Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Bias in lead once again

I made complaints about this earlier, and while it was briefly changed, the exact problem is back. The election is less than a month away. So many people are going to see this page until then. We need to remove all the stuff about Trump here.

More than half of his paragraph is dedicated to criticizing him. "Trump has made many false and misleading statements, engaged in fearmongering,and promoted conspiracy theories, including false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him which prompted the January 6 Capitol attack. The Republican Party has made efforts to disrupt the 2024 presidential election as part of a larger election denial movement. In 2023 and 2024 Trump was found liable and guilty in civil and criminal proceedings, respectively, for sexual abuse, defamation, financial fraud, and falsifying business records, becoming the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime."

This is not neutral. This is going to leave people with an anti-Trump bias. And there's nothing here about Kamala! Why don't we put in that she supports genocide? I think that it's reasonable to include the indictments, but this is too much. Wikipedia is a big source of information for people. We are not supposed to take a stance here. We will put the relevant information in the lead. We can go into the controversies and issues in the body. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Kamala doesn't support genocide, so that shouldn't be included because no RS will say that she does. Andre🚐 00:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The claims about Trump are very well sourced, as is required in Wikipedia. Did you look at the sources? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, extremely well sourced statements about Trump. Andre🚐 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And I can find just as many sources criticizing her for her positions on inflation, the border, and Gaza. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Quality of source matters here, not quantity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. See my previous discussion about this. We should at least shorten this and make a policy paragraph. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Just think about this from an outsiders point of view. When they read that paragraph, they will not think Wikipedia is neutral. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What's an outsider? I'm Australian. Does that count? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

An American undecided swing state voter who can't make up their mind, who will either think Wikipedia is bias or will be convinced to vote for Kamala. They should be convinced on who to vote for based on the policy and issues, which is well discussed here. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is a politician lying not an issue to you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it is an issue worthy of being mentioned in the lead, unless the extent of Trump’s lies are unprecedented (which arguably they are). Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, but it might be productive to have a separate paragraph about these types of criticisms, rather than in the general discussion. The indictments should be kept, as should the election denial stuff, but the other parts should be moved to a separate paragraph. Yavneh (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong...but most politicians lie. Vice-President Harris has lied before as well, as has her campaign, yet you might notice there is no mention of "The Harris campaign has had many false and misleading statements". Despite her now saying Mr Trump is a fascist who is a threat to democracy (this would be fearmongering), there's no "engaged in fearmongering", either. Nor "promoted conspiracy theories" (despite Ms Harris and her campaign often citing attack stories against Trump that have no evidence or corroboration). Yet, again, that isn't part of the Democrat paragraph even though it would be easy to source. Is VP Harris lying not an issue to voters? If Trump lying is, one would think Harris lying would be as well. So why is that not in her paragraph? The OBVIOUS REASON: Because the writers and the people who have left that on the page are biased. Again, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Renathras (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The extent of Trump's lies have been absolutely unprecedented, and Harris' lies aren't even barely close. Harris hasn't lied about migrants the extent Trump has. Harris hasn't lied about the election being stolen. Here is a reliable source, where it was shown that just in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 alone, not even counting the years after that when Trump's lies have only increased, he made over 30,000 false and misleading statements.[Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/] EarthDude (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I read it and think it's blatantly biased. I don't generally edit Reddit pages (never, actually, after my very first attempt), and I don't think I've ever posted on a talk page. That paragraph is TERRIBLY biased. The Democrat paragraph is written in neutral tone, the Republican one seems like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. Something can have sources AND BE BIASED at the same time, and just a cursory reading of that paragraph would lead any neutral person to thinking wikipedia is biased. It led me to that conclusion. I don't want to read any of the rest of the article because I can't imagine with a lead like that the rest would be neutral or fair at all. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for this. Renathras (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I am European and this article is the most biased article I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia. I have ctrl+F Kamala and there's nothing about her. Whole article is solely about Trump and mostly consists of stretched comparisons with Hitler. How is this allowed? B.fly87 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That's because Trump has engaged in absolutely the same shit Hitler was in. Spreading extreme libels against Minorites (blood libel, Springfield pet-eating hoax, etc.), extreme hatemongering and fearmongering, wating to deport millions of millions to "purify" the country, which is exactly the same as the Madagascar Plan. He says he'll be dictator on day one. He even praised Hitler openly. I want Wikipedia to be neutral but facts are anti-Trump EarthDude (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No, he didn't engage in "Hitler shit." You're just taking everything the biased US media and the Democrats say about him as if it were unvarnished truth. And you know that he won the majority popular vote, so you're saying that over half the voters heard "Hitler shit" and still elected him. That is utter poppycock. I want Wikipedia to be neutral, too, but your "facts" are not facts. Cyberherbalist (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As a non-American who dislikes most American politicians, IE as an outsider, I have to say that if the Republicans didn't want their nomination of a convicted criminal for president to draw attention they maybe should have started by not nominating a convicted criminal for president. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to be aware that the American news media, and for that matter European news media, hate Trump unalterably and report on him accordingly. Believe it if you want, but the American people have seen through the lies that have been told against Trump. You need to look at what he was "convicted" of. In New York he was convicted of fraud because he applied for a loan to buy property, and for the purpose he estimated its value to be more than "certain people" thought it ought to be. The bank that he borrowed the money from had no complaints, loaned him the money, and later he repaid it with interest. Everyone involved was happy. The New York prosecutor brought him to trial as a matter of politics. She ran for election on the platform of eventually "getting" Trump for something. The New York appellate court is in the process of throwing the conviction out. I read the indictments against Trump in Georgia, and there was no way those things could even be called "crimes". Cyberherbalist (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And yet, the TONE is not neutral and reporting at all. I read the Democrat paragraph and was thinking "Sounds about right", then was shocked with the first few lines of the Trump one. This seems like something written by the Harris campaign, not something deserving of the title Humanity's encyclopedia. Something can be well sourced AND BE BLATANTLY BIASED at the same time. Renathras (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Tell me one sentence, with sources, that you'd like to add to the lead about Harris' campaign. The border, inflation, and Gaza are not it, but if you have anything else, let us know. Andre🚐 01:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What if, instead of putting the criticism specifically in his paragraph, extend the paragraph about issues to go more in depth and keep this Personisinsterest (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

She very much does, but very little news sources ever bring that up as they are often pro-Harris. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, we reflect the weight and focus of what reliable sources as a whole say. If you believe one particular source is biased and is being given too much weigh, that is something that can be discussed and corrected; but if you believe the media as a whole is biased, then Wikipedia is ultimately going to reflect that bias, because we're an encyclopedia (meaning we summarize the best available sources), rather than a publisher of original stuff. We're not the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in terms of "correcting" media bias or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

She fully backs Israel and their apparent right to defend themselves. I'm sure I can find a RS that will cover this but of course Wikipedia will remove it because it does have so much bias. Your personal views here are not needed Apeholder (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We will put the relevant information in the lead. And we have. We summarize[d] the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It cannot be helped that a political party and their candidate for office had a number of prominent controversies since the last election. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Although controversial, since the article is detailed in detail, it would be better to summarize the introduction, which is overly critical of a specific candidate and takes up more than half of the entire introduction. This is to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality by attempting to gloss over the controversies doesn't seem like a workable path, but if you want to suggest something than I will review it. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh you will review it? Do you have some sort of special sway or influence at Wikipedia? Do you know Jimmy Wales!? Apeholder (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Your objection is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our role as an encyclopedia is to summarize what the sources say; if they're overwhelmingly negative about something, then our coverage must be overwhelmingly negative as well - it is not appropriate for us to "put our finger on the scale" to correct what we consider an imbalance in the sources themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree it needs to be removed, I was pretty concerned while I was reading this page that there was so much bias here.

I've read a couple of arguments above, let me answer to all of those. I've cited in italics some points of the Wikipedia rules.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." I don't see either neutrality nor fairness.

"Even when material is sourced, editors must ensure that its inclusion follows Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and is written to give appropriate weight to the views." Are we sure this is followed? Doesn't look like it from my side.

Adding to this, anyways, the introduction isn't really the space for that, is it? It almost looked like the editor was so impatient to write those things aye? Wikipedia is not the place to share opinions or attract votes to a side or another.

Finally,

"Articles must be fair and balanced in their coverage, and must not contain unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons, even if it is accurate."

You can consider the sources as reliable as you want but even reliably sourced negative claims should be handled carefully to ensure they don't come across as defamatory or disproportionate. 93.36.176.195 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources You removed the rest of the sentence after that, which states in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. It also further states, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

2. I can't find this statement in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Where did you get it from? Even if it is included, appropriate weight is given to the sources.

3. Again, I can't find this sentence in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Where did you get it from? Either way, the sentence is sourced and not poorly sourced. BootsED (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we please talk about my proposal instead now? Personisinsterest (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As a hardcore Kamala supporter myself…sheesh this is harsh for Wikipedia. Maybe cut down on some of the "fascism" parts as that's being thrown around a lot, like how Trump calls Kamala a communist (and we all know Wikipedia should be better than Trump). Authoritarian and populist I'll take. Maybe we should include some criticism of Kamala too, like indecisiveness about the Gaza conflict.

RidgelantRL (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Your clearly biased towards Trump. Also, Kamala never said anything about supporting what’s happening in Gaza Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What???? Mate just because I think we should rewrite part of an article doesn't mean I'm pro Trump. I never said anything about Kamala supporting Israel in Gaza anyways, I said they should write stuff to include that there's some backlash from younger voters about that (should've worded it better I admit). Do I really need to prove to people online my political opinions online?

RidgelantRL (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to include a few sentences similar to what's on there for the Trump campaign (e.g., "The Harris campaign has been noted for ..."). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of RS about the controversy surrounding her nomination without a Primary vote. Still, there are articles from major news organizations about the controversy surrounding her record as a California prosecutor (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/harris-prosecutor-scrutiny-invs/index.html) and her positions on contentious issues (or lack thereof early on - one voter called her an "empty vessel" in this article because she had little to no campaign platform at the time: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/slice-voters-explain-wavering-harris-trump-rcna178535), including her support for continuing to arm Israel's genocide in Gaza (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/us/politics/harris-israel-arms-embargo.html) and fracking (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmarkind/2024/11/05/will-fracking-determine-the-next-president/; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-11/kamala-harris-and-fracking-her-position-on-the-controversial-practice). These policies have made her less popular among certain groups, especially young voters (https://english.elpais.com/usa/elections/2024-10-29/young-voters-on-the-left-reject-kamala-harris-she-has-made-it-clear-that-she-doesnt-value-my-vote.html). Keep the Trump stuff, but add Harris stuff as well. Perhaps there hasn't been as much coverage, but there has certainly been some, so a sentence or two would be appropriate. AwesomePorcupine (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This I’m fine with. I just felt like we needed something to balance it out??? Also you're much better at explaining the stuff I said (or more accuracy tried to say) lol.

RidgelantRL (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It took me about half an hour to write all that and find sources. Then I realized some of these things are already mentioned and sourced in the main text, so finding new sources was not really necessary. haha AwesomePorcupine (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is biased, bt there is no need to dig up the dirt about everbody. This sort of thing is strictly for the "Controversies" section of their page. Also, the "genocide" that you refer to is in itself a hotly debated topic. To add it to the page would be a further violation of NPOV. The best solutio would be to just remove it all. 23emr (talk | contributions) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Second this. This whole page reads like an article straight off CNN. Wikipedia as a whole has been trending in this direction, it's annoying. Formaldehydemaster (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Given there isn't a single criticism of Kamala Harris in the lead, the arguments from the editors here imply that not a single RS has criticised Kamala. That leaves us with only three plausible conclusions: (1) the definition of a RS needs to be greatly reconsidered, (2) Kamala is perfect and has never been criticised or, (3) the editors are bias. I'm going with (3), but I'm sure you're all about to tell me that it's actually (2). 2404:4408:831D:4100:7858:202A:506B:6B2D (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Or (4), WP:WEIGHT determines whether space should be given to a particular topic. — Czello ^(music) 11:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And with that implication that Kamala has no noteworthy negatives, Czello has put themself firmly in the (2) category. Polls suggest the majority of voting Americans disagree with that “weighting”. This article is bias. 2404:4408:831D:4100:81BF:3502:EA68:9C41 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make the case that there are noteworthy negatives about Kamala that deserve listing on this article, please go ahead. You'll need to demonstrate that the prominence of criticism is reflected in reliable sources. — Czello ^(music) 20:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

She has called her opponent a fascist and a threat to democracy, which is fearmongering. Clearly, that was worth including in the Trump paragraph, thus it must be worth including in the Harris paragraph. I could go on, but just like that, I've already defeated your position. Renathras (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Renathrax: I'm personally biased here, but considering the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the several things he has said or done and the people he has associated himself with, I feel as if that's a fair statement coming from Harris. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with Harris, it's still very much fearmongering. Due to by personal preference for Harris than Trump, it's justified fearmongering to me, but fearmongering nonetheless. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That's true. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:

"Fearmongering is the act of intentionally fomenting feelings of fear by using exaggerated rumors of impending danger."

"The House of Representatives [] adopted one article of impeachment against Trump of incitement of insurrection, stating that he had incited the January 6 attack of the U.S. Capitol."

Kamala referring to Donald as a "threat to democracy" does touch the fear button, but I see no possibility of this qualifying for "exaggerated" given the judgment rendered at the highest level of the US government.

You can only argue that this is exaggerated relative to the judgment of the House you would have preferred. Perhaps you believe the House exaggerated Trump's involvement. That would still not be Kamala's exaggeration.

Moreover, the spirit of fearmongering is to gin up fears where people don't already have settled opinion, and the prospective voter would really have to live under a rock not to have a settled opinion about Trump's involvement on 6 January.

When I did a quick Google scan for reputable sources framing Kamala's remarks as fearmongering, I mainly found Fox News, and one opinion writer from USA Today. That's about a 2 on the Richter scale, where most people sleep through the barely perceptible shaking.

Where the pictures started to fall off the walls due to the vigorous shaking was on the issue of Kamala actually standing for a political position, rather than her identity as a woman. As I see this, her extremely tepid reference to Donald's known history of saber-rattling around the peaceful transfer of power was a non-entity compared to this issue with her campaign. — MaxEnt 02:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: It's likely you'll not get a (required) consensus for your edit proposals. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah Personisinsterest (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Personisinsterest:

Please suggest the example about "practical updated lead part" to be reviewed, we can then update the required part after discussion with other editors for this article. I understand that we can not get 100% meet the WP:NOPV however, I also think that current lead part is biased. If you can suggest some lead parts to be updated, and other editors (including myself), will suggest the next to improve the lead part of the article to be more fair and reasonable. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we should improve the lead section of the article with a newly created section before user:Personisinsterest suggests an updated section/suggestion.discussion: it is the updated discussion for this topic.[[1]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to find ways to improve the article by choosing one of several topics, including economic issues. For example, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry poses risks to both candidates in the US-China dominance race. [[2]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

But coverage of that aspect is marginal compared to what's already in the lead; trying to give additional weight to it in order to water down criticism of Trump (which is essentially the rationale you gave above) would be both WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you want to argue that the balance of the article is off, you need to demonstrate that there isn't that much criticism of Trump in mainstream coverage - ie. you have to argue that we're giving it undue weight relative to its prominence in sources. Do you believe that mainstream coverage is precisely balanced in how critical it is of the two candidates? Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it reflects not just the content but the weight of mainstream coverage; if coverage is overwhelmingly more concerned about one candidate than the other, then the weight of our articles are going to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

agree with Aquillion. Many of the stuff proposed is small potatoes. Harris has the advantage of running as a clean state having been the VP which is basically a ceremonial role. while Trump was president for 4 years. (did that really happen or was it a dream?) Andre🚐 19:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Many users have raised the issue of improving bias, such as recording positive and negative opinions about Harris, but in order to record them, users must agree on the relevant part, and I understand that it has not been recorded yet because there has been no agreement on this yet. Regarding the opinion that it was recorded biasedly about Trump, there is related content in the link below,

[[3]], so You can write a proposal to ask users for their opinions and reach an agreement by referring to the relevant part in the relevant section, which is a neutral improvement of biased content. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:Billionten, regarding your previous suggestion, If time permits, please suggest how you can improve the original proposal you suggested. This talk subject, which is directly related to your request, was created early, but has not been resolved yet, so I think it should be resolved as soon as possible.

Your original proposal: Come on, the third paragraph is just "trump sucks he's so hateful and racist and wrong and makes conspiracy theories" to the point it might actually genuinely influence the election. I would shorten the third paragraph and also simply state that they are generally considered as wrong and not just directly saying it, maybe move that stuff to later in the article. Nothing criticizing the democrats aside from the first debate and Biden, and even that's a stretch. AT LEAST add . It's not the writing that's the problem, it's the fact that it's in a "neutral" encyclopedia that's the problem. I would edit if the article wasn't extended confirmed protected. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Personisinsterest,Kafkasmurat , User:Catboy69,User:Earl of Arundel, User:PackMecEng,User:DuneEnjoyer333,GoodDay, HAL333,User:Billionten, User:Spf121188

As per the many users' concerns and suggestions, a Political POV was placed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Man oh man, this article is just dripping with anti Trump bias. Well, this election was a spiritual battle in the Heavenlies with the forces of God versus the forces of Satan. My source is Daniel 2:21 - “It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; " Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Human-Authority,-Instituted-By-God -- Trump is certainly not perfect, but he is the man selected to lead us at this time. All the bias laced throughout this article could not stop or override God's choice. Spparky (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns over interference in US elections by POV-pushing of FALSEBALANCE

Can someone please reinsert the template:

at the beginning of the article? This was deleted by a user who does not follow WP:BRD, emphasizing the POV and created the WP:FALSEBALANCE, At least 9 users have raised the issue of the political neutrality of this Article, and the election interference concern has been ignored without consensus of many users.

[[4]] Template removal criteria - All three criteria are not met: 1)Consensus through discussion, 2)neutrality concerns are satisfactorily resolved, and 3)there was no existing talk on the issue. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

1) There is consensus. 2) The neutrality concerns have been addressed per WP:FALSEBALANCE explanations. 3) This has been discussed extensively. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you post the link(s) of the consensus? I don't think there's RfC for this. From my understanding, If there are problems of WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should see the previous discussions. In summary of Wikipedia's policy NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by the editor consensus.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Arguing that policies are "non negotiable" is exactly why we have WP:5P5, though this is to the detriment of the article by leaving people with a firm impression of political bias. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

"Trump" appears 648 times, "Kamala" appears 45 times, this article is missing lots of information, those who know about it should contribute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I8TheCompetition (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"Harris" appears 207 times, you're using the wrong search term. 207 is still significantly smaller than 648 - possibly lower than it should be - but there has certainly been a significantly greater focus on Trump than Harris in this election. It makes sense he would have many more mentions in this. Michaelofg (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In the interests of neutrality, might I suggest that the word "false" in the lede be changed to "unproven" or "controversial"? Funnyhat (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting that it be changed to "controversial" is a good idea, other than providing a "template" for the article to indicate that there is an issue and that it needs to be improved. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Orwellian scam. The only "reliable sources" are left-wing bias sources that lie for the Democratic Party, so posting the left-wing lies is okay because it is "verifiable." Only special people are allowed to edit the important articles. The people on here aren't savvy enough to realize that stuff like this article is a big part of the reason they lost. Unfortunately, their Orwellian machine doesn't always work. Some people can still think for themselves and rely on empiricism rather than what they are told to think. People are tired of the garbage put out by the left-wing legacy media, which Wikipedia is an arm of as they just aggregate all of the garbage. Take the Hunter Biden laptop for example. Anyone with any ability to think independently knew it was a real and an obvious problem, but since the media lied about it and the former intelligence agents, etc. reinforced the lie, the misinformation campaign was parroted by Wikipedia. It's a clear-cut case. It's been going on for awhile. It's a shame because there are lot of good things about Wikipedia. JimmyPiersall (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Article is excellent, especially the statistical graphics. Anti-Trump bias is laughable, keep it up. Readers understand -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think some readers may understand, but there are others who don't, so why not mark it as a template for future improvements, as there are multiple users who have been asking for bias or left-leaning content? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"Trump's embrace of far-right extremism, as well as increasingly violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric against his political opponents was described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist, unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in U.S. history"

Not only does it show an obvious false balance to only quote historians and scholars from a certain part of the political spectrum hired by corporate media, possibly to hurt a candidate whose program goes against their interests, but it's so hyperbolic that its factualness is at least as debatable as Trump's public statements.

You're telling me that he is as dehumanizing as the myriad of American political candidates who advocated ethnic cleansing of Natives, owned slaves or supported segregation? Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Alexander H. Stephens, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace etc etc? Shoshin000 (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

For what feels like the eighty-millionth time an editor has had to respond to additions of this nature, see the top two sections, "Bias in lead once again" and "Article shows signs of democratic bias". BarntToust 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, and? Does that make my viewpoint invalid? Shoshin000 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is your viewpoint, which you are entitled to. It's not our WP:CONSENSUS view. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there needs to be a RfC on this to really say that though. Almost half of the comments on here are complaining about what they feel is an apparent bias. Unless I missed it, I don't see consensus discussions: please show me if I am mistaken. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC) (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This whole article has massive issues, but they are not being addressed at all for some reason. Im not even that political or conservative but this article feels like a stain on Wikipedia because it presents itself as unreliable due to its all-consuming bias. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that sentence is that "populist, authoritarian, fascist, unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in U.S. history" is presented as an attributed opinion, but "embrace of far-right extremism, as well as increasingly violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric against his political opponents" is presented in wikivoice as if it was an undisputed fact. Besides, I doubt that historians and scholars (good historians and scholars, that is) would fall so easily to the popular temptation to use Fascist (insult) as a description of a governor who, even if they find him authoritarian, is still nowhere near the actual fascism of Hitler or Mussolini. Cambalachero (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What about this: Some historians and scholars have characterized Trump’s rhetoric and behavior as embracing far-right extremism and exhibiting increasingly authoritarian and dehumanizing language toward his political opponents, likening it to populist and authoritarian movements, with some even comparing it to fascism in ways they consider unprecedented for a U.S. political candidate Shoshin000 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What about it? It's true. Are you suggesting it's WP:UNDUE?

And Trump did embrace the far-right, and used violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric. Are you suggesting that's UNDUE? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump did embrace the far-right, and used violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric

It's not up to Wikipedia to decide that. Wikipedia merely relays what the sources say. Shoshin000 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what the sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's better, but it also has a problem in the current sentence: way too wordy. Too many descriptors that basically mean "authoritarian" in some flavor or another. What about something shorter and to the point? Besides, the lead describes the circumstances in which Trump became candidate, the usual topics of his campaign, and how historians and scholars describe him, but in the case of Harris, just the first part. I also have to understand that historians and scholars all have a negative opinion of Trump, because no positive description is given. Is that so?

And why is the opinion of historians relevant here, anyway? Aren't historians limited to the study of events that took place in the past? And a "scholar" is a generic term, it's someone specialized in a field of knowledge, but which field of knowledge? Not all scholar's opinions are relevant for this topic; so we should replace the term with a more precise one. I hope that this is just a problem of ambiguity and not a case of an argument from authority. Cambalachero (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Historians often compare the current situation to previous situations. That's kind of the reason to study history, to learn from its mistakes and to see how far we have come. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Having removed redundant words, maybe like this: Trump’s style was viewed by some scholars as breaking with traditional U.S. political norms in an unprecedented way, marked by a rhetoric they described as authoritarian, dehumanizing, some even drawing parallels to fascism.

A historian is a scholar by definition. Shoshin000 (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

my latest revision: Trump’s style and behavior, including his embrace of far-right extremism was characterized by a variety of scholars as breaking with traditional U.S. political norms in an unprecedented way, marked by a rhetoric they described as authoritarian and dehumanizing toward his political opponents, likening it to populist movements and some drawing parallels to fascism Shoshin000 (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

For the current Wikipedia, anything to the right of Lenin is considered far right, populist and fascist. It makes me smile though that they wasted so much time making this article a profound propaganda piece, and yet their candidate still lost terribly and Trump is a new president. --Novis-M (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia has a lot of incredibly biased pages but this basically reads like a leftist version of Conservapedia. K1ausMouse (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to quote (Far Left?) historians concerned about Trump then should we not also quote the likes of the Auschwitz survivor condemning Kamala for her gross misuse of the fascism label? If said Auschwitz survivor is pro-Trump then how can Trump be a Nazi? This level of linguistic abuse is dangerous and Wikipedia needs to be very very careful it doesn't join a mob. 人族 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder what that makes RationalWiki — Czello ^(music) 09:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A left-wing counterweight to Conservapedia, something Wikipedia seems to try to become regarding contemporary American politics. Shoshin000 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Simple math

The map in the info box has some errors. So, what we have so far !! In all States nd DC the elections called, except two - Nevada and Arizona. So, why in the world the map says Trump won 28 and Kamal 18 ?? 28+18 is 46, so where are two other states ?? Besides, the total electors are 538. Trump has 292 on the map, Kamala - 226. The sum - 518. Where are the rest 20 ?? Nevada and Arizona together - 17, so where are the rest 3 ?? You forgot to include Alaska 3 ?? M.Karelin (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not only we confused the number of States, but also number of electors, so lets correct it. M.Karelin (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The number of electors now corrected, what about State numbers ? M.Karelin (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The two other states are Alaska (as you suspected) and Maine, as well as one electoral vote in Nebraska. See the table above. The consensus is to only include states and their electoral votes when all of the five selected reliable sources include them. So, according to this consensus, each of the candidate's totals should be 4 EV lower (291 to 222) with the states numbers as they are now (28 to 18). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

To add, please see #Table for tallying. Once it is filled out completely, then so should the infobox be. If you see any data missing that can be filled in due to a recent call by a source, then please consider adding it in. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

One other point with math. Nobody seems to have noted that Harris needed 270 electoral votes to win, whereas Trump only needed 269. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 05:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Lowest popular vote percentage since 1992 in lede

May be worth noting that the reason Clinton's popular vote percentage was so low was a third party taking 19%. Somarain (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget California. Without that state, Trump would've won the 2016 popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Bill Clinton, not Hillary. Somarain (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead is already filled with too much WP:CRUFT, and stating this as a reason would be WP:OR, and implying would be WP:SYNTH. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

How can this claimed statistic even be determined when the number of votes is still being counted in many states? California alone is still only at 56% counted. Silverseren^C 00:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Leftist bias in this article

Everything in the early sections of this article is critical of Trump.  It seems pretty clear liberal partisanship has tainted the editing.

BTW, being indicted is just that: an indictment.  No trial has occurred, no veridct has been rendered.  That Trump was indicted for anything is irrelevant to this article, which is supposed to be discussing how the election went..

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bigdumbdinosaur I agree Kalbome22 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bigdumbdinosaur I agree Kalbome22 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidate photographs

Wikipedia should use an updated photograph of the Republican candidate. He is older, fatter, and even balder than he was in 2016. R.dulgarian (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

find something better to do troll CavDan24 (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/R.dulgarian say that @R.dulgarian has had an account since July 5, 2011, and has made 47 edits, having a sporadic editing history, including a hiatus between 2017 and 2023. Weird to point out, but I figure the trolling offender might as well have technical info put out there. BarntToust 22:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Lede is too long

Does anybody else think that, as of now, the lede is too long and should be trimmed down? Shoshin000 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a whole chunk of text analyzing the loss of Harris that I moved further down into the dedicated section, in order to make this thing shorter. Shoshin000 (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved from #Lead too long?

 – CNC (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Before I get into discussion, I would like to mention that I haven't read a lot of the rules on Wikipedia despite having over 700 edits. But I've also learned a lot about it via discussions and seeing what the Wiki looks like. Please assume good faith lol.

According to guidelines, most leads of featured articles are about 250 to 400 words. Doesn't seem like we can reach that. We could attempt a journalist lead, it's a lot shorter and more concise.

There are other election articles that seem to be a lot longer than other articles. Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 03:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Map caching

It looks like the map is being cached so changes to the file might not be seen for a long time. Is there a way to disable caching for certain files or reduce the cache time in MediaWiki? Laura240406 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BYPASS for that. Might add a FAQ for this too. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I know this trick but this doesn't work for the average reader of this page that might be confused why the map hasn't updated. Laura240406 (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe adding it to FAQ will help, but like you said, I'm not so sure for the average reader. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Electoral count

According to news sites, Trump has won Nevada. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We have Nevada light red currently since AP has not made the call. Prcc27 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Amen! beat me to that, Prcc27. BarntToust 19:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

He's up to 301, now. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Prediction markets

It would be extremely interesting to mention what the prediction markets indicated; they are often more accurate than polls. For example: [5] -- 23:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Beland (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Financial Times--2024 was a bad year for incumbent parties globally

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/e8ac09ea-c300-4249-af7d-109003afb893 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if there is a correlation, seems like WP:UNDUE trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't at all think it's undue. It's a necessary part of the discussion about why Harris lost. Inflation is global. It has been written about by Vox, CNA, American Prospect, and others. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If there are other sources other than the Financial Times, that may be fine. But I feel like the sections on why Trump won/Harris lost in general are way too verbose and seem like recentism. For starters, Trump winning wasn’t really a shock, and a year out from now, every little detail of what caused him to win is going to seem less relevant than it does a few days out from the election. Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Arizona

Why is Arizona still undecided? Jack Upland (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia decided beforehand that a collection of reliable networks had to all call a state before Wikipedia added it. Not enough networks are calling it now. WP:NORUSH BarntToust 04:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They are refusing to call it. Why wait for networks when the states have basically confirmed who has won the election at the presidential level. Qutlooker (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

...? We still need reliable sourcing for who won Arizona. That is why we are waiting. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

At this moment, all five networks (ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC) are reporting Trump at 1,492,266 votes and Harris at 1,310,383 votes with 82-83% of the expected total finished. (AP says 82%; ABC, CNN, NBC at 83%; CBS says nothing.) To add, NBC says it estimates there are 591,000 votes outstanding that have yet to be counted, which falls in line with the 82/83 percent estimates. Trump needs half of the remaining vote after minusing his lead plus one vote (or more) to win Arizona. Since Trump leads Harris by 181,883 votes, that would mean he needs 204,559 more votes which would put him at 1,696,825 votes. If Harris reaches 1,690,000 votes instead, then she likely wins the votes. (Depends on the actual remaining and votes for other groups.)

So, in short, we are waiting for one or the other's vote count to hit around 1.6m to 1.7m votes, which would likely allow for a call to be made. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump is going to win AZ if I’m being completely honest. But we are an encyclopedia, not a news article. There is no rush for us to declare a winner before the major media networks. And it would be WP:UNDUE to rely on only one network. Prcc27 (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Give it time. The grand EC total will be 312 for Trump to 226 for Harris. That's assuming there'll be no faithless electors. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

I'm not sure the hatnote is needed because the title of this article is not ambiguous. I removed it per WP:NAMB but someone else restored it. Any thoughts? Cyber the tiger (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Extreme bias

I know a lot of people have brought this up, but I think the main issue is that this article fails to bring up what made Kamala Harris and her administraton hated for, and only brings up what Donald Trump and his administration was hated for, exaggerating their views as well, and also saying uneeded things such as ‘’ Vance brought up more false claims than Walz’’ among others. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE Analysis section

Can we please clean up the analysis section..? For starters, it is extremely verbose. It reads like a news article which is a no-no per WP:NOTNEWS. We really do not need a big wall of text analyzing why Trump won and Harris lost. This is taking up a big chunk of the article and seems WP:UNDUE since most of the election coverage isn’t even about why Trump won. Seems weird to say this pundit said this, this pundit said that; it’s not very encyclopedic to give so much undue weight on why the pundits think Trump won. Also, please keep in mind it is frowned upon to remove clean up tags and templates before the issue is addressed. Prcc27 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote total

I've noticed that Trump's pop-vote total in the infobox, is bolden. Does that mean Harris can't overtake him, in the pop-vote? I'm asking since there's still votes to be reported, particularly from California. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think he did win the popular vote. But I am not sure if that is something media outlets even make a projection on, so I didn’t even bother to come up with a criteria for bolding the popular vote. Prcc27 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think Trump was the first

Wasn’t Reagen the first to be convicted? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What… can we further elaborate? Qutlooker (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blackmamba31248 Reagan was never convicted of any crime. I believe you may be mistaken with Richard Nixon and Watergate possibly. If so, Nixon himself was not convicted but resigned and faced the possibility of criminal charges related to the Watergate scandal. TheFloridaMan (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)