The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
2016 United States presidential election was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Consensus on pre-election discussions about presentation of candidates
Order of candidates in the infobox: It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC at the article United States presidential election, 2016 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for ordering candidates in the infobox [pre-election]: order based on results of the candidates or their parties from the previous presidential general election.
Infobox inclusion (pre-election): It has been agreed by consensus discussion in 2012 that presidential general election articles will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox prior to the election: Candidates will be included in the infobox who can mathematically win 270 Electoral Votes through ballot access (appearing on the ballot) and/or write-in status (with pledged electors).
In the last paragraph (#6) of the first section: "but it "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government." is not NPV and Politico is right leaning. The term "collusion" is nebulous and it was established that the Trump campaign in addition to the infamous "Wikileaks, if you have the emails" comment prompting the hack, that campaign shared internal polling and direct contacts with Russian state actors in addition to having members prosecuted (Flynn, accepting a pardon, accepts guilt). This is unprecedented in American history. To make a weak-tea statement about this is totally typical for this site, but if you want to actually follow your own rules, you will attempt to make a statement about the contacts with foreign state actors, the fact Mueller declined to make a prosecution recommendation leaving it to Barr and subsequently indicated pretty clearly he felt misrepresented by Barr's characterization, the unprecendented actions of Barr to mischaracterize the conclusions and his tantamount to purjury before Congress about it. Won't hold my breath. Wouldn't want to upset MAGA with reality now would we. All of this can be worded such that only the facts of what occured is presented, without giving commentary or leaning towards a conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.180.170 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfC:Change Trump photo to one that was from 2015-2016, not after the election
This appears to have been a healthy discussion. Proponents of the image replacement advanced that File:Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_10_(cropped).jpg is from before Trump took office, and thus better represents his physical appearance on 20 Janauary 2017. Opponents of the image replacement noted concerns about the quality of the image, as well as consistency with other election articles. Referring to MOS:LEADORDER, the MOS only requires that "the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative ..."; MOS:IMAGELEAD adds that these images "should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Both images meet these criteria, though the official portrait does better reflect "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works".
Without any clear policy instruction, selection thus defers to consensus, one tenet of which is that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." As an extrapolation of this tenet, consensus is ascertained not only based on the discussion here (wherein !votes are relatively similar in number), but also by community standards other words. Referring to the articles on the 2020, 2008, 2002, 1994, 1988, and 1980 presidential elections as of this time stamp, only one article (the 1988 United States presidential election) does not use the official portrait of the individual elected. There is thus an existing practice for the infoboxes for United States presidential elections to use official portraits, which implies a consensus. Based on this review, there does not appear to be a consensus to replace the image in the infobox.
That being said, also proposed during this discussion was the first official portrait of Trump; no consensus has been reached on the feasibility of using this image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose changing the Trump photo to this (File:Donald Trump 2016 cropped.jpg) from Wikicommons. The photo used at the moment is from 2017, which is after the election took place. Clinton's photo is from 2016. This would make it consistent. CNC33 (. . .talk)23:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I second this proposal. (Although I do think this version (attached) looks better.) A recent edit changed JB's photo in the 2020 election to a photo from before the election, which I personally believe is better for chronological(?) purposes. I do think a broader discussion is needed for all U.S. presidential elections. Longestview (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: I also think consistency is key. And it is common place throughout all the other presidential election articles to use the presidential portrait if the candidate goes on to win the presidency. Prcc27 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
after checking, I can confirm that is not the case, there are multiple U.S Presidential Election Articles that do not use the presidential portrait. (If you want me to, I can get a list.) InterDoesWiki (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I meant all the recent presidential elections (all the ones in my lifetime). Changing Trump’s photo would put this article out of step with the other articles of this century. Many users on the 2024 presidential election article have expressed a desire to use presidential portraits as the photo, so long as the portrait isn’t too outdated (i.e. 7 year difference). Prcc27 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Neither the 2000 nor the 2008 election articles use the official Presidential portraits for george w. Bush or barack obama, but the 2004 and 2012 do, cuz by that time, they were presidents EarthDude (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I think every election infobox should use a good photograph of the candidate that was taken before- or at least very close to the time of the election, and its anachronistic to use a photograph from 2017 to represent an election in 2016. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for the reasons above. The proposed pic is more representative of him during the election cycle, and matches the age of the Hillary one. — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say that it doesn't matter at all. I see we keep the old one. The quality is bad on it (zoom in on it) and the background is unreal and it is weird to have. amicrophone in the picture. I say we chage Leikstjórinn (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Biden phtoto was taken after his election. I think this is stupid, it's not like he changed looks in the middle of the time of election day and photograph day Leikstjórinn (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that image is of poorer quality (face pose, microphone, too zoomed-in) than the official photograph, and it's silly to pretend that a photo taken just one year later somehow doesn't get the job done. And if we're desperate to replace the image, why that one? There were exhaustive discussions prior to the election about which image to choose, and I don't believe that was the one that was landed on. Can we just leave these images alone? Nojus R (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I Think it is far more professional to use the much higher quality portrait for whoever wins the election. This goes for every single president's page. And like Leikstjorinn said, They look basically exactly the same in 2017 vs 2016, so I don't think any real change is necessary. Almost every presidential election page has official portraits for first term winners, and I feel like changing almost every president's picture over a 1 year difference is not really necessary. I also think that using the official portrait helps to visually differentiate the winner vs the loser, and I feel like switching that out with random campaign photos makes the pages feel more dull. Nousername46000 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I think it would be more appropriate to use the photo suggested above rather than the first official portrait. In Obama's case, I think it's because his first official photo looks better and fits him better than the previous photos. However, Donald Trump's first official photo has an awkward facial expression and doesn't look very friendly as an official photo. However, the photo suggested above is a suitable photo because it looks friendly enough to use and looks good. It would be better if he had a smiling expression, but e Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with using a Gage Skidmore candid, and not a particularly good one—blurry background and mic obscuring Trump's tie—when we have an official portrait released just 2 months after this election. See Prcc27's comments above about the consistency of using presidential portraits in election articles.
As for his 'friendliness', it's an official portrait approved by the Trump team, so that's obviously the look he wanted to convey. He actually has a slight smile—you can see the corners of his mouth are raised—he looks a lot friendlier than in his mug shot. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this discussion is stil open is it looked to end in Early August in a concensus to change the picture. But it gained traction afterwards, and became a Full RFC in September. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Like 80% of people on here, I agree, photos/portraits should be taken approximately at the time the election occurred, and not many years after. Virtually every president ages considerably after just 4 years time, little lone, 8 years.
This cannot be considered an RfC because it did not follow the requirements of an RfC. Still, maybe this can be closed with some consensus as a regular discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? No, I think? I am not suggesting any 'additional RFC requirements' as it is too late to turn this into a proper RfC. I am saying that as the proposal failed to follow the steps of an RfC as noted at WP:RFC. that it fails as one. However, there might still be merit in this being formally closed as a consensus might have been reached above over the last half year that could be applied. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I would like to receive other users opinions on the proposal to officially close this discussion RfC, which has been ongoing for nearly 6 months, by summarizing the agreement. I would like to ping the relevant users.
1) Previously, when pinging other talk pages, there were cases where the ping was not delivered due to typos or the user-names of the participating users were missing.
2) This time, I checked the names of each user more carefully.
However, if there are typos or missing users, I would appreciate it if you could let me know.
3) A user with knowledge of [Process] advised that this RfC does not meet the necessary conditions and therefore cannot be an full RfC.[[1]] However, I would like to ask for your opinions on the proposal to officially close it by summarizing and synthesizing the opinions of users over the past 6 months and recording the agreements.
It is said that users who did not participate in this RfC can summarize and close the RfC.
I understand that all users who participated in the RfC can also give their opinions in the RfC closing summary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goodtiming8871. I don't believe you need my opinion on this again when I gave it to you yesterday above this sub-section. If it helps somehow, then I will redo my opinions briefly: You have a mistake in your courtesy pings; This is not a RfC, but a discussion; Despite that, you might be able to still have this closed if a consensus appears to have formed. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thank you for your feedback, I updated my comment above for clarification. I would like to have a consensus for a discussion. Since this is not an RFc, can someone summarize and synthesize the comments?Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood my comment, so let me expand and continue. I mentioned earlier that you might still be able to have this closed if a consensus appears to have formed. Based on your comments, it seems that you believe a consensus formed. Thus, I will specifically mention Wikipedia:Closure requests. As stated at WP:CR: Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines). Follow the steps listed next to the third billiard ball and wait either for a formal close or for a response at WP:CR. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that there's Wikipedia closure requests. It was unclear because some previous talk were closed without asking via Wikipedia closure request. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page discussions get closed for a multitude of reasons with some of them being a close following a discussion to determine consensus. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section `Electoral results` lists the electoral vote total for the Trump-Pence ticket at 305. This is a mistake, since that ticket only received 304 votes (there was an additional vote from a faithless elector for Paul-Pence, which is included in the table).
Another way to verify the inconsistency: the sum of the Electoral Votes listed in the `Electoral results` table is 539, whereas there should only 538 total. 74.67.225.73 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This quote is one of note that I believe deserves to be added as it was not only repeated during the 2016 election but I see it around the internet to this day, usually co-opted by Democrats during moments of Republican slip-ups (for instance, the ineffectiveness of the January 6th riots). Bixerino (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that recent changes were made that removed the individual voteshare tables for the libertarian and green parties and instead grouped all third party votes together. This is a bad change and I don't know why it was done. The 2016 third party voteshare was quite and and split among a lot of diffrent groups (Libertarian, Green, McMullen in Utah and Idaho, Bernie Sanders in Vermont), to group them all together is a disservice. If anyone would like to make a positive case for this change feel free to do so here. Otherwise I will start reverting back to the previous chart formatting. Gordfather69 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Victorious candidate did not lose home state in 1968
@Peaceray: I assume it is this line in the article: By losing New York, Trump became the fourth and most recent victorious candidate to lose his home state, which also occurred in 1844, 1916, and 1968. Some people consider California to be his home state, but the 1968 United States presidential election article lists New York primarily due to the Congressional Record and other sources from the time.
"Trump's surprise victories were perceived to have been assisted by [...] the influence of Sanders–Trump voters who refused to back her after Bernie Sanders dropped out"
Why is this notable? The number is in line with similar proportions from other elections, if anything it might be slightly lower than usual.
The linked page cites estimates of 6-12% of Sanders supporters voting for Trump. In 2008, about 15% of Democrats who supported Clinton the primary switched to vote for McCain in the general election. [3]
There is also a wiki page for Obama-Trump voters which made up 11-15% of Trump's vote share, but that page is not even linked to on this one, even though there are far more Obama-Trump voters than Sanders-Trump voters. joft (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
538 predictions instead of RCP in "Predictions" table?
RCP's average includes all available polls without weighing based on historical accuracy. This means outlier pollsters like Rasmussen weight the same as more historically reliable sources (sometimes weighed even heavier because tracking polls release weekly, even daily). Using RCP's predictions also understates just how shocking Trump's over-performance was. RCP's final predictions were more bullish on Trump than everyone else in the mainstream because they included the few pollsters who gave DJT more than a puncher's chance. Ryanjackson10 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible addition of Margin Swing from the 2012 Election
Hello, I wanted to propose the idea of incorporating a margin swing analysis, similar to the one shown in the table of results from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Results).
In my view, margin swings offer valuable insights into how states allocate their electoral votes over time. As you're likely aware, swing states play a crucial role in every election cycle, and tracking these swings helps highlight how states shift politically, both in and out of "swing state" territory.
Moreover, given the significant shifts in states that weren't traditionally considered swing states before the election, visualizing these margin swings would provide a clearer understanding of how the final vote count evolved. Higgs32584 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is evidence that people who post articles on Wiki (and possibly Wiki itself) is not true journalism nor simple facts. "Faithless" is an opinion of the writer. A true journalist does not display his/her biases. They present the facts as they are. Obvious bias does not belong in a page or article comprised of what should be simple facts. It should be removed. 2603:9001:8F00:982:8C40:4671:A7EF:205D (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the actual term. See our article on it: Faithless elector. You see how those words "faithless electors" is in blue? That's called a wikilink. Please educate yourself on the matter before going off half-cocked. (That's an actual term too.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.jpg)
Additional information needed What does that have to do with this article? Peaceray (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done applies here for the above. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
