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.

RFC: In states where he has ballot access, should Kennedy Jr. be in the infobox of states without polling?

There is currently an edit dispute on whether Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of states that will likely not receive polling in the 2024 presidential election or have not been polled yet.

Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.

Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.

Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.

Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• #3 - We should wait until after the November election, to see if Kennedy (assuming he still in the race) gets at least 5% of a state popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  That seems unfair, then why include anyone? PeacockShah (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we really need an RFC for this? Prcc27 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @Prcc27:. Because editors are going to keep reverting it back and forth if we don't. KlayCax (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

“Editors” meaning you? The consensus is already clear without the RfC, and the RfC is only going to reaffirm what was decided, this is a waste of time. Prcc27 (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

My simple opinion is this;

What’s the point of adding him now? Let’s be honest here, everyone knows of RFK Jr. now. He’s a Kennedy, people have seen him on TikTok, the Super Bowl. Wait till he gets the votes, THEN add him. I expect him to get 8%, which is an impressive demographic to be honest. IEditPolitics (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be even more reason to add him now.. If the media is treating him like a serious candidate now, and he has ballot access to a state, why would we exclude him until after the election? An infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of the election, and if RFKJR is going to have a significant impact on the election, he should be included. We should probably wait until he polls consistently at 5%-10% in states though. Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with what you have said. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

#1 it would be unfair if he has access to them yet can't be on the infobox. InterDoesWiki (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There are usually around 10 people that have ballot access. We will not add them all to the infobox, so we need some additional factor for those that we do add. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's again clarify (because there has been confusion on this point) that ballot access means name on the ballot. Write-in access is a different thing. As to the question, I pick none of the above. If Kennedy has ballot access in a state that is not polled, he should be included on that state if he has met the standard for the national infobox. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The state is polled, he just wasn’t included in it. Prcc27 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(For Utah that is; I know this RfC is for all the states in general). Prcc27 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax option #1 commie (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

#1 Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Option #1:, every entrant on the ballot should be listed.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So if 20+ people are on the ballot, we should include all 20+ people in the infobox? Prcc27 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: don't include him without any polling of the state. Including all candidates on the ballot without polling would be unworkable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: If we include Kennedy in these situations, what is stopping other minor candidates from being added too? Yeoutie (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Trump infobox images

• 
  Option A (Current infobox image)
• 
  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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 3 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)

References

Standard for adding candidate to the infobox (part...3?)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed alongside above RFC. See #RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1) for the full summary. Soni (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Shall we adopt the following standard:

"A candidate shall be added to the infobox when they have achieved ballot access (i.e. name on ballot) in states holding 270 electoral votes while holding a polling average of 5% or greater in 3 of the 4 major aggregators: 538, RealClearPolitics, The Hill, and Race to the White House. Once added under this criteria, the candidate shall not be removed unless their average drops below 3% in 3 of the 4 named aggregators."

This is obviously a response to the RFC above, where it is difficult to read any consensus due to there being so many options. I have attempted to find a space that is fairly close to the consensus expressed there while also being specific enough to be enforceable. I want to be clear that this is a compromise position: it may not be exactly what you would choose, but it does offers something tangible to address the concerns of all sides. Please refrain from offering tweaks or edits so we can get a clean read on this proposal (though you can say what you don't like about it if you are opposed). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. I prefer the 10% standard, but can agree to 5% with the understanding that it has to stay at 5%. The 3% gives us an out here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the polling average should have to stay at at least 10%+, considering how unreliable they are at predicting the eventual result. At this stage in 1980 polls were predicting a landslide for Carter, and the same in 1988 for Dukakis. It's far too early and there's every chance his numbers that are already dropping will have fizzled out before November, not forgetting that he's currently nowhere near the criteria for ballot access. GhulamIslam (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether or not a candidate should be included in the infobox should not solely be based on polling, which is notably inconsistent and unreliable, but also based on whether or not RS state that candidates are "major" or not. The majority of RS refer to Kennedy as a minor, although notable, third-party candidate. Kennedy also only has ballot access in a handful of states, so calling him a "major" candidate to be included in the infobox appears premature. BootsED (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Polling is the best we have, if it was completely unreliable peopl wouldn't conduct it. That's why you use polling aggregators, so that the impact of outliers get muted. It's a quantitative, data driven figure. Deciding on someone being "major" or not is subjective. GeorgeMisty (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not decide who is or is not a major candidate. Wikipedia merely states what reliable sources on the topic state. If a majority of reliable sources start to say that Kennedy is a major candidate then the argument for including Kennedy in the infobox is much stronger than it is currently. Currently, reliable sources do not refer to Kennedy as a major candidate in the 2024 election. To ignore the consensus of reliable sources stating that Kennedy is not a major candidate, but to use polling to assert that he is would be original research. The only thing polls can tell us is what he is polling at. The article currently addresses this by stating that "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emerged as the highest-polling third-party presidential candidate since Ross Perot." However, to make the assertion that he is a major candidate deserving to be included in the infobox would be original research as such a claim is not supported by the majority of reliable sources. BootsED (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  In the context of US elections, the word major literally means Democrat and Republican. A third party candidate definitionally cannot be a major candidate. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Would you remove John Anderson from the 1980 election info box then? 2600:1009:B063:F87:650A:DB51:AD7B:F8CB (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  That is not true at all. There are "third parties" that have major party status in various states. Having major party status often entitles a party to have publicly funded primaries, while minor parties under many states' laws are not entitle to have such primaries. For example, the Libertarian Party is legally a major party in the State of Massachusetts with equal standing to the Democratic and Republican parties and is entitled to have a primary. [4] By your definition, User:GreatCaesarsGhost, the Libertarian party candidate would automatically have their candidate in the infobox, since they are a recognized as a major party under united states law.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was a response to the prior comment, and it is necessary to read it in context. I'm arguing that expecting sources to refer to RFK as a "major candidate" is a bad standard because they probably never will use that word no matter how well he does. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I may actually support 3%, due to Cornel West. Lukt64 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning support. I do worry about polling because third party candidates tend to poll much better than they actually do. I would say 8% as the start and 5% as the drop might be better. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:I support including write-in access in the 270 electoral college vote threshold, especially if it is a candidate that is polling relatively high (around 15% nationwide). The polling threshold should be 10% unless we can account for margin of error and/or ballot access, only then it should be 5%. I am not strongly against a 5% threshold though. I also think that a candidate should have to meet the polling threshold (whether that be 5% or 10%) and maintain it. If they fall below the polling threshold consistently for 2 weeks straight in at least 3 of 4 aggregates, they should be removed. They should only be re-added if they poll at the polling threshold (5% or 10%) for 2 weeks straight in at least 3 of 4 aggregates. I feel like that is a better solution to not going back and forth. Nevertheless, I agree that a candidate polling below 3% should be removed regardless. Prcc27 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am okay with the compromise, with the exception of when to remove/re-add candidates. I think what I proposed above is better. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost Support, let's end this fighting on here once and for all. Buildershed (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Nah. That standard should be "Is/was it an an actual three-way race by any reasonable stretch of the imagination"? 270 is just an attempt to put a GO/NOGO number there to save brainwork. But it's just arbitrary and doesn't work. Norman Thomas was on enough ballots to win; Strom Thurmond wasn't. The Prohibition Party used to get itself on ballots in most states IIRC. It doesn't mean much, and the reader won't even know that we're using that standard. And The Hill today has him at 8.4% and falling steadily. Do we keep putting in and taking out the picture as the polls fluctuate.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so putting in three pictures gives the visual signal that this is three-way race, particularly since an infobox is supposed to be for quick get-the-basic-facts scans. But it's not a three-way race. It's a two-way race, with a third guy messing around who is a conspiracy theorist who has never held any office and doesn't seem to have a coherent platform or much money doing a vanity project. He's not going to impact the election significantly. And visually implying otherwise is misleading the reader. Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

5% is the threshold used by literally every Wikipedia page on elections for inclusion in the infobox, including all other presidential election pages (with the exception of getting electoral college votes). So why should this page be any different? The 5% standard is clearly reasonable, since it is what is already in use on every other page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"The 5% standard" is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, in any case, the threshold only applies to actual results, not inconsequential polling numbers. Reliable sources only mention him as a third party outlier in what is essentially a two-way race between Biden and Trump. Gary Johnson got on the ballot in all 50 states and polled over 10% but only got 3% of the actual vote. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The 5% standard is also relevant, because that is the level of support required for a party to win the right to be entitled to publican campaign financing in the next general election. FEC | Public funding of presidential elections XavierGreen (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, "we mislead the reader in a lot of places, so lets do it here too" doesn't win me over.

To be fair, Trump is also a conspiracy theorist who had never held any office. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both of these standards are based on original research when that is not needed here. We have a plethora of reliable sources who declare who and who is not a major candidate. Yeoutie (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Can you explain further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMisty (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • How is a threshold ballot access to 270 votes original research? That is the minimum someone must get to be elected by the electoral college. Without access to 270 votes, it is literally impossible to win.XavierGreen (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

    “Without access to 270 votes, it is literally impossible to win”. No, it is only impossible to win with less than 270+ EVs if there isn’t a contingent election.. Prcc27 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

    Case in point, you have just proven that a 270 threshold is not "original research". I stated above that 270 "is the minimum someone must get to be elected by the electoral college". A contingent election is by house delegations, not the electoral college. My statement is thus still accurate.XavierGreen (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Mnmh, good point. Suppose RFK is only on the ballot in states that total 240 electoral votes. If he wins them all, he will very likely become president (by horsetrading with the party that doesn't control the House to get it to tell its electors to switch to him). That's not going to happen, but neither is him winning outright. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support either at 5% or a modifies 10% mark. If and only if 270 is reached. RFK is at 10.7% currently in the realclearpolitics avg. We'll see if that continues, if it does and he gets to 270, it makes sense to add him. No original research involved, this is public data. Fryedk (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• too non mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B023:4E97:C17A:6D85:8C51:CA24 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Wait check this out: at List of third-party and independent performances in United States presidential elections#Notable performances we have made a list that someone here decided are notable third-party candidates. I see that all the people on this list all meet these criteria:

• Won some states, or
• Got 16% of the popular vote (let's make it 15%), or
• Is a former president and got 10% of the popular vote (this gets Van Buren in).

This seems like a reasonable standard for "was an actually important candidate, so gets a picture". If we want to write something up I'd go for that. (A simple "won a state" criteria emerged at 1948 United States presidential election which I was involved in. Strom Thurmond won some states and got a picture, Henry Wallace didn't and didn't, even though Wallace got many votes as Thurmand and was just as important and notable in various other ways.

Bobby Kennedy is not going to win any states, is not going to get 15% of the vote, and is not Martin van Buren (I hope). I mean we can't know that for a stone fact, but we also can't know if Trump is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. But we do have the brains to figure out the chances are vanishingly small, so why pretend otherwise.

Really we should have a big well-advertised RfC about thi. Its ridiculous that John Anderson has a picture in 1980 United States presidential election. If we going to do that, we should also write "The 1980 American presidential campaign was a three-way race between Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and John Anderson". But we don't do that cos it's not true. So the pictures and article text are telling different stories. That's bad. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the actual List of third-party and independent performances in United States presidential elections#Notable performances page, you would see that the threshold for inclusion there is a mere 1% with a second section for those candidates who received 5% or more. So by your analysis, all candidates polling at 1% or higher should be included, since they qualify for inclusion at the aforementioned page.XavierGreen (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Anderson is moot, because there is a well established consensus that we will add someone who gets 5% of the vote. But this is about what we do pre-election. Everyone accepts that we add the D and R candidates, but we don't have an established reason for WHY, such that we could apply that to other candidates. Some people say we can't use polls, but what else is there? There could be a third party candidate leading in the polls who eventually wins who we do not add. Obviously RFK is not that candidate, but we do need some rationale that fits everyone to be neutral. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Herostratus, where on earth do you get your analysis based on the article? The article has tables that reference candidates above 1% and above 5%. GeorgeMisty (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. I have closely followed the discussion and this is a good compromise position, soundly reasoned. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please reference the Wikipedia 5 percent page to get an understanding of best pratice'. See here: Wikipedia:Five percent rule.

"Several RFCs have established that third party candidates must poll over 5% to be included in an infobox, unless only one candidate polls over 5%, in which case the second-place finisher may be included if determined appropriate by local consensus."

These debates have happened before for prior elections. And in those RFCs, it was deemed that 5% polling was sufficient. GeorgeMisty (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned, the RFCs collated on that misleadingly titled infopage are related to voting results, not pre-election polling. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And that makes sense, Kennedy has not gained 5% of the vote yet, thus he should not be included in the infobox unless he does so. The standard I've seen for pages on upcoming elections, whether it be for state or federal elections, is to include candidates who got 5% or more of the vote in the previous election, and which have filed for a candidate in the upcoming election, which so far includes only the Dems and Reps. But an example of this includes 2024 Indiana gubernatorial election. In 2020, Donald Rainwater got around 10% of the vote in the election, so he's being included on the 2024 page, but will likely be removed if he does not get 5% or more of the vote this november. (This page, 2024 Puerto Rico gubernatorial election, is another example of this). Kennedy should only be included if he wins 5% of the vote, that has been the standard for recent elections now, and for several years now. It seems to me like people only want to change this because it's Kennedy. But that's just my two cents. Talthiel (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. It's good that the part about 270 electoral votes is needed. That will require polling to have some staying power. If the polls remain around 10% or so come late June, then despite any potential polling overestimations, the candidate is certainly likely to over the 5% final result that would be needed post election. Just my thought. MannyMammal (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - What's the current inclusion criteria? These multiple discussions about basically the same topic, is getting confusing. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don’t really have an official inclusion criteria yet. But I think most users would support (or at the very least would be okay with) including a third party candidate that a) has ballot access (excluding write-in status) to 270+ electoral votes, and b) polls consistently at 10%+ (maybe even 5%+) nationwide. The 5%+ threshold already seems to be the de facto consensus for state infoboxes? Although, one could argue there is a valid reason for having a 5% threshold for state infoboxes and 10% threshold for the national infobox. My guess is RFKJR will be added once he has 270+ EVs ballot access and averages 5%+. Hope this answers your question. Anyone disagree with my analysis? Prcc27 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, there is no inclusion criteria. In my estimation, even the major party candidates are included more or less by acclaim rather than for any stated reason. Pro-RFK voices have argued that there should be a standard to add him so the goalposts don't get moved. We are trying to find that standard, but because there are lots of variables and opinions, it has been difficult. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support For the reasons i said above, i would prefer the standard just be access to 270 electoral college votes, but would accept 5% as a comprimise.XavierGreen (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - No need for an American exceptionalist interpretation of the data. Consensus from the previous RFC was clear that 10% and 270+ electoral votes was good enough for the infobox. I'm okay with 5% as well. KlayCax (talk) 20:27, 9 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.

RFKJR Utah infobox?

It looks like RFKJR has been added to many state infoboxes in which he has ballot access. I am not against adding third party candidates to state infoboxes that consistently meet the polling threshold. But should we include a candidate if they were only included and met the threshold in 1 or a few polls? If we do, it could be risky, especially since some polls could be outliers. I think a candidate should have to at least be included in/meet the threshold in 5 state polls before being added to a state’s infobox. Consequently, I feel like he should be excluded from the Utah infobox for now. Prcc27 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Exclude Kennedy, from the Utah's infobox-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Include, if he meets 5% he should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If/when editors do add a third candidate. They should lower the image size in the infobox. That way, the infobox won't be too wide & thus wipe out the written intro. A reduction from 200px to 160px, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Include, Checks all boxes for inclusion. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Checks what boxes, exactly..? If we do not make consistent polling a requirement, we could end up adding, then removing, then re-adding candidates to the state infoboxes quite frequently. Including a candidate based on 1 poll that could be an outlier would be WP:UNDUE. Moreover, 1 bad poll in a state could also inadvertently lead to a minor third party candidate (even less prominent than RFKJR and Cornell West) being included in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright Prcc27, so a few things, 1. I'll give you the first one, I should've added a more specific reason. 2. You would be correct in everything else, but (mostly) none of it is correct for two specific reasons. This is a specific question to specifically answer Whether or not Kennedy is in the infobox of Utah, of which there are two sides, one in favor, one not in favor, the second is that if you can find more polls to put in, please do. But I do think consistent polling is much needed. InterDoesWiki (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Having one standard for RFKJR and another for other third party candidates would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I never said there was a single standard. InterDoesWiki (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well we certainly shouldn’t have a double standard. Prcc27 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't you just say "Having ibe atand for RFKJR and another for other third party candidates would be a violation of WP:NOV." That Is a Contradiction. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• one standard

InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

? Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Exclude we have asked the question many different ways, and many folks have weighed in. The consensus of the community is clear that we don't add yet. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that an editor had added Kennedy to a few of the state pages-in-question. I've reverted their additions based on lack of consensus for inclusion. That being said, I do wish if any editor adds a third candidate in the top line of an election infobox? They'd reduce the images from 200px to 160px, so the written intro won't be distorted. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Consistently polled states

I see RFKJR was removed from the California and Michigan infoboxes. For those states, I really don’t have strong feelings one way or the other if he is included, which is why I have not removed or re-added him. He has been consistently polling at 5%+ in those states, so if 5% is the threshold, he should be re-added, IMO. If 10% is the threshold, then he should be excluded. While 5% may not have a strong consensus, most users seem open to it as a compromise (even though some compromisers personally prefer a 10% threshold). Prcc27 (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Slight adjustment. I believe 150px (rather than 160px) is better, for when we've got three candidates in the infobox's top row. It gives the written intro more room. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Trivia

We mention that if elected, Trump would become only the second person to serve non-consecutive terms as president. However, what about if Biden is elected? The latter would be only the second person to be elected vice president 'twice' & president 'twice'. Should we mention the latter trivia? I think also, for the first time in US history, both major candidates will be running for president for the last time (per the 22nd amendment), if elected. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if there are reliable sources to back it up. Although not sure if trivia belongs in the lead; wondering if we should remove the Grover Cleveland stuff from the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)