Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 11

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

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

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


 * Support without notably per Mac Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is this relevant to the 2024 election? This is already included in article on 2020 election. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

 * Support Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history, and the January 6 attack was the first attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power in recent memory and is an event of historical significance, as the provided sources state. The fact that a former American president is now running for reelection directly after these attempts is noteworthy, and deserving a mention in the lead of the article. These events are also mentioned multiple times within the body of the article itself. BootsED (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support without "notably" per SMcCandlish. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Without "notably", per MOS:INSTRUCT and MOS:EDITORIAL. The facts (which are supportable with bulk of the RS material, even if there is a strong current of denialism in far-right echochamber media) are highly pertinent to the subject, and arguably among the most important aspects of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good catch. I agree, the word should be removed. BootsED (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: the wording without “notably” if and only if there are enough sources to back it up, per WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons mentioned above. Aiden3.14152654 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support January 6th will still undoubtedly be a huge topic in debates, voter's mindsets and even reasons to vote against Trump/actively discussed (in terms of pardons) among GOP supporters. Also per BootsEd. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. This is one of key facts making this election unique and indeed unprecedented in American history. Of course this should be included to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

 * IMO would not be due in a lead that's barely two paragraphs. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think that this would run afoul of the manual of style. I also share Compassionate727's reservation about weight. Pecopteris (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the lead of this article should focus on the 2024 presidential election, and given the lead currently mentions Trump's conviction for 34 felonies this seems a bit like overkill. There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if I'm weighing in on the overall RFC question, but NPOV does not mean we need to include criticisms against all candidates. It just merely means we should not be giving undue weightage to one over the other. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. If one candidate has much more serious and widely covered criticisms levelled against them, that's reason enough to include just that. Whether that applies here... That's for the RFC to decide. Soni (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I might have worded it poorly, but my point was that piling on criticism after criticism of Trump in the lead with no mention of criticisms against the other candidates would be undue and not representative of a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting we should mention criticism against Biden and Kennedy, but think that adds to the argument that it would be undue to add everything against Trump in the lead. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as proposed - the sentence should certainly not include the word 'notably', which is improper editorialising. As for whether it's due in the lead at all, I'm not sure that it is. It's a kind of 'sky is blue' assertion - this thing that happened in 2024 happened after something that happened in 2020 - well, yes, obvs. For it to be worth mentioning it would need to go on to explain how the former event influenced the latter one. So yeah, the sentence as proposed isn't worth adding. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the word "notably" was removed, would you support the proposal? I agree that the word "notably" should not be there. BootsED (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons I stated previously in other sections above.XavierGreen (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be undue given the length of the lead. The most important thing about Trump in 2024 is probably his convictions. CurryCity (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that at this time it is undue unless we vastly expand the lead. We could easily include a passing reference to it after the election though when Trump calls the results into question again. Yeoutie (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose As others have said, Trump's 2024 convictions are notable, but the 2020 and 2021 events have long since passed and their only notability to this election is if those actions were among his 34 felonies, or if after the election there are interviews stating that these events are why people didn't vote for Trump. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as undue weight. Other issues have been shown to be more important to voters. The current arrangement elegantly addresses weight vs. thoroughness.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I believe that would fall under attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election which mentions the fake electors plot. BootsED (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I mean is: why should January 6 be singled out among the other attempts to overturn 2020 in the lead, and not the fake electors plot? GhulamIslam (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Age of the candidates included as a campaign issue?
I think this should be included as a campaign issue, as both major presumptive nominees would be the oldest ever nominated by the their parties, with Biden’s age in particular generating significant discourse. 97.92.69.25 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't necessarily need to be in the issues section. We do talk about Biden's age being a concern. We probably should at least mention Trump's age and mental deterioration, though we should be careful about armchair diagnosis.   GreatCaesarsGhost   23:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is age a “campaign issue”? It is a concern voters have, but not something either presumptive nominee is giving significant attention to in their campaign. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree; that's what I thought I said. Perhaps not firmly enough.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a campaign issue. Biden and Trump have both had major slip-ups attributed to age and senility, which can be a big impact to voters BlackBeauty42! (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024
add Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the main candidate section in the top-right of the page since he is polling more than 10% in some polls 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Consensus is against that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * yes but even then he'd be the largest third party candidate in more than 25 years, I think it's worthwhile 59.102.22.11 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And two of three sources given quote that Kennedy has 11% of the vote. What the hell are you talking about? 59.102.22.11 (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been very extensive discussions that have established consensus on this subject is what the hell he is talking about. RFK will need to secure "ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes" while maintaining his polling numbers. He currently has 70. You can track here:   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The hill website is not reliable, as it has not been updated in some time. A more accurate listing of all ballot access is Ballot access in the 2024 United States presidential election. Kennedy currently has access to 152 electors.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we can afford more than a single sentence regarding the debate
Hey and : Do you really think that nothing more than a single sentence is warranted regarding the debate? The most significant aspect of all this -- the panic in the party, with some Dems and e.g. the NYT editorial board calling for him to step aside and have a brokered convention -- is now missing entirely. Compare this to, for example, the 2020 election page, which has like ~10x the amount information about the debates, despite them being less significant. A single sentence in this page is not appropriate IMO.

This is what I was going to trim it down to (before I got reverted). Would you object to this? I note that this would still have less information about the debates than the 2020 election article does. Endwise (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course it should be expanded. At least 4-5 sentences. What was there before the trim is fine.  R. G. Checkers talk 07:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (For context, this is what was there beforehand). Endwise (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It definitely deserves to be reinstated, . Look at the leading article of the NYTimes today. Multiple reliable sources say it's the most influential debate of all-time. There's widespread calls for Biden to drop out.
 * All of this is unprecedented. KlayCax (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A sentence or two is fine, but this still reads like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. The political press is making a lot of hay about this because making hay is their job. Many have noted that the press is not similarly attacking Trump's egregious lies in the debate because that is baked in and doesn't generate clicks (your proposal makes the same omissions, mentioning calls for Biden to drop but not similar calls to Trump). Polls have shown Biden steady or improving in polls since the debate, so we should not be reinforcing what is literally tabloid coverage.   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "A sentence or two is fine, but this still reads like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia." Sadly I don't believe with modern politics that we'll be able to make it look like an encyclopedia then a newspaper article. Media is too divided to even keep a center stance and "center" political sources are often paid by many think-tanks to persuade people to a certain ideology. Qutlooker (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm alright with shortening. But I can't see what we can cut out here without losing critical information,.
 * This seems very concise if anything. Newspapers may make hay as their job. But to say that this doesn't merit 2/3 paragraph or so is pretty questionable. This whole situation is unprecedented in modern political history. His odds on betting sites to be the nominee have dropped to 50-70%. (From 90% or more) To say it didn't have an impact is ludicrous. As for who wins a debate: it's who people thought won the debate. Not whether their policies are best for the country.
 * The only things that I can see an argument for cutting out for here is:
 * G. Elliott Morris and Kaleigh Rogers of ABC News' 538 argued that Biden had failed to reassure voters that he was capable as serving as president for another four years, given his age.
 * —including Politico, NBC News, The Guardian, Vox, The Independent, Slate, and the Associated Press—
 * A "counter-debate" featuring Kennedy Jr., who argued that the CNN debate criteria were biased to keep him and other third-party challengers off the stage, was hosted by reporter John Stossel in Los Angeles. It achieved 5.8 million concurrent viewers on X and 9 million total by the end of the night. Kennedy Jr. argued that the debate between Biden and Trump highlighted the "vitriol, the division, the polarization that makes [Americans] disgusted with politics". Time argued that interest in third-party candidates would rise in the aftermath of the debate.
 * Responding to a question on health-care policy, Biden stated: "Making sure that we continue to strengthen our health-care system, making sure that we’re able to make every single, solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the … uh, COVID … excuse me, dealing with everyone we had to do with … look, if we finally beat Medicare..." before the moderator stepped in.
 * No high-quality polling exists post-debate so far. KlayCax (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have essentially three full paragraphs saying "Some pundits thought Biden looked old and performed poorly, with some even calling for him drop out" This is absurdly WP:UNDUE; it could be said in one or at most two sentences. You also completely omit criticism of Trump for lying through his teeth, including calls for him to drop out. But most importantly, if Biden stays in (which is still substantially more likely) this section looks absolutely absurd. That "no high-quality polling exists post-debate so far" reinforces that you are trying to act too fast. Again, we are not a newspaper; people wanting this content can find it elsewhere.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with adding that as well. Provided that an extension version of the summary is provided.
 * It is unprecedented in the modern era for "elites" within the Democratic Party to publicly urge for a withdrawal like this. It's still leading news six days later.
 * This is not a "not a newspaper" situation. KlayCax (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We can discuss and try to establish consensus for what should be there. All I know for sure is there was way too much WP:RECENTISM and so I cut lots of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The four paragraphs for the June debate (linked here: ) seems excessive. I do agree that one sentence is too minimalist. Let's try to strike a balance. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like we did about a paragraph for each debate in 2020 (pl), so adding a few more sentences would be reasonable. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering the widespread attention it's gotten, I'd go further, and say that the previous length was fine.
 * I can't think of a way without shortening it without also losing critical information. KlayCax (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. — Czello (music) 11:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "CNN hosted the first major debate of the election on June 27, with 51 million viewers watching. Biden fumbled through many of responses and struggled with a hoarse voice throughout. His performance revived concerns about his advanced age and sparked calls from some commentators for him to end his campaign. Trump was meanwhile criticized for making many false statements, while moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bush were called out for not correcting Trumps claims or asking follow-up questions. "  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty good to me. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That wording implies that the debate damaged both candidates easily. The reactions after the debate showcase that it's not the case. KlayCax (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I think my wording is much worse for Biden than Trump. But we cannot have a section about a two candidate debate and not mention one of them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty good to me. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That wording implies that the debate damaged both candidates easily. The reactions after the debate showcase that it's not the case. KlayCax (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I think my wording is much worse for Biden than Trump. But we cannot have a section about a two candidate debate and not mention one of them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Liable" not "Guilty" for the E. Jean Carroll matter
Under Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump, the article currently says:

"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found guilty by an anonymous jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation."

This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Therefore the proper term is "found liable" not "found guilty." None of the sources cited say that Trump was found guilty (because that isn't the term that is used in civil cases), and the Washington Post and Huffpost sources cited say "liable."

I propose it be changed to:

"In addition to his indictments, on May 9, 2023, Trump was found liable by an anonymous jury for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million combined for damages and defamation."JMM12345 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've made that change. Thanks, Endwise (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024
I would like to submit the edits of this article with reliable sources as frequently as possible relating to the forthcoming US general election. Thanks. SolshineBenie (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the user is requesting edit access. SolshineBenie, ECP edit access will be provisioned automatically when you have made 500 edits to the project.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Should Biden still be referred to as the "presumptive nominee"?
Many betting markets now have Biden under <50% and multiple reliable sources have argued that Biden should not even be considered the likely nominee. I think that this is an overcorrection. However, it seems obvious to me that there's still a substantial chance (whether you'd pin it at 5% to 60%) that Biden steps down. Should we still label him as the presumptive nominee for the time being? I'm leaning towards no. Since this seems way too presumptive now. KlayCax (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Biden is the presumptive nominee because he has a majority of pledged delegates at the upcoming Democratic convention. Betting markets don’t matter for this. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , a presumptive nominee is considered to be: . That is, it is almost assured that they'll obtain it.
 * I absolutely don't think we can say that about Biden now. It's additionally not just betting markets, but political consultants, pundits, statisticians, and others as well. KlayCax (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystalball. It is not up to us to decide who is “presumptive” or not. Until the sources say otherwise, it is essentially WP:OR to claim he is no longer the presumptive nominee. Biden is going to be the nominee, as long as he still wants the nomination. Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you been paying attention to the news for the past week? The number one headline has been whether or not the DNC is even going to accept Biden as the nominee, and whether or not he'll step down. Any notion that Biden is the presumptive nominee is severely outdated at this time, in light of recent political developments. 2601:152:A01:9D20:7512:4890:21E:8B88 (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * THat needs a WP:RS. HiLo48 (talk)
 * This one, among many others. There's plenty of sources to indicate that his nomination is not a foregone conclusion.
 * This type of scenario is exactly why I was against adding "presumptive nominees" a few months back. KlayCax (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * KlayCax, for the umpteenth time: this is not a newspaper. If Biden drops out or is removed by the party, we will have little trouble getting him quickly removed from this page. Especially in the current environment, we should not be elevating fringe theories and (I can't believe I have to say this) citing betting markets as reliable sources.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Those delegates that Biden won in the primaries are bound to him, at least on the first ballot. Therefore, he is the presumptive nominee, unless he drops out. Nothing less changes this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a fringe theory. (As you can see here.) Nate Silver has explicitly stated that "Biden can no longer be considered the presumptive nominee". Impossible to get more explicit than that.
 * Obtaining a majority of delegates ≠ presumptive nominee. Overwhelmingly, this has been the case, but presumptive implies a species of likelihood absent from the other. Saying that Biden is the overwhelmingly likely nominee is essentially absent in sources post-June 27th. As for the delegates: it's more complicated than that. They're mandated to "represent the views" of their constituents. '
 * Yet it's ambiguous on whether they actually have to vote for the candidate. There's a lot of leeway given. KlayCax (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee. The primary voters chose him to be the nominee. He has the majority of the delegates. If nothing changes between now and the convention, he will be nominated. Everything else (betting markets, media speculation, polls) is noise. We're not a crystal ball. Unless or until he announces he is stepping aside we should label him the presumptive nominee. MonsterMash51 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of post-debate controversies
Once again, and  have blanked out critical information from the debate and its aftermath, claiming that it violates WP: NPOV and WP: DUE. And with Muboshgu, claiming that having a brief mention of the post-debate aftermath being referred to as a "crisis" for the campaign is unsubstantiated and shouldn't be in the article. This is despite: All referring to it as such. You can find similar statements on almost every major American news channel and many, many international ones that have not already been listed. The attempt to whittle the debate and its aftermath into four to five sentences is absolutely absurd. (Particularly considering that we're investing far more words and paragraphs into healthcare and background information!) Even worse, there's been an effort to imply that both Trump and Biden were equally harmed by it, which is even more ludicrous. Of all the things in the article to trim... this is absolutely the worst possible thing to cut out. KlayCax (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The New York Times
 * The Washington Post
 * Semafor
 * CNN
 * The Irish Times
 * The Daily Beast
 * MSNBC
 * 9News


 * Tagging, , , , . KlayCax (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Tagging other involved editors in this discussion, and, to avoid WP: CANVASS. KlayCax (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need to involve me as I only work on the talk page as I do not have Extended Confirmed Access need for the article Qutlooker (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that these situations can make us lose context, but we all need to slow down and take a breath. WP:RECENTISM gets us in its grasp and we lose focus. That has been apparent on 2024 POTUS election-related pages these past few days. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this is a situation where WP: RECENTISM applies. This situation is clearly unprecedented and not a "regularly occurring election event" like other editors are suggesting.
 * It is absolutely unheard of in the modern era to have many party elites calling for their (previously) presumptive nominee's dismissal. KlayCax (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And regardless, neither Lloyd Doggett calling for Biden to drop out of the nomination race or a brief, 1-sentence summary of RFK Jr.'s so-called "counterdebate" is affected by WP: RECENTISM. KlayCax (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu here, this is very clearly WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. And I don't see the need for a another talk section as the other is still quite new. Specifically calling out, in separate sentences, the individual actors speaking against Biden is excessive. Your proposal is way, way too long. Even if Biden drops out, the eventual coverage of this incident would be shorter. Try using my suggestion above as a starting point- add a sentence or two for anything you think is missing. But the detail you are attempting to add does not belong in this article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Klay, please stop with this. Anonymous reports of Biden "considering" dropping out, even if accurate, do not mean that he's no longer the "presumptive nominee". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dozens of reliable sources have explicitly stated that Biden is no longer the presumptive nominee, whether that is:
 * News organizations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC,
 * G. Elliott Morris, Nate Silver, et al.
 * Read this article by Nate Silver. It explicitly states that most commentators (and betting markets) have concluded that it is unlikely he'll be the nominee. A presumptive nominee is generally defined as or . It is absolutely ludicrous to say that this is the case now. This assertion is essentially unanimously rejected by left-wing, centrist, and right-wing sources.
 * I was (and still am) against including any nominees that are presumptive. (A scenario like this is exactly why I was against it a few months ago.) But I could tolerate it when both Trump and Biden seemed to be >90% odds and shoeins.
 * Now, it's actively misleading viewers. KlayCax (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Biden is the presumptive nominee because he earned the delegates in the primaries. Nothing that commentators say changes this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between having a majority of delegates and being the presumptive nominee. A presumptive nominee is someone who is overwhelmingly likely to be nominated. By definition. As mentioned above. It's not just commentators. It's reliable sources such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, et al. This isn't a WP: OR scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCox (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's commentators from those sources, and op-eds are not the same as news articles. Yes it's OR to say he's not the presumptive nominee or that there's anything to that other than having the majority of bound delegates. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And the Nate Silver article you posted is on natesilver.com, not a RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Klay, you are an active editor on this talk page and fully aware that changes of this type without previous consensus are highly disruptive. Please restrain yourself.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was basing it off of The New York Times saying that Biden could no longer be considered the presumptive nominee. Others, such as Nate Silver and G. Elliot Morris, have also concluded similarly.
 * If multiple reliable sources (including newspaper of record such as NYT/WAPO) reject the notion that Biden is the presumptive nominee. Then how can we call them such? KlayCax (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the two major American newspapers of record state that Biden shouldn't be considered the presumptive nominee. Then, per WP: WEIGHT, it must be indicated or mentioned in the article.
 * Presently, if the status quo holds, then it's actively misleading, as readers will get the impression that Biden is overwhelmingly likely to get the nomination. That's overwhelmingly rejected by WP:RS. KlayCax (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee. The primary voters chose him to be the nominee. He has the majority of the delegates. If nothing changes between now and the convention, he will be nominated. Everything else (betting markets, media speculation, polls) is noise. We're not a crystal ball. Unless or until he announces he is stepping aside we should label him the presumptive nominee. MonsterMash51 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Biden is overwhelmingly likely to be the Democratic nominee! Because he earned most of the bound delegates. He's not the presumptive nominee only if he announces he's ending his campaign, which has not happened yet and sounds unlikely to happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't edit the page but he's being labeled as "Candidate with majority delegates", should be put back to "Presumptive nominee" MonsterMash51 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What is Virginia 538?
Virginia is currently colored as “lean D” by 538, but the map legend says greater than or equal to 75% is “likely D”, and Biden has exactly a 75% chance of winning Virginia according to 538. What should we shade Virginia for 538 on our end? Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Their main forecast page doesn't show decimal places. On their page for Virginia, it is currently at 746 out of 1000 simulations, or 74.6%.  So it is less than 75% and meets the "lean" category. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Campaign Issues regarding candidates age
President Joe Biden’s and Former President Donald Trump’s ages’ have become a very hot topic in this election and will likely be a key deciding factor into who is elected president.

This is not subjective, many polls have been conducted and many Americans have the view point that both men are too old to serve as president.

As such I think that age and cognitive health should be a topic that’s added into the campaign issues section of this article Phx3216 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Add inbox of Withdrawn primary candidates like 2016?
The 2016 election page has those collapsable inboxes that list all the candidates by the time they withdrew from the race. With how many candidates there were on both sides this year, should the withdrawn candidate box be added in each parties section? Los Pobre (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would support this move. Lukt64 (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is TRUMP missing from Summary Results for 2024 United States presidential election
Summary Results that Wikipedia places on Google and other search results only display the Incumbent Joe Biden as a contender for President in 2024. This is a disservice to ALL Wikipedia users. Joe306tow (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What Google says is not within Wikipedia's control, I believe. LV  ✉  ✎ 11:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding primary boxes.
Example is 2016 United States presidential election and 2016 United States presidential election Lukt64 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Redundant section "Calls for Biden to step aside"
I am seeing where someone has added a section called "Calls for Biden to step aside" to the "Democratic Party" section. This clearly replicates what was already in the debate section. We have clear consensus above that the media obsession over Biden "dropping out" can be mentioned but kept to a minimum in light of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE. I'm striking it from "Democratic Party" on that basis. I'm fine with either but not both. It seems to make more sense to me in Debates. If it is to go in the the Democratic Party section, it does not warrant its own sub-section.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I concur. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is currently a deletion discussion under way about the full article Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. One of the more common !votes is "redirect to the subsection of 2024 United States presidential election that covers this subject. You are welcome to contribute there. Please take this piece of information into account per relevant decisions here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm here from the AfD. I think it is much better off as a section in this article. Yes, the calls were mostly initiated by the debate but it has been almost 2 weeks since then and it's only becoming more of a prevalent topic (ex: ). I think this will definitely have some WP:LASTING significance and has clearly become a major part of the election, not just the debate.  C F A   💬  20:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a prevalent topic, but it is a media story not a campaign story. The media are talking about it because it benefits them, but they're mostly making stuff up (like the "Parkinson’s doctor" story) to keep the gravy train going.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points about media coverage, but I think it's because of that excessive coverage that this will become significant. This is just my opinion, but I can only see two outcomes here after all this negative press coverage: Biden gets replaced as the nominee or he loses in November. He certainly had a chance before all of this, which is why I believe it will have some lasting significance. Regardless, if you think it's better in the debate article, I have no issue with that.  C F A   💬  21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, two users have decided by themselves the biggest story of the campaign is a media invention.
 * And because they believe in this conspiracy theory it won't be included in a major wiki page. Anonthesixth (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not one editor has argued that it should not be included. The argument is that it must be covered at a length that is at scale with the topic. This is an article about the entire election and a two week media frenzy should not have a full separate section or multiple paragraphs listing every person involved. Remember: this is an encyclopedia. We are trying to convey information concisely in a readable length. Multiple sentences articulating the same basic point ("Bill called for him to drop. Then Larry called for him to drop") detracts from readability.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Regardless of their intentions, if they give it credence Wikipedia should reflect at. Your personal opinion of the nature of the coverage is irrelevant. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An entire section for calls for Biden to step down seems WP:UNDUE. 1 or 2 sentences in the Democratic Party section may be good enough. Prcc27 (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given how no consensus has been reached here, that other editors are objecting to the current status, and that the AfD will need a stable redirect target (if it is redirected), I've created an RfC below.  C F A   💬  20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Calls for Biden to step aside
Which article should the "Calls for President Biden to drop out" section be featured in?

C F A  💬  20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1: 2024 United States presidential election
 * Option 2: 2024 United States presidential debates
 * Option 3: Both articles
 * Option 4: None/other
 * Option 1: (copied from above) I think it is much better off as a section in this article. Yes, the calls were mostly initiated by the debate but it has been almost 2 weeks since then and it's only becoming more of a prevalent topic (ex: ). I think this will definitely have some WP:LASTING significance and has clearly become a major part of the election, not just the debate.  C F A   💬  20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 4 (it's complicated): I think there should be an option here for having it instead in full in Joe Biden Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign and an option to instead have it in full in the main article on this, Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign, seeing as the AfD for that article will likely be closed as no consensus and some people there are suggesting that article be merged into the former article.
 * Personally I think we should merge List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign into Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign and summarize that article in the 2024 United States presidential election, 2024 United States presidential debates, and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign articles, and even a sentence or two in the Joe Biden article. I think an RfC of this nature should wait until the AfD on the main article on this topic is closed, as what people will vote and what options are available here are heavily dependent on that result. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think this RfC is necessary anymore. Looks like the AfD will be closed as keep.  C F A   💬  03:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

When should the winner assume office?
Hello, I am not an American, just one thing isn't clear to me from the article. The winner will probably assume office in December, but when exactly in December? Please add this datum to the article or notify it here. Thank you in advance. 103.199.70.7 (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The winner assumes office on January 20, 2025. Lukt64 (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article says "The winner of this election is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2025." Is that usage clear to non-Americans? I don't think I've ever heard the term used for a non-American office.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, I ran a in-page CTRL+F search on the term "December", that's why I missed the January part. 103.199.70.7 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution set January 20 as the date for POTUS inaugurations. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think someone edited this page with irrelevant infomation
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=1234046877&oldid=1234032577&variant=en They added a LOT of stuff about Donald J Trump's criminality which I don't think is relevant to this article. Seosamhlovesyou (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with the addition specifically, but this section now seems excessive and overly detailed in light of the SCOTUS decision.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2024
Add an image of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Vice President Nominee Nicole Ann Shanahan. Excessive Scruples (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Jamedeus (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 (1)
add Russia Ukraine war section to campaign issues just like Israel-Hamas war 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The Israel-Hamas war views section is about public opinion polling on the war; there is no similar coverage in the article about Ukraine that could be split to a new section. The candidates' positions on both wars are discussed in the Foreign policy section. Jamedeus (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 (2)
May 31 not May 30th. 000000000xd (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 (3)
write info about Biden possibly dropping out and getting replaced by a new candidate at the DNC in the top lead section

173.72.3.91 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 20:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)