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 be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
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.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
2024 United States presidential election is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump 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 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 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
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Prcc27 (talk·contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Member-Elect for local Democratic Party leadership.)
Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27 Screw it, let's use his mugshot. Goes hard and is also quite recent. Buildershed (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated: five more options - Option E ,Option F ,Option G ,Option H and ,Option I - total five additional choices. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - A seems to be sufficient enough, I don't see why we need to change it, it looks recent enough. I would note though that none of these pictures seem inaccurate enough to not serve the general purpose.
I want to laugh whenever I come to this article, because American politics has become a circus. Buildershed (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, Option F is okay for me as long as Trump is smiling. my 2nd preference is option CGoodtiming8871 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would put here a new image that was published recently, so it can be considered for the infobox. Greetings
Y'know, This is the best image proposed since Option B. And since Option B is Deleted, I'll go with this one. InterDoesWiki (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd be fine with eithet Option K or L. InterDoesWiki (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump infobox images
Option A (15 July 2023; 11 months ago (15 July 2023))
Option C (28 October 2023; 7 months ago (28 October 2023))
Option D (28 October 2023; 7 months ago (28 October 2023))
Option E (29 June 2019; 4 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option F (29 June 2019; 4 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option G (29 June 2019; 4 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option H (29 June 2019; 4 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option I (29 June 2019; 4 years ago (29 June 2019))
Option J (15 July 2023; 11 months ago (15 July 2023))
Option K (6 June 2024; 13 days ago (6 June 2024))
Option L (6 June 2024; 13 days ago (6 June 2024))
They're 5 years old. What's the point when we have suitable options A and C from just last year? GhulamIslam (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the 2017 photo is a bit dated, the 2019 photo offers a more recent and positive representation (it was taken just one year ago). Compared to the frowning 2023 option, the smiling 2019 image feels more fitting for an official photo.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B: it is a recent photo, and it looks more presidential. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: A discussion on this was just opened above and thus WP:RFCBEFORE hasn't been satisfied. Let people try to reach a consensus before starting an RfC.voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually several sections open, and it is becoming very difficult to try to discuss and form a consensus. Better to centralize the discussion into an RfC. We typically decide photos via RfC anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree. Multiple discussions (mostly among the same handful of people) about what amounts to the same thing but not producing a clear and actionable consensus, isn't helpful. RfCs are useful for several things, and agreeing on the best option among a choice of available photos is often one of them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B as first choice, A as second. C looks ridiculous. A is arguably a better picture from a portrait perspective, but has distracting background elements. B doesn't have those, and is a reasonably good as a portrait, and is not a silly, hammy thing like C, so let's use that. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The later-added F and H also look fine (though the images need cropping, especially H). PPS: The even more newly added option I would also work, but should be cropped; it's very smiley, but looks much less fake or leering than several of the others. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding C, Biden and Kennedy both have the same fulsome smile in their photos, it's fine from a portrait perspective. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump just looks like he's faking it when he does it. F & H are more natural-looking smiles. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B or C are equally fine for me. "A' looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy, but we're supposed to be neutral here, for almost anyone that means using a positive-looking picture when one is available. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A or C - The lighting on B doesn't look good for an infobox. Longestview (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B is the cleanest looking. There's no guideline relating to the lighting of photographs in infoboxes. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: It is somewhat recent with it being 9 months old and, in my opinion, looks visually pretty good with him not having a awkward smile and is well lighted. B is not a bad pick but it is soon to be 1 year and 9 months old, so this is an important reason why I am holding this option back Punker85 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) ; Modified by Punker85 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it has to be that recent, after all, Biden’s presidential portrait is older (2021). I think the main argument with regards to recent photos was that Trump’s 2017 portrait was way too old for an infobox in 2024. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L: One of the most recent pictures of him here by a good amount, he doesn't look weird, in my opinion, he have a relatively neutral face and have correct lighting for me Punker85 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. He has a more neutral expression. Senorangel (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) After the update with additional options, D seems to be the best photo overall. Senorangel (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose a photo of Donald Trump, I would still choose his main presidential portrait, but if one of the three above is complete, B would be better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. C looks very unnatural, as said by many people. While A Isn't really Presidential like. InterDoesWiki (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. Most representative of how he currently looks, especially in regard to his weight loss, and the best match with Biden's picture out of the three. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The new “option D” is not good; eyes looking away from camera, mic in the way, head slanted. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - used in our article for the Republican primaries. In B he's blending into the background chameleon-style and C and D are fairly poor. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B - neutral expression, portrait-style. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B — neutral, non-distracting. A would be my second choice (per Herostratus: "[A] looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy"...) and C is my last choice, as it looks entirely ridiculous. What's a picture from, the dentist's office? Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B per reasoning given by other editors here. It definitely should not C. KlayCax (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B - seems quite moderate looking, to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A or a more recent photo of him from his trial. He looks pale and sickly in B and not his usual orange self! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A because C and D are poor for reasons others have mentioned, whereas B makes Trump blend in. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Option B is currently nominated for deletion, which could impact this RfC. [1]Prcc27 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume That is going to be the deciding factor, because it seems more than a majority have reached a consensus on using B, though the RFC is still ongoing. InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A first choice, D second choice. There's too much shadow in B and C looks a bit goofy. Some1 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A first choice, B second choice if B is not deleted. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is my only choice. B is too shadowy, C is too smiley, D has a mic in the way and his head is slanted head, so those are out of the question IMHO.Which is not to say there can't be some other picture E which is better than any of these, but that's a bit besides the point.Subjectively, A also seems more representative of his personality—which precise adjectives it conveys is left as an exercise to the reader, as different people may assign positive or negative ones, but in any event it is very, very much a quote-unquote "Trump" look167.88.84.136 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is the best option here. C and D have downsides, A does not; it's neutral. I was going to add that the lighting on B is a tad dramatic, but seems like we don't need to worry about that anymore. TheSavageNorwegian 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
K, now that it's been introduced, is a very good option, probably my favorite. L works great too, and the lighting is more normal. I'm still happy with A otherwise. (Wow, this rfc has been going on a while!) TheSavageNorwegian 22:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should assume Option B is an option if/until it is actually deleted, but of course users that prefer option B should have a backup option just in case. Prcc27 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it's a fairly open and shut case. The user uploaded a number of Getty images because he did not misunderstand the license, and they are subsequently getting pulled. There is zero reason to think we would retain it. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But as of now, it has not yet been deleted. Prcc27 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - For the high visibility contrast. B looks likely to be deleted, but is also low contrast and fades into the background. C is ridiculous and objectively doesn't even look like the subject. D would be my second choice. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated opinion with new options added: Expressly unchanged, adding that for all options added (E-I) are not as good as option A or D, primarily because the lighting is really bad. E also has another ridiculous facial expression which makes it inappropriate. The contrast for F, G, and H is so bad that he basically whites-out into the background. I is slightly better in this regard, but only slightly... it's also too small, and the straight face-on angle does not accurately reflect his appearance. And because it's come up a few times, I agree that his official portrait should not be used. Fieari (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C “a photo of Donald Trump with a warm smile instills hope. I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024. However, if Photo C is not chosen, could someone locate an alternative picture of Donald Trump wearing a cheerful smile? For instance, could anyone locate a copyright-free photograph of a smiling face, (in other word: A winning smile), akin to the "4 big smile" featured in The Guardian News below? Additionally, may anyone peruse the collection of photos taken at the White House or any potential copyright-free locations. thus far? If we cannot find an appropriate photo now, I hope we can replace it when a suitable one becomes available. News link: [1]Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the heck should "I believe that a positive expression enhances the likelihood of winning the presidential election in November 2024." factor at all into our analysis LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the person who took 3 of these photos being considered, why isn't his official portrait just being used? He doesn't look that different. Calibrador (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point !
Since the official photo clearly identifies Tump, and serves its purpose well, would it be acceptable to use it again instead of replacing it? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t necessarily disagree with that consensus, but I really do not like photos A, C, and D. If we are not going to use the presidential portrait, I feel like we should still use a photo that’s presidential. And these photos fall short of that IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C, similar to Biden's picture and doesn't have a weird facial expression. Nosferattus (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. Not going to repeat the same arguments made above, but B has the large shadow, C is alright but is not the best photo, D has a strange facial expression, and I am against using the official portrait. Yeoutie (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Official is my preference. A is my second choice. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option H - I like the "Option H " because this photo has a professional and reliable look. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What brought about the need to change the image? He doesn't look that much different in each of the options so what caused the start of this RfC? Tepkunset (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern with the new photos is that though they're not as old as the presidential portrait, they're still not new; correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all from 2019, right? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Biden photo is from 2021, while the current Trump photo is from last year. The whole impetus for changing Trump's photo was that it was out of date compared to Biden's.
Thanks for the ping. I still think A is the best out of those options. Regarding the new additions: E has a noisy background; F is blurry; G is not bad, but the text in the background is distracting; H has his hair blended in with the background; I is blurry. Some1 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know there's a consensus not to use Trump's portrait, but some of these pics are during his presidency. Can't see why the logic behind not using Trump's official portrait doesn't pertain to some pics taken 2-3 years after the official portrait was taken. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If option B is going to be deleted? Then stick with option A. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B first choice (neutral expression), A second choice. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comments: Should a sentence mentioning Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the January 6 United States Capitol attack be included in the lead?[edit]
^Balz, Dan (January 6, 2024). "Three years after Jan. 6 attack, the political divide is even wider". The Washington Post. ISSN0190-8286. Retrieved April 14, 2024. Three years on, there is no escaping the impact on American politics of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Other issues will significantly influence the 2024 presidential election, but few define more clearly the contrasts, stakes and choice that will face voters in November than Jan. 6.
Support Trump's former attempts to overturn the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history, and the January 6 attack was the first attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power in recent memory and is an event of historical significance, as the provided sources state. The fact that a former American president is now running for reelection directly after these attempts is noteworthy, and deserving a mention in the lead of the article. These events are also mentioned multiple times within the body of the article itself. BootsED (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support without "notably" per SMcCandlish. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without "notably", per MOS:INSTRUCT and MOS:EDITORIAL. The facts (which are supportable with bulk of the RS material, even if there is a strong current of denialism in far-right echochamber media) are highly pertinent to the subject, and arguably among the most important aspects of it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good catch. I agree, the word should be removed. BootsED (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the wording without “notably” if and only if there are enough sources to back it up, per WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the lead of this article should focus on the 2024 presidential election, and given the lead currently mentions Trump's conviction for 34 felonies this seems a bit like overkill. There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. AdamBlacktalk • contribs 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no mention of criticism against Biden or Kennedy (however less serious the criticism levelled against either might be), so doesn't appear to comply with WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if I'm weighing in on the overall RFC question, but NPOV does not mean we need to include criticisms against all candidates. It just merely means we should not be giving undue weightage to one over the other. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. If one candidate has much more serious and widely covered criticisms levelled against them, that's reason enough to include just that. Whether that applies here... That's for the RFC to decide. Soni (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have worded it poorly, but my point was that piling on criticism after criticism of Trump in the lead with no mention of criticisms against the other candidates would be undue and not representative of a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting we should mention criticism against Biden and Kennedy, but think that adds to the argument that it would be undue to add everything against Trump in the lead. AdamBlacktalk • contribs 08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) Oppose as proposed - the sentence should certainly not include the word 'notably', which is improper editorialising. As for whether it's due in the lead at all, I'm not sure that it is. It's a kind of 'sky is blue' assertion - this thing that happened in 2024 happened after something that happened in 2020 - well, yes, obvs. For it to be worth mentioning it would need to go on to explain how the former event influenced the latter one. So yeah, the sentence as proposed isn't worth adding. GirthSummit (blether) 09:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the word "notably" was removed, would you support the proposal? I agree that the word "notably" should not be there. BootsED (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons I stated previously in other sections above.XavierGreen (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be undue given the length of the lead. The most important thing about Trump in 2024 is probably his convictions. CurryCity (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that at this time it is undue unless we vastly expand the lead. We could easily include a passing reference to it after the election though when Trump calls the results into question again. Yeoutie (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have said, Trump's 2024 convictions are notable, but the 2020 and 2021 events have long since passed and their only notability to this election is if those actions were among his 34 felonies, or if after the election there are interviews stating that these events are why people didn't vote for Trump. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as undue weight. Other issues have been shown to be more important to voters. The current arrangement elegantly addresses weight vs. thoroughness. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are curious as to where the sentence in the lead would go, it was previously located after the sentence, "His predecessor Donald Trump, a member of the Republican Party, is running for re-election for a second, non-consecutive term, after losing to him in 2020." BootsED (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His attempts to overturn the last election are more deserving of the lead than his conviction in the New York case imo.
That case concerns his attempt to illegally influence the 2016 election by preventing the MacDougall and Daniels affairs becoming public. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I mean is: why should January 6 be singled out among the other attempts to overturn 2020 in the lead, and not the fake electors plot? GhulamIslam (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Stormy Daniels affair be stated as alleged in the article?[edit]
There's been a debate on here (and on related pages) on whether the Stormy Daniels affair should be stated as "alleged" or simply stated as factual at this point? Many have stated that the conviction de facto concluded that Trump had a sexual affair with Stormy Daniels. (Through logical implication.) However, he was never de jure stated to have done so. What should we state? Several news stations have now taken it as a fact. Others are still saying "alleged". KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged until convicted by a jury, is my understanding. If the affair didn't happen, why would you pay $130,000 and hide the payments for it? I think the logical implication is right. This discussion would probably be better on the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal page, though. BootsED (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is plausible to pay hush money to someone if you think they are about to publicly accuse you of something that didn’t happen. Prcc27 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, if you think the mere allegation will damage your reputation and don't want to deal with that. I don't think "until convicted by a jury" is the right standard, though. That will never happen, seeing as it's not a crime to have an affair, and hasn't been in a very long time. —Compassionate727(T·C) 22:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that neither "alleged" or "proven" is quite right under the circumstances. This article currently reads "payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels (regarding an alleged sexual encounter between them)". I would suggest a change to the verbiage used at Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York which says "payments made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about a sexual encounter between them". GreatCaesarsGhost 14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose same. All the jury found was that he was guilty of charged aagainst him, misreporting payments, nothing else.XavierGreen (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we are not meaning to suggest that affair as true or proven. Rather, we want to refrain from suggesting that it is false by using a loaded phrase per MOS:ALLEGED, given the preponderance of facts. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
For this excerpt:
…the bill was opposed by Trump who claimed it would hurt Republican's ability to run on immigration as a campaign issue.
"Republican's" should be changed to "Republicans'" (apostrophe after s), since the subject is Republicans collectively.
Additionally, the commas after quotes such as "not people," and "drill, baby, drill," should be after the quotation marks, since these commas are generally not part of the quotes themselves.
Lastly, in Democracy:
Trump has played down but not ruled out violence after the 2024 election if he does not win, stating, "it depends."
The comma after “stating” is not needed. TavianCLirette (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done I have moved the apostrophe in Republican's and moved the commas after the quotation marks. I have left the comma after "stating", however. It has been a very long time since I studied English but I was taught that it was correct to use a comma after words/phrases like [they] stated, [they] said, [they] opined, etc. so I believe this is grammatically correct. As it's been a while and I'm a mathematician not a linguist, I'm happy for someone else to make the change if they disagree with me. AdamBlacktalk • contribs 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:QUOTEPUNCT, the comma is optional. As such, I don't see a need for it to be changed. SilverLocust💬 07:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not yet officially known whether Biden and Trump are the candidates. Shouldn't their pictures be removed from the infobox until then? Cenbutz1 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are the presumptive nominees, and we make that clear in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of the election, and removing them would mean leaving out valuable information. Prcc27 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Cooper has supposedly announced a bid for president, see: [3].
I’m guessing it should probably NOT be mentioned here, as it would likely be considered a joke/promotional stunt rather than a serious campaign effort. He does have an “Alice for President 2024” website, but if you click on the “Campaign Trail” link, it takes you to a list of upcoming concerts for his current tour. He has “run for president” multiple times since 1972, but in true Alice Cooper fashion, it’s always been more of a shock act than anything serious. I doubt he’s even filed with the FEC, or is planning to. And if we included everyone who has joked that they were running for president in 2024, the list would have to be a whole lot longer. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coolxsearcher1414, you added Illinois and Mississippi to the table in the Forecasts section, based on 538's forecasts. However, a note was added yesterday describing how 538 (and Economist) are not used to determine which states are included in the table. By my estimation, if IL and MS are added, then no less than ten other states are in similar situations and should also be added to the table (CT, DE, IN, KS, LA, MO, MT, NY(!), SC, and WA). I think it is preferable to leave IL and MS out at this time, based on the solid/safe categorization of nearly all other forecasters. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit has resolved the issue by removing IL and MS from the table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Option A (15 July 2023)
Option C (28 October 2023)
Option D (28 October 2023)
Option E (29 June 2019)
Option F (29 June 2019)
Option G (29 June 2019)
Option H (29 June 2019)
Option I (29 June 2019)
Option J (15 July 2023)
Option K (6 June 2024)
Option L (6 June 2024).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
3.jpg)
.jpg)
2.jpg)
5.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Comment: My concern with the new photos is that though they're not as old as the presidential portrait, they're still not new; correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all from 2019, right? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Partly done I have moved the apostrophe in Republican's and moved the commas after the quotation marks. I have left the comma after "stating", however. It has been a very long time since I studied English but I was taught that it was correct to use a comma after words/phrases like [they] stated, [they] said, [they] opined, etc. so I believe this is grammatically correct. As it's been a while and I'm a mathematician not a linguist, I'm happy for someone else to make the change if they disagree with me. Adam Black talk • contribs 17:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}