety. Brianga (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but this is the most reported issue relevant to the debate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, far from it. I haven't seen it mentioned once all day today. Calibrador (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You ignored what I said, all of those are from yesterday before the debate. Calibrador (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a minor detail in the grand scheme of things, but was still an embarrassing and preventable mistake for the RNC to make. It shouldn't be any longer than it currently is, maybe trimmed more if there's a way. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not deserving of its own section. Once we expand reception there might be a way to fold it in there. With all of the negative reaction to the debate in general, I don't think the website will have any staying power. Mizike (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be the best way to handle it. I see we don't yet have an actual recap of what was said in the debate. We don't really have a recap of what Trump and Clinton said in their first debate either. It's all about the moderation, viewership, and reception. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That format was based on the 2012 debate article. Calibrador (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A new scandal
There's a new scandal that has been brought back up within a certain time before the start of the 2nd presidential debate. Trump met with Bill Clinton's rape accusers. I support keeping the "RNC website controversy" section from the VP debate and the new "Pre-debate scandal". Now I think it's time for a new section. Let's try to include background information on both candidates, thank you.
 * "Trump meets with Bill Clinton accusers ahead of second debate"
 * "Trump's pre-debate Facebook Live features Bill Clinton accusers"
 * "Trump holds pre-debate news conference with Clinton accusers"
 * "Presidential Debate: Donald Trump Appears With Bill Clinton's Accusers" Emily Goldstein (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This stuff should go in another article, probably Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. It does not belong here.--MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

it's ok to put it here, but why is the OP calling THAT a "scandal"?? that's like refering to an investigation as a "crime".... 209.172.23.44 (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree about putting it here. This is not a source for campaign news, it's an article about the debates. There are other articles for campaign news. And BTW, Emily, please don't exaggerate. You said "Bill Clinton's rape accusers", plural, but only one accuses him of rape. And this is hardly a "new" scandal. --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"Pre-debate scandal"
I absolutely don't think the section "Pre-debate scandal" belongs in this article. I deleted it, but it was restored within minutes. I don't want to edit war so I am bringing it here. This article is about the debates themselves. For each debate we have information about the moderators, location, and format, and afterward we have information about the reaction and the viewership. IMO we would be way out of line to insert pre-debate news items, even if it seems likely that they might have an effect. If they do, it can be dealt with in the "reaction" section. But it seems both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV for us to be saying, in Wikipedia's voice, "hey, look, everybody, here's a scandal, wanna bet it affects the debates?" What do others think? Pinging Smallbones who originally inserted the item. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And now that section is attracting all kinds of POV vandalism to what used to be a sober, factual article! --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected the article for two days. Not over this paragraph, which is still in the article. There was just a sudden storm of unregistered user vandalism. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, someone has now deleted the paragraph, but we can still discuss whether it should be kept or not. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for setting off a storm of reverts and nonsense. I'll just note that I wasn't involved in that, I'm just back from taking the family to the park. But the only thing I'm at all doubtful about in my original edit is the section heading. There has been a pre-debate scandal, it is very important as the setting for the debate, much more so than the St. Louis venue, or even the moderators for example. The New York Times ref refers exactly to the debate and the strategy and expectations for it. IMHO it clearly belongs. I've reverted the last reversion which said something like "this really isn't about the debate." Absolutely wrong in my opinion. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that the item is now back in the article. The current text is short, factual, and neutral. So the only question is whether that kind of thing belongs in this article at all. I still think it doesn't. Pre-debate news stories that might affect the debate are not included at United States presidential election debates, 2012 or United States presidential election debates, 2008 or United States presidential election debates, 2004 - you get the picture. IMO this article should be about the actual debates, not about pre-debate news stories or spin or predictions. But I'm open to persuasion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll just say that this prelude to the debate appears to be totally explosive, totally noncomparable to the other years. e.g. See here or here where USA Today (not a liberal paper) even mentions the possible disintegration of the Republican party.
 * The paragraph is from material from a reliable source. We all know that the debate is widely anticipated. And it'll be all over in a few hours. So why not wait now - neither add nor subtract until after the debate is over?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

could we at least change it to "controversy"? it doesn't turn into a "scandal" until it affects something. if he aces the debate and the anti-trump wave blows over, it was all a big nothing. if he falls flat and does, in fact, get removed from the ticket somehow, one can then say "felled by scandal". but it doesn't fit the present situation. 209.172.23.44 (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did change it to "controversy". I see that now, post-debate, it has been deleted again. That seems appropriate. Although it was brought up at the debate, it was not any kind of determinative factor. They asked about it and moved on. This is just a big political news story, and it is thoroughly covered in at least two other articles (Donald Trump and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016), and has its own article as well. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

4th Debate??
there's a 4th debate in the chart, yet nary a peep in the text anywhere! i see in the chart that it's not an "officially sanctioned" one, but what does that mean exactly? are both candidates participating? are all the usual networks covering it? who's the moderator?

if "TBA" pls. notate as such! not so much in that chart, but in the TEXT somewhere..."A fourth, nonsanctioned, debate is also (tentatively?) scheduled for..." etc. 209.172.23.44 (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Someone keeps trying to push the "Free & Equal Elections Foundation" event is legit, but there are no confirmed participants and it doesn't seem like that's going to change. Brianga (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor were there any reliable third-party sources. If it takes place and is properly covered, we can revisit. Barte (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2016
83.86.208.191 (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody add the total tv-ratings in in the Vice presidential debate topic? About 37.2 million people tuned in to the nine television channels that carried the debate live.83.86.208.191 (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggested above that the ratings (number of viewers) be added as a field in the Info Boxes.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added a line. Brianga (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

VOA photos
Pretty sure VOA does not own the footage that is being claimed as public domain in order to illustrate photos in the article. It's owned by the Commission on Presidential Debates who pool it to all the various networks, and CPD is a private, non-governmental institution. Calibrador (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

October 9 event and cameras
I noticed on one news show they were taking selfies of themselves with cameras and then said the secret service banned cameras at the event because they didn't trust people to disable the flash and something about a seizure disorder.

Should we include mention of this? Kirsten Cole of PIX 11 news made the comment and other sources like Daily Caller are picking it up. Are there any other sources making this claim to confirm it? Was any seizure disorder mentioned previously to this? I don't see seizures mentioned on either article. Ranze (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds strongly like a fringe theory. If you have a reliable source, feel free to come back. (The Daily Caller is not reliable). Brianga (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Columns
There must be a way of presenting the viewing data other than in those crappy columns that break the page formatting, particularly when there is little accompanying content (such as in the VP debate). Does anyone have any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be presented in prose as it is in the 2012 debate article. Calibrador (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The table should include all the candidates that were invited to at least one debate. That's how it was done in 2012. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Putting the polls of debate reception into tables?
It would be great if the folks who know how to do tables on wiki could create tables for polls on the debate reception. Having it all in text looks ugly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I could do that later if I have time. epicgenius - (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Guests
None of the guests are listed here. Hillary has invited Mark Cuban. Donald Trump brought four Hillary accusers. This time, Hillary is bringing Meg Whitman, Trump is bringing Malik Obama. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unimportant. And except for the three women (not all four came), the guests were not widely reported or regarded as particularly significant. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unimportant per WP:RECENTISM. Brianga (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of bots in favour of Trump
A recent study says Trump was getting more support on Twitter during the debates because of bots and automated accounts. However it hasn't been peer-reviewed and one critic said it is impossible to be completely sure who is a bot or a real user. (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37684418) Do you think it should be added? 117.199.92.92 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but too vague, and not a valid metric in any case. I don't think "support by number of tweets" is even reported in this article, is it? So I don't see a place for for a report (granted, from a very reliable source) suggesting that maybe that number has been boosted by bots, but maybe it hasn't, and it doesn't mean anything anyway. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Does anyone care about the number of tweets in support? I don't even recall hearing about it (and I don't think I count as a slouch with these things). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump likes to cite internet (i.e., unscientific) polls to claim a win, but I don't think even he has cited "number of tweets". But apparently there are some people who tally these things. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this has minimal if any significance right now and, when the dust settles in a month or two, will have absolutely no significance. Brianga (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Brianga - whatever is in print, we should cover in WP:DUE weight by its prominence. If the internet support is famous enough, it goes in too.  My impression is the Opinion pollswere reported most, then the Online poll, then criticism / acknowledgement that Opinion polls loaded more Democrats, then the 'scientific' discussion.   Meh - I think they're mostly just getting the results of different populations. Markbassett (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The thing is related to just more than giving more favorable tweets. According to the report, this is being done to manipulate public opinion (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-presidential-debate-hillary-clinton-twitter-polls-winning-a7368101.html). This I think can have an impact on the public perception, maybe not much significant but an impact nonetheless. That's why I think it might deserve a mention here. 61.0.201.161 (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Including Breitbart in "fact-checking" section
Why does Breitbart keep being added to this article? It is almost certainly biased and has very little objectivity when it comes to political issues. More specifically, it is a Republican-leaning source. It shouldn't be used as a neutral fact-checking source. epicgenius - (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It was added because Breitbart News is a mayor online news site providing fact checks for the presidential debates. There's no evidence supporting your statement that the site/articles are biased/providing false information. Personally I think The New York Times and PolitiFact.com have a bias against Trump, but this doesn't make me remove those sources as that's an objective opinion.  And I believe the reader will benefit from more views on the same issues and if you read the Breitbart News articles, you would see they are doing proper fact checking. Please don't let your own political opinion or misinformed opinion about Breitbart News affect your judgment in this matter. simidude - (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's Breitbart's fact-checking on the 2nd presidential debate. I may be missing something, but it looks to me that there isn't a single item that's 100% in Clinton's favor. So I don't think Breibart is even pretending it's a neutral source. Compare, for example, FactCheck.org's summary from the same debate., which finds mis-statements from both candidates. I agree with . Barte (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is not a reliable source. It is, in fact, a hyper-partisan cesspool of lies run by conspiracy theorists and the lunatic fringe of the alt-right. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is surely trying to be in Trump's favor. It's fact-checking is clearly biased in favour of Trump. Especially someone like Breitbart who has had their staff working on a presidential candidate's campaign shouldn't be used here. 117.199.92.92 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 117.199.92.92 - if they have a "fact-checker", they fit. That they have a POV, just like the Times and Post and so on ... does not matter.  Because WP:NPOV says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views".  So the goal is to 'convey ALL as best able, in due proportion to their prominence, not just pick/exclude ones on any other basis.   As to bias - meh.  Every fact checker involved has a POV, these things are basically OpEds, our goal is to just show the big picture of what everyone is saying, including both sides and the corners.... Markbassett (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. "Fact checkers" cited by Wikipedia have solid reputations for accuracy and, well, facts. Breitbart doesn't do "facts" in the sense of the word that real people understand, so everything on their website (whether framed as "fact checking" or otherwise) can be safely ignored. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * POV = OpEd? Disagree.  Sure, no source is purely neutral, but as I noted above, Briebart isn't even making the attempt.  Barte (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Barte Umm, no. (a) The existing factcheckers are noted as biased in both their leanings and that the systematic approach is inherently biased, and (b) they do not give 'facts' they give opinions on 'fact checking' statements.  WP lists them as they are notable per WP:DUE prominence, and WP:RS WP:NEWSORG here means reliably available by being a printed item that is mechanically citeable, an OpEd but not something saintly perfect or scholarly or objective.  As an interpretation, other views should be presented per WP:NPOV, in due WP:WEIGHT of prominence. Markbassett (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to give offense here, but even after reading the above three times, I still don't understand it. Barte (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the people writing it are supposed to be unbiased. That would include listing fact checkers from all ends of the spectrum whether they align with our personal political stances or not. The New York Times and Washington Post are both liberally biased and Breitbart is a conservative news source. If one is used as a fact checker, then so should the other. If you still have a problem with listing ALL fact checkers, then feel free to add in additional sources of information that refutes their facts. Also, if you can find a purely unbiased news source that provides fact checking then more power to you, include them as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.214.4 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2016‎
 * Sorry, but that is ludicrous. The New York Times and the Washington Post are respectable news sources with long records of accuracy and integrity. Breitbart is a far-right blog from the lunatic fringe that has a reputation for extreme bias, blatant racism and outright lies. Please take your false equivalence elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Epicgenius and Scjessey. Breitbart "fact-checking" has no place here &mdash; it is not a reliable news source. Comparisons to authoritative news sources like the NYT and WaPo are ludicrous. Neutralitytalk 15:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Include - figuring out which to disrespect ... isn't a valid argument. Bottomline, there are different views and to not present that there are would be grossly inaccurate for the article.
 * Picking which to show or not is WP:OR
 * Selecting just one opinion is against WP:NPOV to show all prominent viewpoints there are on a topic. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
 * Reliable - here is the WP:RS, WP:SOURCE in the (m-w.com) sense 1 "able to be trusted to do or provide what is needed : able to be relied on" or printed item or URL that is citeable and will produce for WP:V.  WP:RS does state preferred kind of venues, but it is not asking for a judgement of 'reliable' sense 2 "able to be believed :  likely to be true or correct".  See also WP:RS section on WP:NEWSORG.
 * Now if there is a more prominent or scholarly source for conservative 'facts-checking' than Breitbart, OK go with it -- but if this is the best available then take it. To just do a partial job because the best alternate source smells a bit ... isn't WP-right.  Markbassett (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The fact that you are looking for "conservative fact checking" is a clear indication that you don't know what "fact checking" actually means. There is no "opinion" in fact checking, and Breitbart is a fringe view, not a significant view. You are seeking false equivalence by trying to add a form of "fact checking" that doesn't actually use facts. Please stop wasting our time. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Commander-In-Chief Forum
Can we get this added somewhere in this article? Though technically not in a typical debate format where both Republican and Democrat participants are on the stage together, it was absolutely a debate where they were both asked the same or similar questions about their stances on the most controversial topics of the time. There was also fact-checking, polling, and Matt Lauer even mentioned at the end to watch the upcoming presidential debates. I'm not sure who sanctioned the forum, if it was the Commission on Presidential Debates, or not. My opinion and reason for writing this, is that it is just as relevant as any of the other presidential debates as it happened after both parties won their primaries over their respective opponents. Also, this was the first ever commander in chief forum so it deserves a mention. Were there every any other forums similar to this in the past that are listed on Wikipedia or should be listed? I am not aware of any, but more research should be done to either add them, if they exist, to the other presidential debates pages, or create an entirely new article about presidential forums. Also, I agree with having the Free & Equal Elections debate mentioned in this article and the 2012 article as they are presidential debates, regardless of whether or not the 2 major parties show up or not. That being said, the commander in chief forum is more relevant and important to document than the Free & Equal Elections debate. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.214.4 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As you said, it wasn't a debate, but rather a set of back-to-back interviews. It was an NBC creation, not a product of the commission. I would prefer that it not be included in this article. Brianga (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The forum is not appropriate for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 63.85 -- the article is about the CPD-run events so this would be WP:OFFTOPIC. This might be something to list with a different article covering 'Other forums', and maybe then put a link here under See Also.   I'm particularly remembering the kiddie-table candidate debates, and the debate (PBS) between the third parties, the  candidate roast and so forth.  Just doesn't fit in this article is all.  Markbassett (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree it can be here, this is about real debates. The forum cannot be considered a debate because its a back-to-back interview. Maybe it can be put in another article. I do however agree with Free & Fair Elections, but only if this article isn't just about the CPD debates. If it is, then Free and Fair debate shouldn't be here. 117.199.83.117 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Debate list - Smaller third party candidates, and separate section for Free & Fair Elections debate
Smaller third party candidates aren't included in the Debate list table, even though they are confirmed to be taking part in the Free & Fair Elections debate which by the way has no separate section. Don't you think these should be added? All candidates and debates should be included, not just those who are more popular. 45.122.147.107 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The bar for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable, mainstream sources. Neither the F&FE debate, nor the candidates participating in it, have received such coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is indeed a problem here. The coverage to date doesn't rise to that standard, and if that remains true for the debate itself, I think the F&F section should be deleted as non-notable. Barte (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have continued to trim it's mention in the lede from time to time, and agree that it should be removed unless it receives significant attention. Brianga (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Having just subjected myself to a live viewing of the Free & Equal debate, I would be shocked if it got anything more than passing coverage in any significant third-partysources. If this does get any mention in the article, the shockingly low production values would have to be part of how it's covered, but I can't imagine proportionate coverage amounting to more than one line for the whole thing, which would make it hard to balance between the substance of the debate and all the problems with how it was produced. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Raise the level of protection for the article?
One IP number user keeps either adding nonsensical content to the lede or delete content that reflects the body of the article and is reliable sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

poll EW
This sentence keeps getting removed by IP users. It is ungrammatical.

"All polls of likely voters showed that more considered Hillary Clinton to have won all three presidential debates than did Trump."

would suggest making Clinton the subject: For all three (presidential) debates, Clinton won all of the polls which verified that those polled were only counted once.

This is shorter and should satisfy the Trump advocates as it is -- I imagine -- accurate (since Trump did win some polls where likely voters I imagine could refresh their browsers as many times as they wanted to be polled). SashiRolls (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Grammar aside: Unscientific polls don't merit any mention whatsoever. "Clickers" shouldn't be considered polls. Clinton won all polls of likely and registered voters, period. There's no need to explain in the article what a real poll is and what a clicker is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My point is only grammatical. Rhetorically, it is also a bit more honest to put the focus where it is intended:  saying "Clinton won all of the polls of likely voters for the three debates" would be simple enough (though I can see why people think this is a leading lede. or a leaden lede. or something.SashiRolls (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC))  Trust me, I could have written such a word salad too, not throwing any stones here, just trying to help...SashiRolls (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone with "Hillary Clinton was considered to have won all three presidential debates by scientific opinion polls of likely voters," because the word "scientific" (used by reliable sources) is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why include Johnston ans Stein in debate tables if they aren't in any debate
Why are Johnston and Stein being included in the tables if they weren't in any debate. Besides why are they the only ones? There are atleast 2 other candidates. Why include them when they are not in any debate though? It's a waste of space, should be removed. 61.1.59.5 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's encyclopaedical to keep their poll numbers (which would have determined if they were eligible for any of the debates). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This shows that they didn't make it, which is encyclopedic. It makes sense to have only these two because they were the only candidates who were remotely close to being included. Brianga (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnson and Stein should be in the polling tables, but not in the debate list. Weld and Baraka shouldn't be in the debate list either. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps having the two parties with ballot access allows an apples-to-apples comparison of debates across multiple articles. I believe the idea here is that the Libertarians and Greens have enough on-ballot access nationally to win the electoral college, so they were included throughout.  Especially in this year's political climate, it appeared likely that if the Commission on Presidential Debates didn't let them in, some other sponsor would have a debate that the major news media would cover.  It turned out that the Free & Equal Elections Foundation did sponsor a debate on October 23, but not only did the Democrats and Republicans not care, but the Libertarians, Greens, and Evan McMullin were all absent, leaving only the Constitution, Reform, and PSL at the debate &mdash; also see  above.  Gary Johnson (L) seems to have no interest in debating Jill Stein (G) separately if this video clip from July 24, 2016 is still where his mind's at, so I don't think it's going to change before November 8.  But I still think it probably would allow a fair comparison with debates in the past, as far as who could have won but wasn't invited. --Closeapple (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Free and Equal debate
Can the Free and Equal debate get mentioned in here somewhere? http://ballot-access.org/2015/10/06/free-and-equal-announces-date-and-location-for-general-election-presidential-debate/ 209.150.92.91 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this section should be substantially reduced or removed entirely. As is the reader will get the impression that Clinton and Trump will take part which won't happen. It should be nentioned, perhaps in the 'see also' section or in another way.    Barring further discussion I'll remove the section in a few hours and put a link in 'see also' which I think is more appropriate.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Another solution might be to keep the text (though I think it should be modified to indicate the likely participants if possible using RSs, and remove the chart.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd put the section back in including the table. Put a note saying that main party candidates haven't attended in the past.  Change the table to be Invited/Unconfirmed for the Republicans and Democrats (Participant is ok for Libertarian/Green).  This would let Americans know about the fourth debate, and let all candidates know that it is expected.  Donald Trump has thrown the old rule book out the window, and his lust for the spotlight may well bring him to the Free&Equal debate.  It would be an extremely bad move for a 3-way debate without the Democrats, so I consider it very possible we'll have a 4 candidate debate, especially if publicized.  I would hope Wikipedia allows more than a narrow interest group to control the debates. Keelec (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the current format is fine, with the F&E debates listed on the main table along with the others but given a different colour coding. Changing it based on speculation that Trump might do something is not objective.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Why would anybody delete useful information? The Free and Equal debate is definitely useful, and millions of people are interested in this debate. I put it back in. If you want to put it in a separate table, that is fine, but do not just delete it. Humanoid (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It was included in the 2012 article so why would we exclude it in the 2016 article..!? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The same reason 3rd parties aren't allowed into the first 3 debates: paid for censorship. These people that keep deleting information about the 4th debate will go away after the election is over. Humanoid (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In the last 48 hours since I added the 4th presidential debate back into the table, it was already deleted twice by censors. I am not surprised. Humanoid (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We need to re-add this. An edit to remove it stated "go to the talk page" when the consensus seems to favor including the debate. If all candidates listed appear absent, the sense-making solution is to list the candidates that were present; there is no consensus to not include candidates based on write-in access, meaning that candidates such as Castle who were invited to the F&E debate should be listed. The removal of this debate has no justification. As a viewer of the debate I can confirm that it did receive coverage, otherwise I would not have been able to view it. Being "mainstream" is not and has never been a requirement. The F&E debate in previous years has been hosted by non-mainstream channels such as RT and mentions of it remain on their respective articles. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you point to any post-debate coverage of the debate? By any daily newspaper, for example? Wire service? Online news site? Lacking that, I think it's a tough case to make that the debate was even marginally notable.  Barte (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)