Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Infoboxes and COLOR

Please remember that infoboxes must conform with WP:COLOR and meet AAA WCAG contrast standards. There's no reason they shouldn't. Edits like this one changing font color to white on a light blue background do not meet any WCAG contrast standard ([1]). The font needs to remain black ([2]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This will (of course) be moot, after the November election. See other US prez election articles, concerning party candidates. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Not sure I understand what you mean. Also, pinging Nick.mon as they've changed it to white twice now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In the candidates category of the other US prez election articles. Even the Democratic & Republican prez nominees are listed with defeated candidates, in the same manner. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In what same manner? If WCAG guidelines changed since 2012, it's possible that the old system was acceptable then but noncompliant now. In that case, we need to change the colors on a go-forward basis. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Do it up, as ya'll wish. It'll gradually change over the summer & into autumn & then more so, after the election. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see infoboxes for the primary candidates in the 2008 or 2012 articles like the one we have here. It's entirely unclear what you're talking about. My best guess is that you mean the infobox will be removed eventually. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahah, that's what I meant to say. Eventually, Trump's red frame (which surrounds his image) & Clinton/Sanders' blue frame (which surrounds their image) will eventually be deleted. Then, their images will be placed with the defeated nomination candidates & the withdrawn candidates sub-heading also removed. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Back to the immediate question: in light of WP:COLOR and accessibility guidelines, is there any reason not to change back to black text on blue for the Democratic candidates? —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

None that I know of. I checked the   text on the   and   for the Libertarian and Green parties as well as the   text on  ,  , and   backgrounds for the Republican box and the 2016 election infobox and all of those are AAA compliant. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Trump

May we wait until Trump is actually nominated by the Republican convention, before we add him to the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mitt Romney was added in 2012 before being officially nominated. I don't see why Trump cannot be added at this point, as long as "(presumptive)" is included under his portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.179.5 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We could at least wait until Trump gets a majority of pledged delegates. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait until he gets a majority of the delegates, or at least until there is a clear consensus among reliable sources that he is indeed the presumptive nominee.--NextUSprez (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

John Kasich is out. Trump is de de-facto nominee at this point. My vote is that we can add him now. --yeah_93 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not the nominee until the convention. Maybe there will be a James A. Garfield-type event there. Bahooka (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that's happening. The RNC chairman already called him the presumptive nominee. At the very least, we can add him once he has 1,237 delegates needed. But every major newspaper is already referring to him as the presumptive nominee. --yeah_93 (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

He is the presumptive nominee. No convention, no real nominee. We must pay attention to this. Coltsfan (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If it's true, that Kasich is dropping out & thus Trump will be the lone candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Then, I guess we may as well add Trump (majority of pledge delegates or not) at this point - with the presumptive tag added, of course. Note as IP correctly noted, we added Romney in the 2012 convention article, before he was actually nominated - though Romney had a pledged majority before the 2012 convention. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

But, just like the guy said, a "1880 Republican National Convention" kind of thing can happen. This is not like 2012, it's a very weird election cycle. We should not exactly put the cart before the horses on this one. Coltsfan (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The inertia seems to be to add Trump. As for 1880? there were no pledged delegates via primaries & caucuses, then :) GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The elections in 2008 and 2012 put Obama, McCain and Romney in the infobox once they became the presumptive nominee, with a (presumptive) tag beneath their names. Although Trump is as far as I'm aware the only candidate to become the presumptive nominee before obtaining a majority of delegates, the RNC Chairman has identified him as the presumptive nominee, and Trump receiving a majority is almost certain now that he's unopposed. JackWilfred (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that he's going to be the lone candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. I won't fuss anymore, over whether he should be added before or after his gets a majority of pledged delegates :) GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. The discussion is a bit far fetched. If anything happens that changes the situation (like Trump dying, or the delegates breaking the rules and don't vote for him), we'll just change it. But for now, Trump being the nominee is pretty much assured at this point.--yeah_93 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. Now that Trump is the only GOP candidate still in the running, and the RNC chairman as well as a plethora of reliable sources are calling him the "presumptive nominee", it makes perfect sense to put him in the infobox (with the "presumptive" qualifier, of course).--NextUSprez (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton

Wait, is Hillary Clinton also a presumptive nominee? Sanders is still on it and far from giving up. And since, mathematically, he still has a chance, putting her as the nominee (don't matter how likely) isn't a bit premature? Do we have enough uncontested sources to back this up??? ps: Someone already edit it out, but still it must be clear that the thing on the Democratic side is still wide open (maybe not that wide but whatever). Coltsfan (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

According to this, "Generally, it appears that a candidate is considered his party's presumptive nominee when his last serious challenger drops out or he mathematically clinches—whichever comes first. But there is still room for interpretation. A candidate mathematically clinches a nomination by securing a simple majority (i.e., more than 50 percent) of delegates through the primaries and caucuses prior to the convention." --Proud User (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And is this the current scenario of the Democratic Party Primaries? I don't think so, right?. Coltsfan (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree w/ Coltsfan that it's premature to place Clinton in the infobox as a presumptive nominee. Unlike Trump, she still has a major opponent who has not yet withdrawn or been mathematically eliminated in the delegate race, and she has not been publicly declared the presumptive nominee by any high-ranking officials in the DNC nor formally identified as such by uncontested reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we place a imageplace holder for the Democratic nominee or should we leave it as it is? For example: Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

According to Politico, "...-it's now mathematically impossible for him to reach the magic number for the Democratic nomination by winning the remaining pledged delegates alone." Bernie Sanders has been mathematically eliminated and it is extremely unlikely enough superdelegates will support his campaign. However, I guess one could say he hasn't technically been eliminated... Kingpin1000 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Historically, the superdelegates have always gone with the winner of the most pledged delegates. Now, it's highly, highly unlikely that Sanders will win the majority of the pledged delegates, and there is some reason to believe that the superdelegates wouldn't switch to him in that case anyway, but I don't think it's mathematically impossible to the point where Clinton can be placed in the infobox. Hominid77777 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/math-says-bernie-sanders-is-finished-222775#ixzz47jVy48u1 Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Let's wait until the DNC declares someone their presumptive prez nominee. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Wait until the DNC declares the presumptive nominee. There's still major contests ongoing on the Dem side. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

While Sanders is unlikely to garner the support needed to clinch the nomination (i.e. superdelegates ain't going to gather around him), Clinton's situation is quite different from Trump's, especially considering most aren't calling her the presumptive nominee yet. Let's wait until California, to see if Bernie drops out if he loses there. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton is not the presumptive nominee. She does not yet have a majority of delegates, and she is not an unopposed major candidate. Although the Sanders campaign has said it plans to appeal to superdelegates if Bernie fails to win a plurality of pledged delagates, we should go with convention and assume that once Clinton reaches a majority of delegates, pledged or unpledged, she is the presumptive nominee. JackWilfred (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Some newspapers are calling Clinton the presumptive nominee, see here. --Proud User (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That Boston Globe column was from March 2. That paper stopped saying such. THings have changed, and will again. GangofOne (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Third parties

Not sure if this happened in 2012, but we're now getting a push to include the Libertarian nominee. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The libertarians haven't been included in most polls because they aren't likely to gather much support. Gary Johnson only got 0.99% in 2012. I think only candidates who get more than 5% of the popular vote or get some electoral votes are included in the infobox. So, let's not include them unless they suddenly get significant support in polls. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This year has been huge for the Libertarians. They had their first televised debate on April 1st and are getting much more attention as many Americans are considering voting third-party, especially this year. See: http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/04/google-searches-for-libertarian-party-su I also think it's important for this article to stay fair, and remind people that there are more than two parties. Ghoul flesh (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the Libertarian Party registered in all 50 states, this year? Will the Libertarian presidential nominee be able to contest all 538 electoral votes? GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but they still haven't made inroads in most major polls (if any), which truly reflects the level of support the party's nominee might have. The libertarians still haven't gotten more than 2% in a Presidential election, and unless polls start showing they can do much better than that this year, I see no reason why we should post them in the infobox. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it's not a two-party race. The Libertarian Party is the third-largest party in the United States. And I'm only suggesting it be added until the election is over, and if the party doesn't end up with a large turnout, then it can be removed. I just think it would help the article be un-biased. You can't deny that the two major party front-runners are being rejected, even by their own party. In a poll, 25% of anti-Trump Republicans said they would vote third-party. See here: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/25/bombshell-poll-20-republicans-vote-hillary-clinton-trump-wins.html Ghoul flesh (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not anti-third party. But, I just don't see any reason for the need to put any non-Republican or non-Democrat into the infobox, at this time. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, the polls don't show the numbers the Libertarian nominee is going to get. The Libertarian party might be the third-largest party, but that still doesn't mean they are going to get a significant amount of support, especially considering they haven't done so in the past. For the article to be "un-biased", we'd also have to include, the Green, Constitution, and other parties, since we don't know how much exactly each one of them is going to get. Turnout in the primary is a poor argument. Who's going to determine if it was high or low, and would it transfer to their general election support? Sorry, but like I said before, unless they start getting included AND getting significant support in major polls, I don't think we should add them. --yeah_93 (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson is already polling 11% against Hillary and Trump. See here [[3]]XavierGreen (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

To look at precedent, the Libertarian nominee was included in 2012 for a short while because I assume editors at the time believed that any nominee with the ability to receive 270 Electoral College votes should be included until the election, it was then changed back to just Obama and Romney. I think we should carry on the status quo from previous elections, and require at least 5% of votes or an Electoral College vote for inclusion, like Perot was. JackWilfred (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In 2012, the consensus was that all candidates who had ballot access in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of winning the election would be featured in the infobox until the election. In 2012 six candidates were included in the infobox for the period before the election. There was also consensus that candidates with ballot access in all 50 states + DC would be featured on the top line; the Libertarians barely missed that last time, but it sounds like they may have achieved that this year. Note that after the election occurs, the criteria then change to performance in the actual electoral/popular vote.

By these rules, once it's verified that a party could possibly get a majority of the electoral college, they should be listed in the infobox, even if they don't have a nominee yet. Libertarians and Greens are likely to meet this criteria right now. Constitution Party did last time but I'm not sure if they will this time around. If we did it like we did last time, then we'd need to actually verify that the candidate had actually named a slate of electors in each state for it to count. Of course, all this is subject to any new consensus that might emerge. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, in 2012 (and also in 2008) candidates who achive ballot access to 270 electors or more were included in the infobox until the actual election results came in. This is the most NPOV manner in which inclusion criteria can be drafted, and i would support the continuance of that practice.XavierGreen (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

We should include any candidate that could possibly reach 270 electoral votes (although technically you could win the presidential election with just 1 electoral vote if nobody gets a majority of electoral votes and the House decides it). Saying "we shouldn't include them because they probably won't win" is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the third parties (or even one of the major parties) fails miserably then we can remove them from the template after the results are released. Until then, third party candidates that have a shot at winning should be included. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If yas wanna add them? go for it. I'm not gonna overly fuss about it, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It was previously said that Libertarians were not making any momentum or notability in major polls. Well I just found this; in a poll with Clinton and Trump as the candidates, Gary Johnson comes in at 11%. http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/03/26/libertarian-candidate-gains-in-polls-gary-johnson.cnn Ghoul flesh (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that inclusion in this infobox is based solely on ballot access, and that polling won't affect it either way. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Prior consensus and this year's infobox

The consensus from 2012 is conveniently summarized in the box that was previously at the top of that article's talk page. Also see what the infobox looked like pre-election last cycle. This consensus has implications for the current election, of course subject to Consensus can change.

(1) The 2012 consensus is that the top row of the infobox should contain the candidates who had ballot access in all 51 jurisdictions. Last time the Libertarians barely missed, but recent reporting says that they might have full ballot access this time around. Once we verify this, that would mean that the Libertarian candidate should be moved to the top row this year. Is this still the consensus?

(2) Last time the Constitution Party had enough ballot access to make the infobox. This year it looks like the states listed on their website don't add up to 270 even if the "in progress" states are counted, though I'm not sure if this includes write-in access. We counted write-in access last time only if a slate of electors had been filed. Could someone investigate this?

(3) In 2012 we used photographs of the candidates speaking instead of formal portraits. I know photograph choice has been especially contentious this year, but is there interest in continuing that this year?

Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Seniors heading both major party tickets

A bit of trivia. Barring unforeseen events, this will be the first US presidential election to have both major parties running senior citizens as their presidential nominees. Something we could add to this article, in July. GoodDay (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We could indeed add it, but only if it proves to be notable enough to be brought up by a decent number of reliable sources. Personally, I don't think it is a big deal. One might even suggest bringing it up has a whiff of ageism. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As Scjessey said, this info can be added if it can be traced back to reliable sources. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Green Party candidates

Since only recognized candidates for the Green Party nomination (i.e. Jill Stein and William Kreml) will be considered at the convention, should the other three candidates be removed from the list despite the fact that they have won delegates? Papasmurf0810 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Is it possible that the Green Party could recognize more candidates in the future..? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

IMHO only Kreml and Stein should be in the top row gallery, since only they can actually carry the convention. This would also fix the missing portrait issue, now that we have one for Kreml. The others can be listed below if that's desired. As a side note, Mr. Kreml's name really should be given as "Bill Kreml" since that's how he is campaigning. I can't change it myself. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary articles

The precent for prior presidential election articles is that there should be a single article for each state's results that includes the both the primary results and the general election results. This has recently been undone by one user, creating articles that duplicate and unnecessarily split content. Please see Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Individual_primary_articles for discussion. Pinging User:GoldRingChip who was involved before. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Never Trump Candidate

How should we treat the search for a Never Trump candidate? Should we add potential candidates to the article? Mhoppmann (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No. Only if someone actually makes serious moves; anything else is purely speculation. Reywas92^Talk 07:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, we updated this article every time the media speculated about a possible candidate in 2016. The same thing is happening now with Never Trump (i.e. Ben Sasse). Mhoppmann (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the Never Trump candidate thing. Are not the Democratic Party & the other parties, in the process of nominating Never Trump presidential candidates? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Never Trump centers on dissatisfied Republicans who would like to put forward a conservative alternative to Trump. Names are being bandied about. There has been some talk of latching on to an existing third-party candidate as well--Gary Johnson, for instance. I would like to create a " potential candidates" section for Never Trump. Mhoppmann (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend holding off for now. There's still 2 months before the Republican National Convention & in that time the Never Trump movement just might fizzle. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

PS - I read up on the Stop Trump movement article. It appears we should wait until the Republican National Convention, to see what happens. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If there's actually another candidate's name thrown on the convention floor or if a third-party candidate refers to themselves as being part of the Never Trump movement, then it would merit addition. Barring that, it's just speculative punditry trying to fill a 24-hour news cycle and ought not to be added. Mizike (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Report: Republicans considering a third-party campaign have approached Sen. Ben Sasse, Gov. John Kasich and businessman Mark Cuban - Washington Post Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I was never a fan of the "potential candidates" section, but if we did it in the past then I certainly don't see why we shouldn't do it now if there are reliable sources for them. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

References

No, let's not include that until there is something more substantial. And even then, I'm not even sure if there will be enough notability in that quadrant to warrant inclusion. I mean, the reports that are out there are indicating that the people championing this, including Kasich and Romney, haven't pursued it extensively. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

Candidate number 2 has to be changed into TBD (along with home state to be set to TBD) Republican Party has not proceeded to announce any nominations yet, placing Mr trump as nominee is a political campaign unfavourable for other potential candidates David.patriot (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

All other viable candidates in the GOP primary race have conceded, and WP:RS, WP:V sources are reporting Trump as the presumptive nominee. Thus the suggested change is not in keeping with wikipedia policies. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Request to revert an edit

My apologies for my inexperience with formatting, but somebody with permissions has added some false information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2016&diff=721911676&oldid=721900046&gettingStartedReturn=true

Unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has not been declared the presumptive nominee by anybody except herself, and the primaries are still running.

Thank you Skyltvakt (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Revert carried out. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

Ben Carson is from Florida. 108.29.171.158 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So what do you want added to or deleted from this article? Your intention is not clear. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

My hunch is that he wants Maryland changed to Florida for Carson. GoodDay (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: He was born in Maryland. He currently resides in Florida, but that's not what is typically meant by "being from somewhere", particularly as he has only lived there since 2013 per his article. Cannolis (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Parties in alphabetical order

I put the parties in alphabetical order in the infobox. When all the candidates have been nominated, perhaps the alphabetization will be by the candidate's last name rather than by party. Ref: [4], [5], [6], [7], plus all the discussion re inclusion criteria from previous years. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That looks really bad and should be reverted. There's no reason to have a ragged display that puts one party alone in last place. There's really no reason at all to list minor parties by candidate before they have selected a candidate, but in any case the display needs to avoid potential bias, and it must not look terrible. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Following up to myself - since there's been a bunch of churn in the way this is formatted, and since the churn seems to be motivated by political preferences, I now definitely oppose empty "TBD" sections for the minor parties. The "TBD" section for the Democratic Party is fine, but the others should only be there once a candidate is announced - that's May 26 for the Libertarians and August 4 for the Greens. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that version looks bad. I've reverted it (and all the other related edits that were made without explaination). Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've put the Democratic and Republican parties on the first line since the consensus from previous years is that parties with ballot access to all electoral votes should go on top. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see my remarks on prior consensus and especially the talk page box from last year. In the absence of a discussion showing that consensus has changed, we should respect the previous consensus. Note that MOS links on lists above do not apply to infoboxes. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus about ordering of the candidates in the infobox based on any arbitrary criterion such as ballot access. There was a consensus to only include candidates who had ballot access with a mathematical possibility of obtaining a majority of electoral votes (270 electors). The only discussion I can find in the pages cited above had three editors mention the idea of sorting based on ballot access: IP editors 173.28.205.74 and 68.58.63.22, and Antony–22. There were about a dozen editors in that thread and definitely no consensus there on sorting/positioning candidates by ballot access within the infobox. Absent any firm consensus, lists are sorted alphanumerically.

There are a number of specific problems with the proposal to put the candidates with 50-state ballot access on the top row. 1) This year's election is off-the-charts atypical. The latest polls indicate that 63% of likely voters will be voting for a candidate other than a Democrat or Republican. The next president will likely come from a third party or independent this year. 2) There are three candidates with 50-state ballot access: Clinton, Johnson, and Trump; and only one candidate in the infobox without 50-state ballot access, Stein. That will look weird and make the list graphically unbalanced (three on top, one on the bottom). 3) If editors feel that a candidate's ballot access (# of states) is a significant piece of information to include in the infobox, then it can be included along with other pertinent facts. This is much clearer to the reader than just arbitrarily putting some candidates on the first row.

Regarding WP list policy, an embedded list is an embedded list no matter where is occurs within an article, including lists within infoboxes. MOS:LIST and MOS:EMBED apply. Items in lists are sorted alphabetically unless there is an obvious reason and overwhelming consensus to do otherwise. Therefore the candidates are sorted alphabetically. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not lists; the MOS pages you cite only refer to infoboxes in the contest of text lists within the infoboxes, not the photographs.

Any any case, the relevant discussion is here, here, and here. We can certainly parse what those conversations really imply about consensus, but in practice we have never used alphabetical order for candidates, and in 2012 we went by ballot access. This is what the infobox looked like for the entire period before the election in 2012, and the proviso about order has been in the consensus statement since the beginning.

If you want to demonstrate consensus that we should use alphabetical order, or any other order, you should propose it formally and start an RfC. It is of course possible that consensus has changed in the last four years, but we should discuss it in a structured way.

(I agree, by the way, that having three candidates in the top row and one in the bottom would be visually unappealing. If we get a fifth candidate in the infobox, the question of what to do with the Libertarian candidate becomes more pertinent.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

HINT: If you find yourself in an argument about whether or not there is a consensus, then there is no consensus. Therefore, the list of candidates in the infobox need to be sorted alphabetically. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be some agreed-upon order, supported by recent discussion, that can be pointed to by anyone as a reason to revert attempts to churn the infobox display so that it favors whoever the churning editor favors. I'd suggest that one of you two should start a formal discussion on just that specific topic. I've already given my solution for the present: just don't put the Green Party in the infobox until August. Apart from that my only suggestion is to make certain that it doesn't look outright terrible. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2016

Request

Include Jill Stein in the Info Box as the Green Party presumptive nominee, adding her photo and add her home state of Massachusetts.

Explanation

I happen to be a party insider with the Green Party (co-chair Green Party Youth Caucus -- Robert Smith), I can tell you that Jill Stein IS the presumptive nominee. (See Green Party presidential primaries, 2016). There are technically 6 candidates, but most only recognize 5, and the party technically only recognizes 2- those 2 being Dr. William Kreml and Dr. Jill Stein. She has 124 of the 202 delegates needed to win; she is expected to win the next couple states including a landslide in California, pushing her way beyond 202 delegates. Her opponent Kreml has already stated he expects Jill to be the nominee. He only has 11 delegates, mainly due to the fact that he won his home state of SC. Stein has won 18 states/caucuses. She also was the nominee in 2012 and is the defacto leader of the party. Worldtraveler96 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: To quote the Presumptive nominee article: "a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee of his or her party when his or her last serious challenger drops out or when he or she mathematically clinches." Moreover, it should preferably be backed up by a reliable source. Stein still hasn't gotten all 202 delegates required for a majority, nor is she the only candidate still running. If a reliable source (preferably from the party itself) called her the presumptive nominee, we could perhaps revisit the issue. Otherwise, I'd consider that WP:CRYSTAL. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

An editor has recently added Jill Stein to the infobox as the "presumptive nominee" of the Green Party. According to Green Party presidential primaries, 2016, Stein has only 124 of the 202 delegate votes needed to make the nomination, and I can find no information saying that Stein has been recognized as a "presumptive nominee" by the Green Party apparatus. She probably will be nominee, but does not seem to qualify to be in the infobox. Therefore, please remove the claim that Stein is the presumptive nominee from the infobox.

As an additional point, the commented-out material naming other candidates as the "presumptive nominees" of the Democratic and Libertarian parties likely shouldn't be there either. Those individuals are likely to be the nominees, and the LP nomination process is in progress today, but Johnson is not officially the nominee yet (unless he is by the time that you read this), and the Democratic nomination is still formally contested - Sanders could win, though he is unlikely to do so. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed Stein as Green presumptive presidential nominee, per request. Libertarian presidential nominee will be chosen shortly, so proper additions will be made then. Preparations for Clinton as the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee are alright, as she's less then 100 delegates/super-delegates shy of a majority. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I agree that all three named candidates are almost certain to be the party nominees; it's just that Clinton and Stein aren't "presumptive" yet. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2016

92.236.78.118 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC) The "Presumptive" notation on Donald Trump's nominee profile should be removed, as he has subsequent to last week finally achieved the necessary amount of delegates to become the party nominee. Whilst he has not been ordained as the nominee at the convention yet, as nobody can effectively challenge him as the candidate at the Republican National Convention, it would be sensible to simply label him as the official nominee. In relation to the green party candidacy, they do not hold a sufficient national profile to be presidential competitors, not being on the ballot in all 50 states. They are not receiving anything like the coverage the Libertarian party ticket is getting as a result, so their profile should be removed from the area of Democrat/Republican/Libertarian representation.

Though merely a formality, the Republican National Convention has yet to nominate Trump for president. Until then? we keep the 'presumptive' tag. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. See wikipedia's entry on Presumptive nominee: "In United States presidential elections, the presumptive nominee is a presidential candidate who is assured of his or her party's nomination, but has not yet been formally nominated by his or her political party at the party's nominating convention." The term is being used correctly. Also see the Rfc further up this page ("RfC: How should we go about declaring a candidate the "presumptive nominee"? ") on this very topic.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Trump has enough delegates now. --Nutcracker100 (talk) 8:21 AM, 26 May 2016 (PDT)

Which is why he is the presumptive nominee. --Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 8:31 AM, 26 May 2016 (PDT)

So when is he no longer "presumptive?" After the convention? W ASB94 (talk) 12:10 PM, 26 May 2016 (PDT)

Yes, he will be "presumptive" until he formally receives the nomination at the convention.--NextUSprez (talk) 12:21 PDT, 26 May 2016 (PDT)

He already hit the 1,237 delegate mark. --Nutcracker100 (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we keep the presumptive tag in place, until he's actually nominated by the party. The media also continues to call him the presumptive nominee. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016 – 2nd

Please change:

Potential battleground states include Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Other potential Democratic targets include Nebraska's second congressional district, Missouri, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Meanwhile, Republicans may also target Maine's second congressional district, Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota, and New Jersey. Other states may also become competitive if the close races of 2016 differ from the close races of the 2012 election, or if 2016 becomes a landslide election. Both major parties might decide to target the home states of their nominees or that of their running mates if they are from a swing state or have high favorability in the state or region.

to:

Potential battleground states include Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Florida. Other potential Democratic targets include Nebraska's second congressional district, Missouri, Indiana, Montana, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Meanwhile, Republicans may also target Maine's second congressional district, Oregon, and New Mexico. Other states may also become competitive if the close races of 2016 differ from the close races of the 2012 election, or if 2016 becomes a landslide election. Both major parties might decide to target the home states of their nominees or that of their running mates if they are from a swing state or have high favorability levels in their respective states or regions.

Thank you!

References

24.246.89.125 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done – Pleasure!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  01:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian and Green Party

I think these two should be excluded from the box unless we have serious polling numbers above ten percent. --89.13.115.79 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Those two party tickets remain, because they're eligible to win at least 270 electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Johnson is polling at 11% according to certain polls. 2600:8805:3B05:6E00:4400:6084:5753:AFBC (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We already agreed that they should be included in the box because they have access to 270 electoral votes, atleast until the election. If they get less than 5% of the vote, they will be removed. Ghoul flesh (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, in 2012 for example there were multiple candidates that received had ballot access to over 270 electoral votes. We might not have to wait for the election. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that multiple candidates had ballot access to over 270 electoral votes? Because only one candidate actually received that number of electoral votes in the election.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, yes that is what I meant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that isn't the case so far for the 2016 election. The other third parties are only registered in less than 10 states. Like I said, we already agreed for them to be included in the infobox. Ghoul flesh (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough per your statement above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

They should be excluded -- this is a joke. They are not Ross Perot. As for the moment, they are fringe candidates. Should Johnson start polling at 15% and get into the debates? Yes. But not now. Archway (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

They absolutely must be kept. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and polls are showing strong support for both Stein and Johnson.--TM 11:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• There already is strong consensus to keep in the infobox all candidates who mathematically could become president, even if that eventuality is remote. Therefore, ballot access is the criterion for inclusion, not poll numbers. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Abjiklɐm correctly describes the current consensus. The "15% rule" is not Wikipedia's rule, and is the subject of a current lawsuit[8] by the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, alleging that the Federal Election Commission and the Commission on Presidential Debates have fostered a duopoly in American politics that has made it impossible for a third-party candidate to win the White House[9][10][11] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ballot access and the top row of the infobox

In 2012, there was consensus that the Libertarian candidate should not be listed in the top row because they did not have ballot access in all 51 jurisdictions. This time around, it's being widely reported that the Libertarians will in fact have complete ballot access, so we should figure out the implications for the infobox sooner rather than later. Relevant (brief) discussions of the consensus as it existed in 2012 are here and here. It seems there was some support for including a third party in the top row if they got complete ballot access, but not enough people were involved in the discussion for there to be a judgement of consensus either way.

This is moot right now as we have only four candidates in the infobox, and having three in the first row and one in the second would be aesthetically displeasing. However, it's very possible that there will be more candidates added in the future: the Consitution Party may qualify, like they did last cycle; the "Stop Trump" candidacy may turn out to not be vaporware; or another third party may reach majority ballot access, as was the case with the Justice Party and Americans Elect last time. So the outcome of this discussion is contingent upon there being at least five parties in the infobox in the future.

In general, we have preferred objective, verifiable criteria such as ballot access rather than polls, which require interpretation, or inclusion in debates, which is subject to the whims of the two major parties. I would like to gauge consensus for the statement below. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A party should be included in the infobox top row if it has complete ballot access, as long as there are five or more candidates in the infobox.

• Support subject to an absolute requirement for good aesthetics in the single most visible part of the article. In my opinion it's more of a toss-up than the media is implying whether the LP will get nationwide ballot access; the currently have it in 32 states plus DC, and in at least two (Maine and Ohio) they can only gain access by way of a lawsuit. It's also not clear to anyone whether the Constitution Party will get access to 270 votes. In any case, I endorse displaying all parties with access to 270 electoral votes, and endorse displaying the two major parties most prominently. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should verify the ballot access ourselves, since news outlets are often sloppy on this kind of reporting. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no reason for it. There is little evidence that a third party is going to play a significant role in this election. Ballot access doesn't imply they'll have some sort of success, which will be a requirement after the election. Meanwhile, poll numbers do, even though they can be mistaken at the end. --yeah_93 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Poll results are the wrong way to do it. Leave aside all the other problems, it could require tweaking the infobox every time a new poll was released. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That argument just reflects the kind of success that can be expected of third parties in this election. --yeah_93 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support The two leading criteria are ballot access and being a major party. However, major party status is essentially based on past success in elections, with the implication that only they will have success in the future, which is a subtle case of WP:CRYSTAL. Ballot access is purely objective, so I would lean that way at the moment. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's a violation of WP:Crystal if we put the libertarians on the top row. We are presuming they will be a significant impact in the presidential election, the only evidence we have is some polls which prompted Gary Johnson giving him a high level of support, though the same happened for Deez Nuts in Ohio, so should we include him in the info box? No votes have been cast yet, and even if Gary Johnson takes the lead in the polls I oppose moving him. The info box order should be based on the previous presidential election, and then after the election it should be re-arranged if necessary. Jzema (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• There's only one row The four candidates that are there now are likely the only one's who will qualify for infobox placement. Many other election articles place four candidates in one row, so there is no issue -- just put them in order left-to-right. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The template only accepts up to three candidates per row. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - we should limit the rows to 2 nominees each so that the intro to the article, doesn't get narrowed to the point that it's difficult to read. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We should show 2 or 3 candidates per row depending on the total number of candidates in the infobox. It's best not to leave a row with only a single candidate. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If we go with 3 in the top row, the images will have to be reduced in size so that the box itself isn't made too wide. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just like it's been done in the past (e.g. 1980, 1996, etc.). Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

POV issues in "Debate lawsuit" section

#Debate lawsuit has some biased wording.

For one, it makes it sound like the "corruption of the Commission on Presidential debates" is a given, rather than an allegation by the plaintiffs, and the phrase "denying the vast majority of the claims made without proving their lack of validity" is suspect. Was their validity the issue in question? Does their lack of validity have to be proven?

It would also be nice to have more secondary sources to help contextualize the situation, as most of the current citations are to court documents, which are a) difficult to understand out of context and b) are focused on law, rather than politics.

Also, I think we need an explanation of why Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are relevant to the suit. Currently they're just mentioned offhand in the article as if the reader would already know. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this whole section is very bad. In addition to the points mentioned here, I have to point out that one of these lawsuits is ritually filed in every election cycle since Ross Perot managed to get included in the debates and then wasn't the next time around. None of them has gone anywhere and this one likely won't either. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and would further argue that that is WP:UNDUE for this article and should be moved, after editing to fix the aforementioned problems, to Commission on Presidential Debates or to when it is created as a separate article (it is currently a redirect to this article).--Rollins83 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the additional feedback; I wasn't aware that this was a regular occurrence, and in my opinion that makes it even less notable. Unless there are any objections I plan to remove the section entirely in the next few days. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the section is given undue weight on this page. It would be better placed in United States presidential election debates, 2016 when it becomes a standalone article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that it should be improved, not deleted. The "this is a regular occurrence, and that makes it even less notable" view is especially weak. Many issues (slavery, gay marriage, abortion, gun control) have had multiple lawsuits attempting to right what some see as an injustice while others see the current laws as being fine as they are. Not winning the fight the first time doesn't make the fight any less notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If you or anyone else can write a better version of the section and demonstrate why the lawsuit is notable enough to be included in this article, please do. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposing a new infobox image for Trump

I think this is the best image to use.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogomaniac (talk • contribs)

We just had an RFC on this.--TMCk (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Cruz, Kasich etc... "suspend" campaigns or ended them?

Is this some quirk of US-English that they state candidates have "suspended" their campaigns, or have they literally put their campaigns 'on hold'?

I'm confused by the whole US electoral process! Here is the definition of the word 'suspend', from Merriam-Webster:

transitive verb

• 1: to debar temporarily especially from a privilege, office, or function <suspend a student from school>
• 2
  • a : to cause to stop temporarily <suspend bus service>
  • b : to set aside or make temporarily inoperative <suspend the rules>
• 3: to defer to a later time on specified conditions <suspend sentence>
• 4: to hold in an undetermined or undecided state awaiting further information <suspend judgment> <suspend disbelief>

intransitive verb

• 1: to cease operation temporarily

Is the implication therefore, that each of the candidates are likely to resume their campaigns? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a legal technicality. By "suspending" their campaign rather than terminating them, they're still allowed to fundraise so they can pay off their debts. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that succinct and helpful answer, Muboshgu! :) Do you think this is something we should explain in the article? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I added a footnote with User:Muboshgu's explanation; it would need a proper source, though. — JFG ^talk 07:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There's this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That article actually says that candidates are legally allowed to continue fundraising or get back in the race regardless of what wording they use to end their campaigns. According to the article, they suspend their campaigns because it's politically easier to continue fundraising or jump back in the race should the opportunity present itself. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:NOTFORUM.

::::::Reading the above comments, one could come to the conclusion that the U.S. has had an exclusively two-party system in which its dominance rendered any third party involvement insignificant, for over a century. That notion does not actually reflect reality. In 1912, for instance, the candidacy of the ex-president, Theodore Roosevelt, was rejected by the Republican party establishment. In response, he rapidly formed a third party, the Bull Moose or Progressive Party. It was denied access to the ballot in some states by his former party, but won Utah, for instance. The incumbent president, William Howard Taft, generally did awfully. The ultimate beneficiary of that division was Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Even the major U.S. socialist party presidential candidate, had some influence. That was in no small part a consequence the effect of the loss of labor votes from workers particularly in the timber and mining industries, drawn away from the dominant parties in the western U.S. In Florida, for instance, Socialist Eugene V. Debs beat both Taft and Roosevelt, gathering almost a million votes, eight years prior to women gaining the nationwide electoral franchise by virtue of the passage and ratification of 19th Amendment. More recently, in 1992, the largely self-financed candidacy of Ross Perot had an effect on the outcome, despite the lack of a party apparatus. His Reform Party siphoned enough disaffected votes from the candidacy of the Republican incumbent, George H.W. Bush, to result in the narrow election of Bill Clinton. In 2000, ballots cast for a third party candidate, Ralph Nader, running under the Green Party banner, were seen to have an effect on the national outcome, though it was more likely decided by the deliberate disenfranchisement of an estimated 50,000, mostly minority Florida voters, by an organized but obscure voter caging initiative led by Republican Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. Activist (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the Reform Party didn't exist in 1992. Perot ran as an independent. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Thank you. Activist (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with this discussion? Zeldafanjtl (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the comment above has nothing to do with this discussion and violates WP:NOTAFORUM. But since the comment above was made, I will note that the majority opinion is that the U.S. has a two-party system, both historically and present-day. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding Clinton to the Infobox tomorrow

Are we going to wait till Sanders drops out? Or shall we add her when/if the news organisations declare her the presumptive nominee? Jzema 15:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We should go by what the reliable sources say. However, we must make sure not to misinterpret what the sources say. "Probable" or "presumed" nominee is not the same as "presumptive" nominee. Only the latter should be reported. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

See Rfc above, concerning when to declare someone a presumptive nominee. IMHO, we should go with the news organisations declarations. Unless Sanders can convince enough super-delegates to vote for him at the Convention? Clinton will be the Democrats presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Associated Press just called the race for Hillary. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait until after the many primaries, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Partially agreed, tentatively as the story breaks. If it seems to be irrefutable throughout the next 18-24 hours, I don't think it would be beyond standards to declare her the presumptive nominee before tomorrow night.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What the heck, go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed here, it would also be WP:CRYSTAL to say that the super-delegates are going to change their course. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Now the editor disputes will begin over who goes on the left side, Clinton or Trump ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Green Party Gains Access in Nevada

The Green Party of Nevada has obtained ballot access in Nevada. Source: http://www.jill2016.com/stein_green_party_submit_petitions_in_nevada_to_be_on_november_ballot 2601:283:8300:A75A:0:0:0:AD7B (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a better source? I don't think a candidate's website counts as a reliable source. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

They are in the process of getting ballot Access. The petition has been submitted, but not yet confirmed , to my knowledge. Chandler (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be correct. The sources I can find about this just say that the Green Party is in the process of getting ballot access in Nevada. If they do get ballot access there, Green Party Watch and other sources will cover it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

Please remove Hillary Clinton from the presumptive nominee space. She has not earned enough non-superdelegate votes to be the nominee. Super delegates can change their support up to the day of the convention.

Thank you. Asuarez2 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Asuarez2 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: First, there's no consensus to remove. Second, the term is being used by RS across the board. We go by what sources say, not "WP:TRUTH" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There is not and has never been a requirement in the Democratic Party that the nomination be secured with only non-superdelegate votes. Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee, as has been unanimously reported by every major news outlet. — Red XIV ^(talk) 21:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Major News outlets are not reliable sources, as many of them have corporate interests in pushing certain agendas for their own benefit. This means that any Media that receives any advertising revenue is biased, and not a reliable source. AvRand (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. If you truly wish to debate the reliability of mainstream news outlets, go to WP:RSN EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so you are aware. Your sentence is in exact oppose to the very policy that Wikipedia runs on. Reliable sources are things with editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. Ergo, major news outlets. So I really wouldn't go to RSN and try to fight that as you would be trying to change one of the very foundations that Wikipedia is built on. Not really something you should waste your time on. --Majora (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

I have moved Trump to the left on the sidebar, so that he is in line with Gary Johnson. This makes it so that the two TBD slots, the Democrats and Greens, are above in line with each other, and makes it so that the Sidebar is less wide, so as not to leave to comically huge white spaces where the Democratic and Green party candidate pictures would be. If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know. AvRand (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do have a problem and I have moved it back. See #Order of the list of candidates in the infobox. Consensus is pretty clearly for the traditional method of ordering where the incumbent party goes in the upper left until after the election and then the box is reorganized by winner. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove Clinton from the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Avrand6, I see by scrolling down your user page that you're a Bernie supporter. That's all well and good, but I remind you to follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS regarding Hillary being named the presumptive nominee. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu If we were to consider a neutral standpoint on the issue, we would not put someone who does not have enough pledged delegates to be nominee as the presumptive nominee. As it's in dispute between the two Democratic Party frontrunners, the more neutral thing to do would be to continue to keep it at TBD until either Clinton reaches the threshold of pledged delegates, or until the convention. Choosing the standpoint of one candidate and a standpoint without consensus makes the article biased towards one candidate. AvRand (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't decide what's right or wrong. We go by reliable sources per WP:V & so far, reliable sources say that Clinton is the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee. Thus we include her in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Leaving out the superdelegates and focusing only on the pledged delegates is biasing this page towards Bernie, as opposed to maintaining WP:V. (BTW I caucused for Bernie myself, which I only mention so you know I'm not saying any of this as a hardcore Hillary supporter.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well we can't have two sidebars. The more neutral thing would be to continue it at 'TBD' until a certain candidate reaches the amount of pledged delegates required. Adding in super-delegates is simply ignoring how the process works, as they do not vote until July, and may change their opinion at any time. A footnote could be added to explain that some news outlets believe that Clinton is the presumptive nominee AvRand (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No. We must neutrally reflect what reliable sources say and give due weight to how those sources present a topics. Literally every news outlet is calling Clinton the presumptive nominee (see Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Use_of_presumptive_by_RS for list and links). We cannot create our own rules for when a candidate is considered the "presumptive nominee". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just leave the slots alone, of all the things to try to improve this shouldn't be an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to depend on reliable sources, then you should quote them accurately and say that the reliable sources have cited an AP poll which concluded that she's the presumptive nominee. Most of the RSs don't directly call her the presumptive nominee without attribution. Call her, "Presumptive nominee according to the Associated Press." Don't just call her, "Presumptive nominee."--Nbauman (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Evergreen answered you in the other article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone must know that the Democratic Party allows the superdelegates to be included in the tally since 1980s. So, if someone like AvRand says: "The more neutral thing would be to continue it at 'TBD' until a certain candidate reaches the amount of pledged delegates required. Adding in super-delegates is simply ignoring how the process works, as they do not vote until July, and may change their opinion at any time." Not only being disobedient to the party's rules, but also creating your own rules. Superdelegates counts. It is right there since Gary Hart and Walter Mondale.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 00:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We go by the reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We must. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 00:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson's photo

Gary Johnson in 2009

Gary Johnson in 2016

Gary Johnson's photo keeps getting switched between the two at right. The top photo is quite old as it was taken in 2009, while the bottom one is from March 2016. I strongly feel that we should use a photograph that reflects his current appearance. The bottom photo happens to be the only suitable one taken within the last four years that we have on Commons. If we find another recent photo we like, that would be fine, but we should avoid using a seven-year-old photo. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Use the 2016 photo. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Just between these two photos, his appearance doesn't seem to have changed much in the last seven years. Also, I think in the 2009 photo he has a more positive/neutral expression, whereas he looks somewhat angry/confrontational in the 2016 photo. Is there a more recent photo we can use that's better than this 2016 photo? Zeldafanjtl (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Use the 2016 photo. Much more recent. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It is best to use a contemporaneous image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

+1 for the 2016 image. I don't see it as particularly confrontational. That said, we could source a better one - it wouldn't be beyond our capacity to contact Gary Johnson's team and ask them to release a photo: they'd need to give us the name of the photographer and confirmation that they are happy for it to be shared. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

First election in a long time where all candidates are not officeholders?

Did a quick skim going back over the elections of the past 100 years or so, couldn't find any election where at least one of the candidates wasn't in office at the time of the election. Maybe this is already mentioned in the article, but 2016 is the same, none of the candidates are in office currently/. Worth adding? Jzema 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As with everything, it is worth adding only if it is mentioned by reliable sources. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I second what Abjiklam said, Jzema. What you're describing sounds like original research. We should only include this factoid if reliable sources talk about it, and even then it sounds a bit trivial. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:NOTFORUM.

:::I agree it is original research, but Jzema, if you're interested, I think the last time when both major party candidates were not current officeholders was 1908. Bryan, the Democrat, was a former Congressman. Taft, the Republican, was the former Secretary of War. But Taft only resigned in June 1908 so he was out of office during the election but hadn't been out for long. To find an election where both candidates were out of office during the campaign I think you'd go back to 1896. Bryan was again the Democrat, and again still a former Congressman. McKinley left office as governor of Ohio in January 1896, so I think that qualifies as being out of office during the campaign. But still that's original research, since it was me doing the research. Earthscent (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And if you like trivia and original research I'd point out that Trump is the first nominee since 1956 to have never held any elected office before running for president. And if he became president, he'd the be the first president to have never held elected office, been in the cabinet, or been a general. All but 4 had been elected to something before becoming president, and 3 of those 4 had been generals, and the 4th (Hoover) had been in the Cabinet. Earthscent (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can really count candidates resigning their current positions to focus on the election; it's far from unheard of in American politics. Bob Dole is one example that comes to mind. He resigned his Senate seat during the 1996 election. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also the first election, in which both major parties will be nominating senior citizens for president - Trump turns 70 this month & Clinton turns 69 in October. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump is the first nominee of either major party to not be a general or elected official since Wendell Willkie in 1940.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: How should we go about declaring a candidate the "presumptive nominee"?

There seems to be dispute among editors wether or not a given candidate is a "presumptive nominee." For example, a lot of editors think that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein should be considered the presumptive nominee of their party, others disagree. I think it would be helpful to reach a consensus on what makes someone a presumptive nominee.

First, I would like to point out what our article on presumptive nominees says: "a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee of his or her party when his or her last serious challenger drops out or when he or she mathematically clinches—whichever comes first." My interpretation of what this is saying would imply that, for someone to be the presumptive nominee, one of these two things must be:

1. He or she has no challenger from his/her same party that is featured in a major poll.
2. He/she has obtained 50% or more of his or her party's delegates.

The above seems pretty reasonable to me. However, some editors seem to think differently; they think that a major news agency has to announce him/her the presumptive nominee of their party before Wikipedia does. This disagreement could affect at what point in time should we call Hillary Clinton the presumptive Democratic nominee, or wether Jill Stein is currently the presumptive nominee for the Green Party.

I think it would be helpful for this election and future elections for Wikipedia to have a consensus on what makes a candidate the "presumptive nominee" of their party. --Proud User (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Johnson is the Libertarian presidential nominee, as he just got nominated (on the second ballot) today. The Green convention isn't until August & so far, Stein isn't certain of getting that party's presidential nomination, so we don't list her at all. Trump remains the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party, until he's actually nominated in July. Hillary Clinton is still being challenged by Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination & has yet to obtain a majority of the pledged delegates, so we don't list her either. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Hillary Clinton? we may have to go with the media's declaration. It appears as though Clinton won't be winning a majority of the pledged delegates, to the Democratic National Convention. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean one more month of TBA is not going to kill anyone. If we were going to go with the media's declaration Clinton should have been up there sometime around January. We need a flat rule for everyone and follow it. Can't be making exceptions for one candidate and not for others. --Majora (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless Sanders drops out before the convention in July? or Clinton 'somehow' get a majority of the pledged delegates? then we should stick with TBA. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In all cases, including the Democratic Party, shouldn't a candidate be declared presumptive nominee when they get 50% of all delegates, not just the pledged ones? That would be the strictest, most unambiguous definition of "mathematically clinches". Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 08:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton will likely need the super-delegates to put her over the top & we can't be totally certain that they'll continue to support her. Super-delegates aren't pledged to anyone. It's true that currently over 500 super-delegates have promised to support Clinton in July. But, they can always change their minds. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with GoodDay on this. Even now, when AP has claimed that she has clinched the nomination, she still does not have enough pledged delegates to ensure victory and will almost certainly not have enough before the convention. As such, it will be up to the superdelegates, who can decide at any time up to the vote at the convention. There is therefore no "presumptive nominee" by the standard that the candidate needs to have 50% of all delegates. Neoredpill (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that a nominee is presumptive when there is no reasonable possibility they could lose the nomination. If a floundering Cruz or Kasich were still actively in the race would Trump be the presumptive nominee? There might be more of a debate, in any case. But here since the unpledged delegates have not actually pledged, it would be premature to call a nominee. The fact that the Chris Matthews has indicated MSNBC and other media outlets may do so before polls close in California does not make it real. I think that until the convention there is no real presumptive nominee. Otherwise it's like taking that day's opinion polls and making the presumptive nominee whoever polls higher. It's obviously relevant who's higher in the count, but that's not the same thing as a presumptive nominee. In 1972, this https://www.uco.edu/la/political-science/files/gatch/George-McGoverns-Promissory-Note-optimized.pdf called McGovern the "front runner and presumptive nominee at the Democratic convention" and this would have been when he would have had both like 60% of the delegates and was in a race where the next runner up had like a third of that. So I actually think it might be unprecedented [to simply go with whoever has the higher unpledged count]; and the language like "presumptive nominee at the convention" suggests it might be appropriate to use that language if (as in 72) there were a far-and-away frontrunner [also in 72, I think everyone major except Wallace had dropped out prior to the Convention and Wallace wound up with only 382 delegates]. But that's dissimilar to the scenario in 2016 - where at least in theory neither candidate has that far-and-away lead, and - additionally - those superdelegates are not counted [and actually per DNC rules neither are pledged delegates] until cast on the floor of the convention. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:V. Wikipedia does not make the decision. It should be cited to sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This is correct. Note that primary sources (party X says candidate Y will be the nominee just as soon as they formalize it) are at least as good a secondary sources. Note also that weak second-order claims, such as that Y "will be the presumptive nominee" eventually, aren't sufficient - if those are allowed, the same portrait race will keep coming back to the article. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to count superdelegates that have publicly pledged their support in determining whether a candidate has a majority. Even if no candidate gets a majority from pledged delegates, it's likely that public support from superdelegates would put one over the threshold around when the elections end in early June, meaning we wouldn't have to wait until the convention if the result is already clear. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Support the OP's position and criteria. Strictly speaking, the nominee is elected at the convention, not earlier. To call somebody the presumptive nominee, we need to show that barring exceptional events this person will be elected nominee at their party's convention. Self-predictions, media calls, polls and endorsements should be simply ignored. In this particular election year, Trump was not called presumptive nominee until all his opponents dropped out (more precisely when the last opponent who had a remote chance to deny him the absolute majority at the convention abandoned the race). On the Democratic side, we are still far away from making such a conclusion. Because superdelegates represent 15% of the total convention votes, they actually make it quasi impossible for either candidate to gain an absolute majority before the convention day. After the June 7 primaries, we should call Clinton the presumptive nominee only if either she gets an absolute majority with pledged delegates only or if Sanders concedes the race. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why people think that a candidate gaining the majority of pledged delegates would make them a presumptive nominee? If Sanders concedes, my understanding is that DNC rules don't really allow for a replacement aside from surprise stuff like brokered conventions (? - I guess the prospective nominee may still have had to previously been a candidate; I'm not sure). So since that looms regardless, presumably wouldn't a presumptive nominee be one that no longer has rivals (and thus is winning by default) or who has clinched the pledged delegate number. Doesn't winning a majority just imply, absent concession, a contested convention? Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Msheflin: I'm not sure I fully understand what you are asking, but I'll try answering anyway. In both major parties (and probably in alternative parties as well, although I am not well-informed on their policies), the nominee is by definition the candidate who receives an absolute majority of delegate votes at the convention. A candidate is called the presumptive nominee if their vote count is settled before the convention, so that barring exceptional events (death, incapacitation, insurgency, <fill in your preferred disruptive scenario here>) he/she is certain to obtain the necessary majority. Trump reached this stage twice: first on May 4th when his last opponent dropped out, second a few days ago when he accumulated more than 1237 pledged delegates. On the Democratic side, none of the two remaining candidates has reached a majority yet. Even if Ms. Clinton gets a majority of pledged delegates in the upcoming primaries, it is still possible that she wouldn't have an absolute majority of convention votes just with pledged delegates; so calling her presumptive nominee at that stage would not be technically correct. As you point out, many people, including reputable media sources, jump to a conclusion that she would be the inevitable nominee because of the overwhelming support she enjoys from the party's unpledged "super"delegates. However, by the party rules themselves, the nomination happens at the convention and superdelegates may vote either way in order to choose the "best-suited" candidate to face off the Republican nominee in the general election (this was the whole purpose of superdelegates). So my analysis is that unless Sanders drops out in June, Clinton can only be called presumptive nominee if her pledged votes go above the absolute majority of all delegates, not only the majority of pledged delegates. The world will find out soon enough... To your other question, if Mr. Sanders concedes, it's over; if he doesn't, then he would be forcing a contested convention, again by definition, where two candidates come into the convention with a sizable chunk of pledged delegates (e.g. 45% and 40% of the total), and the nomination will be decided by superdelegate votes (15% of the total). — JFG ^talk 07:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah we're mostly in agreement. You'd previously said "absolute majority with pledged delegates." But I didn't realize (which makes sense) that the 2,383 number is actually just 50% of the total delegates. The logical problem, though is that even if she gets the majority of total delegates (i.e. > 2383) it wouldn't be a presumptive nomination until the Convention if it included superdelegates. In other words, I think either way, Sanders would have to drop out or she'd have to get >= 2,383 pledged delegates prior to the convention. Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with GoodDay's position completely. Superdelegates are not secured until they vote at the convention, no matter what anyone in the media says. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we just use what the sources say instead of inventing our own criteria? HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a quandary for you: What if reliable sources that define what 'presumptive' means are contradicted by the declaration of 'presumptive' by some media outlets? What do we do with that? What if Sanders doesn't concede? What if superdelegates are not secured until they vote at the convention? What if a media outlet saying a superdelegate is "secured" is merely their opinion? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We can presume that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee barring some catastrophic event, making her the presumptive nominee. Otherwise there can almost never be a presumptive democratic nominee, because it is very difficult to clinch the nomination with pledge delegates alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmbjerg (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

Please add Jill Stein as the "likely" nominee for the Green Party on this Wikipedia article covering the 2016 Presidential Election. It is more than likely that she will be rewarded the required delegates to clinch her party's nomination. TheDonald566 (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: See section immediately above. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that an official icon? Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not super-familiar with adjudication processes. I was as innocently as possible trying to ask if you were officially declining that request. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Yes I was declining the request, but any user could do the same or could challenge my answer. Another answer could have been Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests for more information. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess my point was that it might have been seen as misleadingly official and unchallengeable response by newer members or those unfamiliar with these rules such as myself. Isn't this effectively just a request for consensus or is there some process for semi-protected edits that this starts? Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests are not requests for comments. They are usually summarily denied if they are not well referenced or if they require consensus. Once consensus is reached, the user can then re-open the edit request. Templates are not necessary to respond to request, but they make it easier. See {{EP}} for a full list, and notice that one says Not done: please establish consensus Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

(Thank you! Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC))

Appropriate Trump image

proposed image

current image

No offense, but the current image of Trump makes him look like a goofball. There seem to be a handful of individuals who disagree so I would like a consensus as to which image should be used for the candidate. The justification seems to be, "its the image used on Trump's own wikipedia page." However, the images used for Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton differ from their pages. Why can't Trump's? In looking at the pages for past elections, the images for the canidates of both major parties are far more respectable than the image currently in use for Trump. I suggest changing the image from goofball face to an image with a more "presidential" look. The proposed image is preferable but not perfect.Kingpin1000 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with the existing image, which makes him look attentive. I don't see where you are getting the "goofball" feeling. Also, Wikipedia isn't in the business of trying to make people look more presidential. Ideally, we want a clear image of his face, which this new image doesn't satisfy. --Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I support the status quo. It's the clearest picture we have of Trump's face, the other one looks a bit odd to me. --JackWilfred (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Between the 2 options, it's best to keep the current image. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I consulted world-famous portrait photographer Annie Shutterbug. Apparently anyone with an orange face and an orange-dyed comb-over looks like an orangutan goofball in any photograph—which explains why, for sheer goofballiness, there’s nothing to choose between these two shots. More to the point, which is the clearest image of the face? Obviously the current one. Writegeist (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Current image: you can not really see Trump's face in the proposed photo. We need a picture where the candidate is facing forwards so that his face is fully visible. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How about this image of The Donald? --Jerchel (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Kinda looks like he's trying to have a fart. I'd stick with the current image, even though the microphone is in it. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe also this one should be good; it has a better caption and it's without the microphone:

• 

What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the one Nick.mon proposed. You can clearly see his face and there's no microphone in the way. Plus, he isn't leaning (like in the current image) and he isn't making a weird face (like in the photo on the right). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree CCamp2013 (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The image you've proposed at 20:14 (May 7), should be added to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I like the Nick.mon image too. He's not wearing a flag pin, so obviously he hates America! Seriously though, it is a much better image that seems to capture his usual appearance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I also prefre the Nick.mon image. As others have said, no microphone in the way, and captures a more casual and neutral look than do the others.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Last election we used photos of the candidates speaking instead of formal portraits until the election was over. A couple of possibilities: one, two, three, four, five, six. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Was there a valid reason for why it was done in the past and why it should be done now..? I personally don't see the point of only using photos of the candidates speaking. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I prefer the image with the darker background and no flag pin (added by Jerchel). I certainly do not want to see the photoshopped image, which I would argue is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. (The microphone was artificially Photo-Shopped out, removing the original context of the subject's expression and posture. User Prcc27 says "he isn't leaning", but the reality is he *is* leaning, but the photo Prcc27 prefers was artificially spun to make it appear he isn't leaning, and since the reality is the opposite, now Trump's tie defies gravity -- "Isn't that special!" And how is a "more casual look" created by artificially modifying the photo from its natural environment & context, subtracting from it and spinning it?! [If you want natural, leave the original alone and stop trying to "improve" it.]) IHTS (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I propose we use the following image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed image.

I'm changing my preference to the one posted by William S. Saturn.--Rollins83 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The one William S. Saturn proposed looks good and clear. I'm okay with it being changed to that. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

He's looking directly at me now. I find that unnerving. I have to look away. Help! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Further cropping of Jerchel's image. IHTS (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I like William S. image too. Anyway I think that Trump's face look so big in this photo and maybe it should be better with a different zoom. I have uploaded another version on WikiCommons, tell me what do you think about; anyway as I've already said, I like William S. image too. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed image (2).

I prefer the zoomed out version. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Reminder for those who weren't there: the discussion on Trump's portrait was settled in March in an RfC with no less than 20 pictures to choose from, including the ones that are being floated here again. Let's stick to the previous results unless a vastly superior free image emerges. I would limit the discussion to opining for/against cropping and rotating, and for/against removing the microphone and white smudge in the background. The lapel pin on his costume is part of the candidate's chosen public appearance and therefore should not be retouched away. — JFG ^talk 20:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So why do you keep switching the long-standing Trump image with a Photo-Shop'd & rotated version? The Photo-Shop'd & rotated version that you keep slipping in to replace the long-standing image, was rejected in the archived Talk discussion you've referred to. IHTS (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This particular variant was not in the RfC, it was just suggested a few days ago by Nick.mon above and gathered immediate support from 5 editors, so I used it to replace yet another crop of the same picture which had been inserted earlier. And for the records I don't "keep switching", I just did it once, for consistency with other articles; I'm not particularly passionate about one or the other variant, although I do prefer Nick.mon's version. I'd be happy to participate in a new discussion about the picture, which as I mentioned above should be limited to choosing which variant of this image to use. — JFG ^talk 12:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. You've done it here at this article, here at article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, and here at the Donald Trump article, where you clearly expressed personal preference for the photoshopped image, contrary to consensus specifically rejecting the photoshopped image in Talk:Donald Trump archive, and contrary to an imbedded note informing not to change the image without prior discussion at Talk:Donald Trump. IHTS (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as JFG as said, I uploaded the image just few days ago and my version wasn't in the RfC. Anyway I agree with JFG and I think that we should start a new discussion about the two variants of the same picture. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's not even entertain the idea of a Photoshopped image. That is completely unacceptable. Cropping is okay, but messing around with rotations and airbrushing is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessy. Cropping is acceptable, but photoshopping is inauthentic.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, Trump always looks like a goofball. He can't help it. Seriously - he always looks either gormless or arrogant/superior/smug. I do think it's important to show the most impartial looking images as possible. I can see some sections of the media choosing scary or weird images of Trump (likewise for Sanders and Clinton, btw). That's not what an impartial encyclopaedia should do though. The photo currently in use seems to be a pretty decent one of the man.

As a side note, I personally think that the fact that he says goofball things constantly, kinda compounds the matter! ;) :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.20.56 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As a Trump supporter, I'd say the current picture is the best one available of Trump. He doesn't even look that bad. Besides, I've seen less flattering pictures of presidential candidates on Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarado98 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Which one? The one where half of Humphrey's face is obscured by darkness, or Wallace's "im gonna cut a bitch" face? Zeldafanjtl (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

TheDonald566 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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. Cannolis (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Candidate InfoBox Section

Hello everyone! I was wondering if it is appropriate to have the Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates in the info page? Considering that the United States is a traditional two-party system, it might be appropriate to remove Dr. Jill Stein and Governor Johnson from the info box to keep consistency with all other Presidential election pages? For example, 2012 does not have Dr. Stein or Gov. Johnson in the info box. 2008 does not have Mr. Barr (Libertarian) or Rep. McKinney (Green). Unless a candidate obtains a significant amount of the vote like Ross Perot in 1996, I don't believe they should be included in the info box. Let me know what you think!!! Admusa (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. The issue is ballot access more than votes. They have access to the ballot in enough states to warrant inclusion in the infobox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason they are not on the previous election pages is because different criteria apply to future and past elections. Because we cannot predict the outcome of future election, we keep in the infobox all candidates that have ballot access to >50% of electoral votes. After the election, we keep only those who've gained at least 1 electoral vote or 5% of popular vote. This is all clearly explained at the top of this talk page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this viewpoint. I also didn't see the top of the page. Impartiality is really important when editing election pages, we should treat every election the same and use what was done in previous elections.Admusa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this view, because the chances of either one of them getting more than 5% of the vote is steep (though in this election with both major party candidates unpopular, their chances are better). I mean, Nader was a strong third party candidate, but he never got more than 2.75%. However, it's not impossible. Johnson is polling very well for a third party candidate (into the double digits in some polls due to #NeverTrump GOP defections and the quasi-libertarian Sanders supporters), and many (though perhaps not enough to make a difference) Bernie supporters are saying they'll go for Stein (at least for now). They both have ballot access in enough states to conceivably win 270 electoral college votes. They should be there. In six months, they probably won't be. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

I understand the debate over the photograph used for Donald Trump has been long debated, but I believe I have found a photo that could be viewed as more suitable than the one currently used. In this image, you have the same perspective of his face as the one found in Mrs. Clinton's photo. If you find this photo of Trump more attractive (I know, it's hard to do so) than the one used now, it would be appreciated to alternate to this new one which I am presenting. Thank you. TheDonald566 (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. That being said, I agree this is a much better picture. However there is no source nor license mentioned anywhere. We cannot use it unless we know for a fact that there are no copyright restrictions. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

At risk of dredging up this debate again: I don't think this is better than the one currently in the infobox. He's squinting and has a smug smirk. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

He's always squinting and smirking smugly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Image is a copyright violation. I have marked it for deletion on Commons and have removed it from this page. --Majora (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM hats

I really don't want to write this here, but I have to because I believe it is relevant and necessary. I added hats to two sections (not the entire sections but specific portions here and here). In these sections, there were clear violations of WP:NOTFORUM that developed (political commentary & trivia that was not intended for article improvement, as I think anyone can see here). However, a certain editor continues to remove these hats. I'm convinced that these portions of the discussions violate WP:NOTFORUM and should be hatted, but because this editor continues to revert those edits and appears to strongly oppose them, I think it would be better to ask what other editors think. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While interesting, trivia doesn't belong here unless it's directly related to improving or adding content to the article. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO your collapsing was completely inline with guidelines. Seeing as this page is only bound to draw a lot of attention in the coming months we need to have a way to collapse off-topic nonsense so the actual talk page is used for what it is intended for. Improving the article. --Majora (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the kind of environment we want to create here. All legitimate discussion should remain (without unnecessary interference from the talk page police). What was hatted was not blatant forum discussion. It was related to the improvement of the article by those interested in improving the article. Those who have their comments removed will be less likely to engage on this talk page if they fear they will be censored. What part of "these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors" is not clear? I object. We do not have a forum problem on this page. The discussion in this thread is far more disruptive than anything that was hatted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion that I hatted was not "legitimate", as it was pointless political commentary (the editor who added the commentary added it in a section where something completely different was being discussed. Totally irrelevant. And trivia is interesting, but the portion that I hatted did not have the purpose of article improvement. P.S., I am not the "talk page police", I simply am following Wikipedia guidelines in order to make talk pages for article improvement only - which is what they are supposed to be for. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors" - please cut it out. You're being disruptive. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not violate that rule. I placed the hats after the discussions had ended (long after, for the first discussion, in fact). You are the one who is being disruptive. Please stop. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor reverting my hats for discussions that clearly violate WP:NOTFORUM

As I stated in the discussion above, I placed two hats for portions of two discussions where WP:NOTFORUM was clearly violated, but one editor continues to revert my edits, saying that I was disruptive (I was not, I was following clear Wikipedia policy). In the discussion above, two editors clearly commented, saying that I was clearly justified and following Wikipedia policy. However this editor continues to revert my hats. In such an important article about the U.S. presidential election (and the main part of the campaign is beginning), we should not let pointless political commentary and trivia (as interesting as it ay be) clutter the talk page. I really want this all to end so I can get to more important things, but I know that I am completely justified on this issue. Would someone please help? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrator comment: I've collapsed the off-topic discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --1990'sguy (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, this is the wrong forum for this discussion. Second, Coffee ought to be ashamed for interfering in this matter and helping 1990guy to censor this talk page. Third, let's ask @Earthscent:, @Zeldafanjtl:, @GoodDay:, and @Activist: how they feel about having the tag team of Coffee and 1990guy censor their comments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrator sanctions notice - Anyone who continues any form of off-topic discussion here will be promptly reverted and subject to discretionary sanctions (as authorized by ArbCom, and in notice at the top of this talkpage). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I was never convinced that my comments, or the other users' comments, were off topic. Original research, certainly. Though someone could've found reliable sources if anyone felt it was important enough to go in the article. I would do that myself but after years of watching Wikipedia I know that the sort of thing I find interesting tends to get deleted from most articles. So, yes, I am annoyed that I was censored. We were having a discussion of whether or not something could go in the article, and got shut up rudely. But, whatever, I expect that on Wikipedia. Earthscent (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I never discussed anything but the article itself, so I'm not sure why I'm mentioned in that list. The admin is definitely in the right here. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarification, @Zeldafanjtl:, I agree that your comments pertained to the article. However, your comment "I'm not sure you can really count candidates resigning their current positions to focus on the election; it's far from unheard of in American politics. Bob Dole is one example that comes to mind. He resigned his Senate seat during the 1996 election" was censored from the section "First election in a long time where all candidates are not officeholders?" --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What discussions were collapsed per NOTFORUM? I can't remember what the topic(s) were about. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

See [12] and [13]. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I see. Well, I personally slipped into blogging mode in those instances. Therefore, I have no problem seeing my own posts hatted per NOTFORUM. I had no intentions of including the seniors citizen bit into the article itself, per lack of media coverage. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton presumptive?

I added the following text to the article, but then saw the notice at the top of this talk page specifying that potentially contentious edits should be discussed first. My apologies for not having noticed this earlier. I'll return the sentence to the previous text for now, pending the results of discussion here. Should we go ahead and include the text below?

He is expected to face [[Hillary Clinton]], the [[Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016|presumptive presidential nominee]] of the Democratic Party in the general election.<ref>{{cite news|title=Clinton 'wins Democratic nomination'|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36466228|work=[[BBC]]|date= June 6, 2016|accessdate=June 6, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|first1=Abby|last1=Phillip|first2=Robert|last2=Costa|first3=John|last3=Wagner|title=AP: Clinton clinches the nomination, becoming first woman to top a major party ticket|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-long-and-bitter-democratic-nomination-is-finally-near-its-end/2016/06/06/3417b264-2bfd-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_democrats705p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory|work=[[Washington Post]]|date= June 6, 2016|accessdate=June 6, 2016}}</ref>

Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

She'll be the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, until she's actually nominated at the Democratic National Convention in July. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

She IS NOT THE PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE!!! The SuperDelegates do NOT vote until July and the DNC has said they should NOT be counted in the totals. Also It doesnt matter that AP has called it for Clinton. The DNC has said that it is not final when included the SuperDelegates until the July Convention. I am requesting that it be reverted to Unknown until either candidate has the majority based on pledged delegates or until the Convention in July B787 300 (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please look up the definition of "presumptive". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I know the definition of presumptive thank you very much. The AP should not have called it bases on the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE's wishes. But they did. It is a disservice to those that vote tomorrow and beyond that this page shows Hilary without Bernie as NEITHER OF THEM HAVE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PLEDGED DELEGATES! Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial adding Hillary in now is not impartial B787 300 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You should take your complaints to AP then not us, we only follow what reliable sources are telling us. If the math is there it would be wrong to not go by it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, we're not the one making the news here, it is from AP, a reliable source. Shall I say it is more reliable than leaning news outlets like FOX News and CNN?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 14:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say, and right now they say she's the presumptive nominee. Interpreting past DNC declarations would be WP:SYNTH. Unless the DNC explicitly refutes the announcement of Clinton as presumptive nominee (I think that would count as a more reliable source than the media) we should follow the media announcement. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: actually, I think the media is probably a more reliable source than the DNC, particularly if it is unanimous in what it is saying. The DNC is I think a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, while the media constitutes secondary sources, and it's the latter that WP considers most reliable.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used when they are relevant and when we use common sense. Given that the DNC organizes the primary process, I think it is clear that they are a reliable source when it comes to describing the process. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, no sources are saying that she IS the nominee, the same goes for Donald Trump. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

They are not saying they are the nominee, they are however saying that they are the presumptive nominee, which is what counts here and is what they are labeled as. Ergzay (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

ah but this also would fall under WP:CRYSTAL as there are still many many votes left open and still two candidates. This is using media confirmations to predict the election when it is no where close to being over. Also as to what Abjiklɐm said it is not WP:SYNTH as they clearly said it in the past and have reiterated the point many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B787 300 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Again she isn't the nominee, the math as it stands adds to a Clinton win though. The media has called it as such, so that is what we are going by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

But by saying she is and not giving equal space, you are influencing the election (as many people would check wikipedia first for information). I happen to agree that the math isn't there for Sanders to win without Super Delegates switching (which at this point is very much WP:CRYSTAL) I just think that the presumptive should be left blank until the DNC makes an official call on the matter. -B787 300 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I would've rather waited until after the primaries tomorrow, to list Clinton as the Dems presumptive prez nominee. But, it's only a matters of hours before she get the majority of delegates/super-delegates & the other news organizations start declaring her as well. If Sanders somehow manages to persuade enough super-delegates to back him? then we can always replace Clinton in the infobox, with him. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'm glad to see I wasn't wrong to mention Clinton as the Democrats' presumptive nominee. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I support counting superdelegates who have pledged support for a specific candidate. That being said, my preference would have been to wait until after tomorrow's elections being that they're only a day away. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton is only presumptive once she has locked up over half of delegates in pledged delegates as superdelegates don't vote until the convention. Therefore, she's not presumptive at this point. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree; editors are really jumping the gun with this one. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In a few hours, the DNC chairwoman & many media organizations will be declaring her the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, in the same manner that the RNC chairman & many media organizations declared Trump the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, on May 3. Therefore, Clinton should be added into the infobox. We can always replace her with Sanders, if he persuades enough super-delegates to back him & the media sources report it as such. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You may well be correct, even if Sanders wins California and refuses to concede based on Clinton not having enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. If most/all the "reliable" media organizations are saying that, we kind of have to acquiesce to that, per our policies, even if the media organizations are telling a lie. Of course, we could also add reliably sourced info on what 'presumptive' actually means and has historically meant to balance out that lie. I imagine there will be scattered reliable reports or noteworthy essays on that point in short order. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You know the rules. The sources is NOT a tabloid journalism. And it IS reliable. If you suggesting that the media organization s are telling a lie, then what is the use of 'citations' here in Wikipedia? We can go through like our fellow Uncyclopedia if that happen. So I suggest, that you should create a page explaining your problems with the media establishments.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 14:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I sure do know them. And there are reliable sources showing 1) the DNC has instructed the media to not count superdelegates until they vote at the convention; 2) Sanders disputing the 'presumptive' label. We have to look at this from a whole perspective, not a selective one. It is in dispute at this point. Maybe not later today, or soon, but as of now, it is. And telling me what I should do external to this matter is not your concern. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You have a proof to that? Then write about that! Write the whole thing. From the AP declaring Clinton a nominee, until your DNC and Sanders viewpoint! But don't ever judge if a media is telling a lie or not! Who are you? A Judge? This is where Wikipedia is impartial. We don't JUDGE.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, showing Clinton as 'presumptive' at this point is acquiescing to a corporate media lie, which is one of the downsides of Wikipedia, wherein we are to trust the 'reliable' corporate media even when it's not telling the truth. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

When more media organizations & the DNC chairwoman declare her the presumptive prez nominee, your continued reverting will become less acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)are no judge. W

First, I haven't done "continued reverting", I've done only one. On your point, though, you may be right, even if actual facts don't match up to what the media organizations are saying and if Sanders refuses to concede based on superdelegates not being official until the convention. Wikipedia is a kind of slave to these "reliable" media organizations that are highly biased in corporate and political matters. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, changes have also been made at Hillary Clinton & 2016 Democratic National Convention, showing Clinton as the Democrats presumptive presidential nominee. The inertia is to describe her as such. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, but I hope we don't make editorial decisions in the Wikipedia based on inertia. I would hope it would be based on a balance of reliably sourced facts. It might help if someone could find some reliably sourced definitions for 'presumptive' in this matter and then see if the media organizations' proclamations match up. If they don't, as encyclopedists we should be concerned about that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You'll note in the Rfc on this article concerning presumptive, I favour keeping Clinton out of the infobox until Sanders drops out, because she needs the super-delegates to put her over the top. But, I also know when to 'throw in the towel' & these incoming sources (which now includes CNN) are making it more difficult to prevent showing Clinton's changed status. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the RfC. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

'On Monday, Hillary Clinton gathered commitments from enough delegates to become the presumptive presidential nominee for the Democratic party, according to The Associated Press' http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-race.html?_r=0 End of the debate, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.94.139 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagreed that the debate is over. This is one corporate media source reporting against the facts. Clinton has not clinched the nomination in pledged delegates. Superdelegates do not vote until the convention, and Sanders appears to be likely not to concede based on that. We should at least wait until later today to see if more than just the AP is willing to state this effective lie. Then I think we will have to acquiesce. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

CNN has reported Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders communications director Michael Briggs issued a statement on this yesterday:

"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgement, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer. Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race."

The above statement was widely reported by reliable sources, So right now, the sources say that the "presumptive nominee" claim is disputed. Perhaps after the polls close in California `the sources will agree one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears as though the Democratic National Committee, is on the verge of contradicting their own previous statement. Jeepers, what a mess. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it based on the AP call or is it CNN's call? A link would be helpful here. Also, I've noticed that many have called CNN the "Clinton News Network" in this campaign due to their heavy bias in Clinton's favor during much of the primary process. I would like to see a preponderance of media calls independent of each other, and not just relying on AP. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's CNN's source. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Note that they are at least honest when they say "according to CNN's delegate and superdelegate count". The report also talks about "securing" superdelegates -- this is CNN's opinion that they are secured. We don't know what's going to happen between now and the convention, and superdelegates can change their mind. Of course, based on your RfC position above, I think you know what I'm talking about.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/06/06/481020591/why-hillary-clinton-will-be-called-the-presumptive-nominee), Boston Globe (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/07/why-clinton-becoming-presumptive-nominee-isn-welcome-news-for-either-camp/UjAmEjtVDbQSkfAXd7uxZM/story.html), CTV (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/history-in-hand-hillary-clinton-faces-voters-as-presumptive-nominee-1.2934265) calling her the presumptive nominee. Accusations of 'corporate media lies' belong on conspiracy websites, not Wikipedia. The Democratic Party nomination process includes superdelegates, whether you like it or not, and enough of them have voiced they would vote for Clinton so that her total reaches 2383. It's not Wiki's job to pretend they don't exist to fit a narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.94.139 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2016‎

It is an effective lie because the definition of 'presumptive' doesn't match up to the claim (superdelegates are not secured until the convention) and it's in dispute at this point, including by the Sanders campaign, which has not conceded yet. Beyond that, anyone who doesn't think the corporate media has particular biases and tells half-truths and lies to bolster these biases isn't a fully aware human being. There's no conspiracy -- it's in full view. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You're soapboxing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.94.139 (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of waiting until the pledged delegates are in later today or early tomorrow I don't see the need to rush listing her as 'presumptive'. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Only in the "Beyond that" portion. The first part is a statement of fact. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Associated Press is, along with the other networks confirming their call yesterday, are reputable media outlets. There is no "corporate media lie" going on here. There is simple fact. Anything else is superfluous speculation which is far below the objective standard of encyclopedic content. As it stands, Clinton has received the clear majority of votes, the clear plurality of pledged delegates, a majority of the states, and the overwhelming majority of superdelegates. Each of these together are sufficient, along with the reporting by the AP, to establish Clinton as the presumptive nominee. Sanders has won fewer states, far fewer votes (only 42%) and fewer pledged delegates. The idea that she cannot be called the presumptive nominee, by an encyclopedic standard, does not pass the simple common-sense test and wanders into the realm of opinion and bias.   Spartan7W §   13:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

1) Sanders has not conceded; 2) Superdelegates are not secured until they vote at the convention; 3) Any media outlet saying a superdelegate is secured today is stating an opinion, not a fact. 4) No candidate has achieved a majority with secured pledged delegates at this point. Whether the media is intentionally lying or not isn't the point, but they are telling an effective lie because the definition of 'presumptive' is not met as of now. What if reliable sources defining 'presumptive' don't match up with media declarations? Isn't that at least a quandary? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, the popular votes statement is bogus as it doesn't include direct votes at a number of caucuses. Without those, one doesn't know the true proportions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry man but you're just pushing an agenda. Clinton has enough pledged delegates and superdelegate support to get over half of the available delegates. This alone makes her the presumptive nominee. Will you make the case that she's not the presumptive nominee once the voting is done tonight because the supers don't vote until July? I highly doubt it. So quit your soapboxing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

My agenda is as an encyclopedist wanting an encyclopedia to stick to the facts. See the "Key quote" below from a reliable source. The DNC is saying NOT to count superdelegates. Now, if Clinton gets a majority in pledged delegates after today, you will have a point. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The DNC will count the superdelegates at the convention, so your point is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it is obviously not moot. The DNC itself is saying to the media to not count them at this point. They are not secured until they vote, as they are free to change their minds between now and the convention. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Again not Wiki's job to report the narrative the DNC is feeding the media. It's Wiki's job to report the facts, and the facts are that she has over 2383 delegates (majority) and the supers will be counted in that vote. That the DNC is trying to establish outside of its own rules when their support matters or not is not something this site should feed into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a CBC source, about Sanders rejection of multiple medias declaring Clinton the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Key quote: "For that reason, the Democratic National Committee has echoed the Sanders campaign, saying the superdelegates should not be counted until they vote at the convention in Philadelphia." Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote statement is not bogus. She has won 1812 bound delegates out of the 3337 so far allocated. Simple division comes out to 54.3% of delegates in a primary scheme which allocates delegates in a proportional manner. Was Mitt Romney not the presumptive nominee at this point in 2012 even though Ron Paul did not concede until the convention ended? Of course not. The mere existence of an opponent does not negate the facts. The AP has reported that Clinton has a sufficient delegate count to be the presumptive nominee, she is at 2,383 out of 2,383. It is not up to you to use your own personal opinion ripped right out of the Sanders campaign playbook to challenge simple reporting. The fact is all these superdelegates have endorsed and pledged themselves to her. She has clearly won a majority of votes cast, between 54-55% of them. Bernie Sanders is not even close to this number. She has won a clear majority of pledged delegates so far cast. Unlike 2008 when Clinton received a plurality of the popular vote and lost the nomination, she has won a clear and decisive majority of the votes thus far cast. The idea that the superdelegates will all turn around and elect a candidate who has won fewer states, fewer pledged delegates, and nearly 13 points fewer popular votes is preposterous. It is your opinion and the same opinion that the Sanders campaign has when it clearly has an agenda to continue to the convention. If she's indicted and they go to Sanders, a potential outcome in this scenario, then she ceases to be the presumptive nominee obviously. But she is the presumptive nominee because she has the simple majority of delegates needed to clinch. Even if Sanders' rule change to bind superdelegates to their jurisdiction outcome happens, she still wins. Stop passing off the Sanders campaign playbook as encyclopedic fact.   Spartan7W §   14:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

See Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 where it states in a note about the popular votes count: "Does not include popular vote totals from Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Washington, Wyoming, or non-binding primaries". If that doesn't show the popular vote proportions is bogus, I don't know what will. As for the rest of your reply, I'll just say I will stand behind my previous statements. I don't see a point for saying the same things over and over again. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Do the math, man Stevie is the man!. Just do the math. 3 million votes is insurmountable. To give Sanders the nomination is to betray the voices of the American people. Even if all 719 of the delegates are given to Sanders, he will not reach 2,383. I reckon if you're a Sanders supporter, but you can't go this way, not in Wikipedia, really.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 14:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominations are not decided by the popular vote, and the point I made is that we don't know the true proportions of it. Clinton may well still be ahead in popular votes -- we just don't know by how much. Also, I am a supporter of the whole facts while I'm editing in the Wikipedia. Who I support in this political race is none of your concern, and does not color my view of how we present facts here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about popular votes. Even if you use the pledged delegate count, 300 delegate is insurmountable. Again, as you said, the fact is the fact, and you can't deny the fact that AP had declared Clintan a presumptive nominee. If you want to brag about it, confront AP. The fact is, AP did that, regardless what the DNC said. AP did that today. You can't just say it didn't happen. If you are a supporter of 'whole facts' here, this is a fact. Not a rumour. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, we had the same scenario in 2008, where Obama only crossed the threshold to presumptive nominee by counting superdelegates. Since we have articles calling him the presumptive nominee well before the convention, we should do the same here. Mizike (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to show my work, I'm talking about articles like this one and this oneMizike (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Clinton withdrew in 2008 when Obama became presumptive nominee by virtue of superdelegates. The idea that Hillary has not won the most popular votes is preposterous and not based in fact. If you've won 54% of delegates in a purely proportional allocation scheme, you've won about the same amount of the people's votes.   Spartan7W §   14:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry if you are a Sanders supporter but the reliable sources are what we go on, if they had announced that he had the numbers we would be calling him the "presumptive nominee". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Patience. It's better to be right than first. Objective3000 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact we are both the first and the right ones.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we're the first, that's a WP:OR violation.:) Objective3000 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait what? Per WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Sources that exist are calling her the "presumptive nominee", in no way is this WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, this is the fact, not rumour, allegations, etc. AP is a reliable, valid source, for they are not a tabloid journalism news outlet.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 16:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if she were short there is no way that Clinton is not going to pick up additional pledged delegates today. The pledged delegates earned are going to reduce her needed superdelegates so that even if a few do change their minds she would still be in good shape. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

New Jersey will declare it in the next few hours. She's already insurmountable.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton has reached 2,383 delegates, she is the presumptive nominee. All reliable sources are saying the same thing, so saying that she isn't the presumptive nominee would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Proud User (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Compromise: Wait until Conventions

These related discussons, should be moved to the Rfc-in-question. Furthermore, things haven't settled down yet, at the intro to the Hillary Clinton article, concerning this matter. Perhaps it's best that we don't include anybody in the infobox, until they're actually nominated. This would leave Gary Johnson & William Weld as the sole entries, until late July. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No. We have to write the whole story. Because it is from AP, not from us. Not our own opinion. We have to write the AP declaring her a presumptive nominee, Sanders rejection and everything. Write it all because it is a fact that happened. Really happened in real life this morning.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Squid, we should include the fact that sources are saying that Clinton & Trump are the presumptive nominees with neutral wording explaining the situation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 is right. We should write: "according to AP, the nominee is..." and then followed by other news outlets, such as CNN, FOX News, LA Times. Because it's their words. not ours.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You both are in agreement then, that Clinton & Trump belong in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There isn't an easy choice here, if we don't include them in the info-box then it shows that we are against the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources say Trump and Clinton. So should we. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Very well :) GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to us.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 16:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If we look at the whole picture and go by actual facts via reliable sources, some of which counter the corporate media 'presumptive' narrative (and I don't see a need to list them all again here), we shouldn't show Clinton as 'presumptive' at this point. However, this publication relies very heavily on these "reliable" sources, and as a compromise, if a preponderance of these sources are showing Clinton as 'presumptive', we as encyclopedists need to ensure that in addition to showing Clinton as 'presumptive', we are bringing in other reliably sourced material that disputes this determination. It exists, and we cannot ignore it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, it's just conceding to the factually incorrect position of the Sanders campaign. There is now a presumptive nominee. — Red XIV ^(talk) 21:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to decide how to define "presumptive nominee". It's up to reliable sources, all of agree that Clinton is the Democrats' presumptive nominee. Furthermore, we're under no obligation to give undue weight to denial from hard-line Sanders supporters just because that denial exists, as per WP:FRINGE. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. These denials of facts aren't healthy. It's silly to keep arguing about this. We shouldn't contradict relible sources just because a few users disagree about them. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I only said that I wanted to wait until we know for sure before we had Hillary as the presumptive nominee, but a lot has happened since yesterday. We know for sure. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this proposal. A lead in pledged delegates is clearly sufficient, as indicated by reliable sources. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose When we know that a candidate is almost guaranteed to be the nominee, and reliable sources say the same thing, it make no sense to wait until conventions. Waiting until conventions goes against Wikipedia's purpose. --Proud User (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Green Party presidential primaries, 2016

For anyone interested, a small discussion on the talk page regarding Jill Stein as the presumptive nominee, and my entry about the discrepancy of delegate numbers for the Green Party convention........Pvmoutside (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Stein Not Yet Nominee/Presumptive Nominee?

While it is more than likely Jill Stein will be the Green Party's nominee, she has not yet secured the nomination and none of her opponents have dropped out. With Clinton and Johnson, they weren't added as their party's nominees to the infobox until they clinched the nomination, and we didn't add Trump until all of his major competition dropped from the race. Please revert the infobox to represent this until she secures 202 Green Party delegates. 2601:283:8300:A75A:28A0:50B3:4449:38D6 (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources are calling her the presumptive nominee. See #Semi-protected_edit_request_on_8_June_2016 EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In this case, sources may be inaccurate. If you look at Green Party presidential primaries, 2016, she is short of delegates, and she has an opponent. An editor said he has endorsed her even though he is still running, but I haven't looked to verify.....Pvmoutside (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

See [14] for Kreml's endorsement of Stein. We do not have evidence that the multiple sources given in the section above are inaccurate. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If you look at Green Party presidential primaries, 2016, there are 402 delegates available at the nominating convention, 202 are required to have a majority. Jill is at 130 as of June 7. Not sure when the next primary is, or whether that will put her over the top. I will admit, she is way ahead at this point, and don't see anything changing, but she does not have the majority yet. By her opposing candidate endorsing her, but not dropping out of the race constitutes calling Jill the presmptive? ....just sayin'.....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The next Green contest is the New York convention, on June 11. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

so i'm not killing myself wanting to change articles, but I've been told 202 is the magic number for her to be a lock for the nomination. Even with NY with 25 delegates at stake, she is still short. MD and DC follow, and she is still short. She doesn't go over the top until at least the 25th......not that it's a big deal given the circumstances.....just trying to be full disclosure...Pvmoutside (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

When Trump was listed as presumptive, he did not have the necessary delegate majority, rather all of his opponents suspended. The Green Party requires candidates to be "officially recognized" in order to be nominated at the convention. Jill Stein and William Kreml are the only officially recognized candidates. Kreml has endorsed Jill Stein according to his social media that he uses for campaign purposes. Therefore, Jill Stein is the only candidate that is both officially recognized and actively campaigning in their own right, and should be seen as presumptive. Calibrador (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016

No Information available for green party. Jill Stein is the candidate and should be placed on this page Tacurtin (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that prove Stein is the Green's presumptive presidential nominee? GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Marking not done, did not cite a ref, WP:CRYSTAL. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I happened to be reading this interview with Dr. Stein when I was closing this tab... http://www.salon.com/2016/05/31/i_am_not_cool_with_donald_trump_and_i_am_not_cool_with_hillary_clinton_jill_stein_unloads_on_both_parties_a_rigged_system_and_dems_bernie_sabotage/ Stein is actually a candidate, and may be chosen at the convention in August (http://gpus.org/committees/presidential-campaign-support/2016-recognized-candidates/). Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No one denies that she's a candidate for the Green Party nomination, the issue is that she's not the presumptive nominee yet. It is very likely that she will be the nominee, but that's not the same thing. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; my tone didn't come across properly. She is a candidate, not the nominee - who'll be chosen at the convention. She's obviously much more visible but I've seen no evidence she is the 'presumptive nominee' per se. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• [15] KTOE: "Their 2012 candidate Jill Stein is the presumptive nominee."
• [16] Rolling Stone: "...presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein...
• [17] NYtimes: "The presumptive Green Party nominee..."
• [18] truth-out.org: "Jill Stein, the presumptive nominee of the Green Party."
• [19] The Harvard Crimson: "As the presumptive candidate from the Green Party, Stein’s presidential campaign faces..."
• [20] Village Voice: "The presumptive Green Party candidate for president, Stein..."
• [21] Arizona Capitol Times: "Jill Stein, who won the Arizona primary in March, is the presumptive nominee."

75.172.181.80 (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, let's include Stein as the Green presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Half of those sources seem RS enough to include as "presumptive" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it looks all set with the sources provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the refs. Though now I suppose the text itself should be updated with one or two of these refs. Right now there are no sources on any article that mention Stein as the presumptive nominee. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Would recommend NYTimes and Rolling Stone (in that order) if you had to choose from that list. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

so I also agree it's ok calling her the presumptive nominee given the sources, but a couple of dumb questions......I read through the articles, and it does state she will be nominated and has accepted the act of putting her name in nomination. Does anyone know if she is the only candidate running for her party's nomination, and if not, what is the process for her to be determined as the presumptive nominee?....In Clinton's and Trump's cases, we see both candidates amassing enough delegates and/or other contenders dropping out and endorsing them. In Stein's case, not so much. Don't want to start a war, just making sure we get it right. Do we have some sort of actual evidence like we do in Trump and Clinton'?....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Third party primaries seem a bit strange to me. Although Stein has an opponent, he publicly endorses her while continuing to run. In this case, like in all other cases, the evidence to call her presumptive nominee is in the sources we use. I think many of us, myself included, were misguided in trying to come up with our own criteria for presumptive nominee. We should go only by what our sources say. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We have a definition for presumptive nominee. If what you say is true, that there is only one candidate running against Stein, and he has endorsed her (suggesting he won't have enough support to beat her) that is enough evidence for me, together with the sources, to consider her presumptive......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't that definition of presumptive nominee (the criteria you set out here; I didn't read the article in full) conflict with our use of the term for Secretary Clinton...:::::::::::Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No......the superdelegates have been canvassed, and the elected delegates are counted for her presumptive nominee determination together with all the sources. Also, the Wikipedia page has her still short of delegates as of the last update on 6/7 Green Party presidential primaries, 2016.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, for our purposes, the definition of a presumptive nominee is one described as such by our sources. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Hillary Clinton was declared "presumptive nominee" before *any* primaries were even held. Candidates should not be added to the infobox just because a few sources think that someone will be the nominee. WP:CRYSTAL is still a thing FYI. Candidates should only be added once they have reached the number of delegates necessary to win the nomination. Please let's not get hung up on the definition of "presumptive". Instead of arguing whether or not she's the presumptive nominee we should argue whether or not someone that hasn't hit the magic number should even be included. I'm strongly against including Jill Stein in the infobox. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Zombie candidate

Is this really appropriate to call a still running politician a zombie candidate? While there are a few mentions of Sanders as a zombie candidate (particularly politico) it seems a little undue to me. --Majora (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Phrase has been removed but I'll leave this here just in case it gets readded down the road. --Majora (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Battleground states section

I don't think the Democrats will target Texas unless blowout, which is mentioned right below that section. If you look at the list, all the others are fairly competitive, while just Texas should not really be contested. It's like saying New York is a swing states because part is heavily Republican, it's more wealthy, Trump is from there, etc. I am open to any discussions about this, or suggestions.

24.246.89.125 (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, Texas is a certain Republican state & New York is a certain Democrat state. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So, shouldn't we change it, in the article?

--24.246.89.125 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Mathematically eliminated candidates under "active candidates" section

Should mathematically eliminated candidates that are still active, such as Bernie Sanders or William Kreml, still go under "Active candidates" or should we expand the "Withdrawn candidates" section to include mathematically eliminated candidates, possibly by renaming it "Withdrawn or mathematically eliminated candidates" and giving the presumptive nominees (i.e. Hillary Clinton and Jill Stien) their own section titled "Presumptive nominee" like the one Donald Trump has. Any ideas? --Proud User (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps some change would be helpful. But, candidates are not "mathematically eliminated" if a major event, like a death, could change the equation. Objective3000 (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Where would we put him? There are only to categories: active and withdrawn. He hasn't withdrawn. We could make a new category "persistent" candidates, but I think it's probably best to just wait until he officially suspends his campaign. Sparkie82 (t•c) 13:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Sanders hasn't withdrawn yet, so I don't see a reason to remove him from there. Not until the Convention, at least. --yeah_93 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

What to say about Sanders?

At present, the lead section has this to say about the current status of the Sanders campaign:

"Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign has stated he will continue to run for the Democratic Party's nomination until the District of Columbia primary on June 14, 2016, but after that will work with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to beat Donald Trump in the general election."

The problems with this sentence are (1) that it refers to the D.C. primary in the future tense several days after it happened, (2) that it misleadingly implies that he endorsed Clinton after the D.C. primary, and (3) that the referenced source is people.com, not really the sort of high-quality RS we should be aiming to use in an article of such importance. I move that we replace it with a general sentence on the lines of "Sanders is continuing his campaign despite general agreement that Clinton is now the presumptive nominee." Would everyone else agree with this change? Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

We need a source for any replacement sentence as well :) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Tonnes of reliable sources can be cited to show Sanders continuing his campaign. Here's one: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/more-fighting-words-from-bernie-sanders Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Then I agree with you suggestions. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A higher-quality source that says the same thing is http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-personal/index.html --Proud User (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Edit made using the CNN ref. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson better picture

April 2016 Portrait of Gary Johnson

The Gary Johnson for President campaign has released several photos to his official Flickr page of both him and Bill Weld. It would be ideal to have one of the picture's from his campaign rather than a blurry picture from CPAC. Pictured to the right is the one I would like to propose to replace the current CPAC image by Gage Skidmore. Computermichael (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Too dark. --Proud User (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

All the current infobox images are of the candidates during public appearances rather than formal portraits. We should keep that consistent even if we change the photograph. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

New Gage photo as Trump photo?

It looks great and it's a lot more recent than the current 2015 photo. Thoughts? --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop ruining the photos with your horribly done edits. --Calibrador (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even photoshop it, and that's NOT a bad photoshop, jerk. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@ThiefOfBagdad, we knows that a lie. Compare these two photos here and here they are clearly the same image with the mic removed, also if you look at the eyes in the photoshop job we can actually see the black ovals that have been added. You even admit on the current summary that you "Improved mic cut" admitting its an edited photo with the mic removed. If you continue to add photos like this against consensus it may constitute disruptive editing. Also please note WP:PERSONAL, your use of "jerk" is not acceptable language. Ebonelm (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dude, it was edited before I even touched it, did you notice the previous photo didn't have the mic already? Relax. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@ThiefOfBagdad, we don't use photoshopped pictures and certainly not ones of such low quality. Ebonelm (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct. If after editing, a photo of a person doesn't look almost identical to the original, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia or Commons.- MrX 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

At least doesn't look like he has three ears. Still, poorly edited image. --Proud User (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI the user uploaded over the image with a very poorly done Photoshop, but it was reverted. --Calibrador (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Calibrador, though even the original is a terrible photoshop job, especially the tie and the lapel where the mic used to be. Ebonelm (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Photoshopped images

These photoshopped images are becoming ridiculous. Can we agree to use genuine images? I would rather have a picture with the mic than an edited picture being passed up as authentic. There should not any editing to the picture besides cropping. If we allow photoshopped images to be used, then there could be pictures like Trump with three ears popping up for example. TL565 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely agreed, cropping only (including rotation - but only at the discretion of the community). Ebonelm (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only Photoshopping that should be allowed to be done to skin are things that could have also been done by a change of environment, such as lighting.--Proud User (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are thinking of your proposed Gary Johnson image Proud User. I would have to disagree with you on that one, the changes in contrast can be a real problem - I think it may have been this type of photoshopping that made the edited Trump images look so awful (I'm coming to the conclusion that black ovals weren't added to ThiefOfBadad's image but rather it was the pupil and the iris being merged together due to bad contrast photoshopping). If candidates appear to be never standing in good light for photos to be taken then they need to get a better campaign team, its not up to Wikipedia to help them out. Ebonelm (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that there are legitimate causes for improving photos by making changes to the skin, such as color balance or quality improvements that would of existed in an unedited photo if it were taken with a better camera. However, skin should not be edited for other purposes such as making it appear as if someone has three ears or removing a microphone that hides details from the skin because editing out the microphone would result in appearence of the skin different than if the same person was posing the same way in an environment with no microphone. --Proud User (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if edited photos reflected the depicted person's preference of style, for example this is not how Donald Trump wears his suits. --Proud User (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree about rotation being okay. Manipulating the actual vertical can produce out-of-context/unnatural/misleading effects. IHTS (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@IHTS, that's why I added "only at the discretion of the community" if it creates any of the problems you mentioned then we can say no, but if it doesn't then I see no harm. Ebonelm (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not an equal situation. IMO consensus s/b obtained first, before a rotated photo is put into an article. (Editors in the past have felt at total liberty to replace photos w/ rotated versions. IMO that kind of "bold change" s/b by default ended/stopped.) IHTS (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you completly, consensus must be obtained first. I only added the caveat so that if a fantastic image that is cropped and slightly rotated is presented to us (that is one in which none of the problems you described before occur) that it isn't just shouted down straight away because it wasn't straight cropped. Consensus must still be gained before it is used. Ebonelm (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my comment was put into a new section. I never intended to create a new topic, but I agree that it isn't up to Wikipedia to improve the quality of images just because we want a good looking photo. TL565 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't care what image is chosen for Trump, we cant have editors putting up a new different image though every other edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@TL565, I put it into a new section because I feel like the photoshopping problem is going to be a perennial problem during this election. By having a dedicated section that editors can direct other users towards in the case of these issues arising again it will be easy to demonstrate the clear community consensus for this article without having to read through a whole body of other text. Feel free to remove the new title if you wish but I think that this is going to be useful. Ebonelm (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See this proposed guideline. It is still in development. --Proud User (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

While I like the idea of a policy on photoshopped images I strongly disagree with most its content, I don't believe that changes in color balance, brightness, and contrast should ever be altered as they ruin a lot of photos. I'm also not sure that trying to introduce a Wikipedia-wide policy is the best way to deal with the issues we are having on this page, I think we need our own page consensus. If in the future we have a Wikipedia-wide policy then great but it will take months to be implemented which we really don't have. Ebonelm (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay fine, but now it seems the page is fully protected which is a huge overreaction. There didn't seem to be any edit war going on besides a couple of users changing the photos here and there, but nothing out of control. I think most of us agree to leave the current picture as is. TL565 (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• As an aside can somebody with experience on the Wikimedia Commons restore the Hillary Clinton picture back to Gage's version, ThiefOfBagdhad has been subtly editing the photo making lighting changes, changing teeth color etc. I would do it myself but I have no idea how. Ebonelm (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ebonelm If you go on to the main image page and scroll down to the history, you will see a link that says "Revert". Click on the "Revert" link next to the version by Gage and the image should be reverted to that version. TL565 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it. --Proud User (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what you guys decide, somebody has to tell ThiefOfBagdad that overwriting existing images is usually not acceptable. Commons is supposed to be an archive and repository; the user is photoshopping and effing up historical images. Anything that says "uploaded new version" should be reverted. 75.172.181.80 (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, calm down. I'm not effing up any historical images but yeah, I've improved the lighting and contrast on like 3 pictures and people seemed to be okay with it. No need for slander. Thanks. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I would just be careful is all, on some of your edits you modified the head size/doubled the ears. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No slander, you're fucking them up. Black-and-white pictures are black-and-white, pictures of the 70s and 80s have a certain historical feel; changing that is fucking. them. up. If you want to do what you call enhanced (e.g. fuck up) create a new file. 75.172.181.80 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree here that ThiefOfBagdad's images need to be reviewed. I know you are saying it is no big deal, but on some of the picture with "better lighting" you have made the picture look grainy. In others you have latterly altered facial/body features, these aren't minor edits and you need to understand that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)