Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Bias needs to be fixed

looks so biased. Remove the paragraph where you baselessly talk about Trump’s. There was more fearmongering from the other side with threats of fascism and Hitler and end of democracy. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe there wouldn't be such talk if he hadn't said that he'd "be a dictator on day one", that we "wouldn't have to vote again", and that he would "terminate the Constitution". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Khajidha Can you provide a reliable source for Trumps claims? From what I see those terms have been said by his opponents, which is not uncommon for the opponent to talk about the other side in such manner. Both sides do that to each other just go back in history.

@Yasarhossain07 If you have any suggestions that can be backed up with reliable sources, then just suggest them and see if others agree with you. But this topic is a hot spot right now so I would just lay back and watch. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Every one of the things I mentioned are direct quotes from Trump himself. I do not have time right now, but will look tomorrow for the exact sources.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you will find in your research that the phrases you provided were taken completely out of context. I don't like Trump either but the media did themselves no favors leading up to this election. For example, this is the "dictator on day one" quote with the rest of the statement:

“We love this guy,” Trump said of Hannity. “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”

The president of the US doesn't need to literally be a "dictator" to do these things, so this is a great example of hyperbolic campaign rhetoric. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you completely 71.210.42.253.

In the US the president can issue policies and orders to an extent without breaking the constitution. And if you think that this is some crazy idea look at all the orders and polices that Biden and Harris gave during their presidency.

And the the claims as stated by 71.210.42.253 are taken in to context then it makes perfect sense that he is saying he wants to get things done as soon as he is in office. You need context for everything, without it nothing would make sense, if you could take words out of any sentence and rebuild that sentence then you are just making them say what you want. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if we write those off as "hyperbole" or "jokes" (despite my finding his ease of use of such jokes disgusting and worrying in itself), he also made claims that immigrants were poisoning the blood of the nation. This is a phrase that was actually used by Hitler in Mein Kampf. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141

--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Khajidha, with all due respect, and I genuinely mean that because you aren't being rude or anything and I see you make tons of great edits elsewhere, I think you have too strong of a personal political bias to edit this article in a fair way. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

They are bias because they are quoting Trump? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Accurately quoting someone requires the full context of their statement. It is certainly fair for someone to disagree with the rather ugly language, and it's not something I would ever say myself, but making the now-tired jump all the way to "Trump is Hitler" points to a level of personal political bias that has real potential to impact the neutrality of edits. I would have no issue saying the same thing about an editor who compared Biden to an equally distasteful figure.

A politician suggesting that "immigrants", in general, are negatively affecting the country would surely be condemned by any reasonable person. However, when the statement is not simply about all immigrants but specifically immigrants who enter the country illegally and commit serious crimes, the statement means something entirely different. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Negatively affecting the country" is not the same as "poisoning the blood". Whether it is made about legal or illegal immigrants is immaterial here. "Poisoning the blood" is an explicit, racist statement. It is literally a Nazi belief. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but we are not having the same conversation. You would be more likely to sway the opinions of others if, say, black and brown voters found Trump's words so repugnant that they did not vote for him, but that is simply not the case as we can see with the results of this election. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I am fine with immigrants that come legally and would treat them like any other American, but if they come illegally then they have already broken the law and see no reason why they should not be deported or sent to jail, with deported the better option since they should not be in the US.

If you want to come to a country - any country do so legally, it is a lot easier.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

So instead of arguing that there isn't bias, you argue that the bias is warranted? Sounds like proof that there's bias that needs to be addressed. 209.23.50.16 (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That was said tongue in cheek. 2603:8001:3400:3E:E9E5:5612:8CB5:C45B (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If everyone is complaining about bias in the article, then it’s a problem. 67.0.238.217 (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this is a clear democrat smear campaign Bested124 (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• The focus and balance of the article reflects the focus and balance of coverage among the mainstream media; putting our thumb on the scale to "correct" that balance just because some editors disagree with it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  What happens when the mainstream media coverage has a thumb on the scale? Simply parroting their viewpoints is not enough to build a neutral encyclopedia. I think it is fair to say that there are enough Americans, not just Wikipedia editors, who disagree with mainstream, left-leaning outlets that the reliability of coverage from those outlets should be reevaluated after this election cycle, at the least.

  I've seen multiple attempts to discuss the reliability of these sources shut down before they could even start; that is not doing ourselves any favors. As encyclopedia editors our job is not to just copy over what sources at WP:RS/P say, but to critically analyze what those sources say and compare it to reality. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why should we put our thumb on the scale? If we did that then we are just as bad right? If this was a market and the person that we purchased our meat from put his thumb on the scale, then should we do like wise? No cause when the police found out we would be charged just the same as the other person. So that is why we don't put our thumb on the scale. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 15:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• As encyclopedia editors our job is not to just copy over what sources at WP:RS/P say, but to critically analyze what those sources say and compare it to reality. This is specifically untrue. An encyclopedia summarizes what the best sources say, with balance based on their relative weight; it does not perform new research or "correct" the record. We have numerous policies to that effect, including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. WP:NPOV itself is specifically worded to make it clear that neutrality, from the perspective of an encyclopedia, means reflecting the sources. Additionally (and this may be one reason why you feel our coverage doesn't reflect what you're personally seeing), we are not just supposed to reflect what Americans believe - as Wikipedia:Systemic bias says, our goal is to be an international encyclopedia; we actively try to avoid giving undue weight to American perspectives. If you take a step back and think about how the international community views the 2024 election (and especially the international academic community, which, as an encyclopedia, would be our main focus), it's clear that our coverage is pretty closely in alignment with what's written there. You say that you know a lot of Americans who disagree with Wikipedia; but this is ultimately by design - our goal is not to reflect the world-view of nationalists within any specific country, but to reflect an international perspective, which many nationalists in particular are inevitably going to take issue with. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  WP: IS NOT

  see also: WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT is not 'what the best sources say' ...encyclopedic content is limited to a basic "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.'

  Being mindful of information direction can help avoid misinterpreting accepted knowledge to mean 'best sources'

  i.e. 'to reflect the view held by an 'academic community" regarding its subject.'

(this works backwards from an encyclopedia's function as a •square one - type of resource material for a wide, very generalized audience [everyone])

• see WP: NOT TEXTBOOK

  WP: NOT SOAPBOX

  WP: NOTNEWS

  "'accepted knowledge" specifically excludes not accepted' (i.e. 'rejected') data content Pimprncess (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including false claims that they are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party, of which there is no evidence."

How can an opinion be false? Rxm1054 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

When your opinion is contrary to facts, it is false. It may be "your opinion" that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not flat. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a fact that it wasn't "rigged" or "election interference". It's an opinion based on your own interpretation. Scientific facts aren't open for interpretation like the motivations behind a criminal trial. Rxm1054 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

When someone commits crimes, prosecuting them for them is not "rigging" anything. If being prosecuted for your own criminal acts interferes with your electoral chances, that is on YOU. Not the prosecutor. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you if they did commit the crime. And while I know that he has been found guilty I hold the opinion that he was charged due to political motivations. The reasons for me thinking that are these:

1. Why now? This happened 15+ years ago.
2. Why did she say that it did not happen when it first came out years ago?
3. Why so many felony counts? Sure he may have made 32 payments, but they are for one advent not 32 advents.
4. Why did they allow a judge that had so much prejudice against him?
5. Why did they only have people that were against Trump speak in court?

All of this seems like there was prior motive for this court case. I understand that this is only my opinion. I am fine if someone else has their own opinion and they are free to state it if they wish.

@Khajidha Please try to keep it civil, you using the ALLCAPS makes it seem that you are shouting. A better way would have been to use Italic's or Bold, they don't give the impression that you are shouting but still give force/meaning to what you say. Just a recommendation. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

1. & 2. When sex is involved, people quite often don't make accusations at the time. Look at all the rape and sexual assault cases that come out years later. They also often deny it. Even to themselves. There are elements of personal shame involved.

3. Separate payments = separate charges. I don't see a problem here.

4. From my vantage point, the judge showed far too much deference to him. Any other defendant would have spent multiple nights in lock up for contempt.

5. This is a blatant falsehood. Both Daniel Sitko and Robert Costello testified for the defense.

I hardly think that using caps for a single word would indicate shouting. That would just be silly. Why would I shout a single word? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok after review you are correct on 1.,2. & 5. but it still seems to me like they went over board with 32 charges. The event is what mattered - would it have been any better if he payed 1 large amount rather then 32 smaller amounts? My point is the fact there were 32 payments does not increase the amount of damage that was done. And that judge had it in for him right from the start - which is unconstitutional "you are innocent until proven guilty" and the judge in the US is to not have prejudice to one side or the other in cases, but that is a lot harder to do when you are wildly known and liked or hated as Trump is.

I do not mean to get you upset - I just was pointing it out as it is harder to gauge how people are trying to use ALLCAPS in relation to angerly shouting at you. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"the judge in the US is to not have prejudice to one side or the other" Sounds like a fairy tale. The judges typically side with specific political factions or with whoever offers the best bribes. Dimadick (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You may think that, but it is the law in the US. Sorry. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So you're of the opinion that it wasn't rigged. Others are of the opinion that it was. Neither are false. A legitimate encyclopedic entry does not describe certain opinions as false. When that happens it means the editor has bias and is describing opinions they disagree with as false. Rxm1054 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The opinion that it was rigged IS false and it's WP:FALSEBALANCE to suggest the possibility that it is true. It's WP:FRINGE to promote this view, not "editorial bias". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

An opinion can't be true or false because they are subjective. That's why it shows bias to call certain opinions false. Rxm1054 (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Whoever wrote this article about the 2024 election made it no secret that he/she is a registered democrat/Harris supporter. The claim that Trump engaged in "anti-immigrant fearmongering" is completely false and misleading. And that's just one example of the biased tone of this article. AstrosFan30 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement that Trump engaged in "anti-immigrant fearmongering" is very well sourced. There is a little superscript (a) beside the words, which links to ten different sources. This is how Wikipedia works. If reliable sources say something, we can say it here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

But that's an opinion about him. There's a big difference between whoever at the NYT is of the opinion that Trump engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering and stating it as a matter of fact.

If you took an opinion from a right wing source about the Harris campaign engaging in fear mongering stating their opponent is a threat to democracy it would be equally incorrect.

Just because a reliable source expresses an opinion doesn't mean you state it as a matter of fact. Rxm1054 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

FFS. It's TEN reliable sources!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Then you state that whoever from wherever is of the opinion that he engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering. You don't state the opinions of journalists as facts. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not "opinion", it's "reporting". Do you understand the difference? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's both if a journalist is reporting their opinions on a presidential candidate. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of facts. Not a collection of opinions.

Saying that this journalist claimed a candidate engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering is a statement of fact.

Taking their opinion and presenting it as a matter of fact is something else.

If you take a journalist claiming that Kamala is "pushing a radical far-left agenda" and state it as Kamala Harris pushed a radical far-left agenda during her campaign you can't expect anyone to think that's a legitimate encyclopedic entry or not biased. Rxm1054 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that has more to do with the fact that she isn't "far left" at all. Trump, on the other hand, has used Nazi imagery and terminology. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

She's described herself as radical. That doesn't mean it's a fact and should be presented as factual information in an encyclopedia. That's an opinion about her. Rxm1054 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

She's described herself as radical Say what? Provide a source for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

She does literally say that phrase here but if I'm being honest I find it pretty strange that the full clip of her saying it in context is extremely difficult to find Big Thumpus (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Even with that little context, she's clearly saying it tongue-in-cheek. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all. But I respectfully disagree; 7 seconds is not enough context to define what she means by "radical" or why it might be said in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I'm sure a longer clip would make it abundantly clear but so far I can't find one... Big Thumpus (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd bet anything it was in reference to a mainstream policy that Republicans called "radical", but I also cannot find the greater context. This is an irrelevant tangent anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's to try to get you to understand that opinions by journalists that characterize a presidential candidate based on their opinions about them that don't belong in an encyclopedia. If you can understand that's the case with one candidate then your bias is the only thing preventing you from accepting it as a general principle. Rxm1054 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

“I am radical. I do believe we need to get radical about what we are doing,” she said.

Washington Times

But remember even if a source takes this quote and describes her as a far left radical that's still an opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Rxm1054 (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

So he didn't say that they were eating the pets? He didn't say that they would cut your throat? Or that they were murdering women? Or that immigrant gangs had taken over cities? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not the question of did he say those things, but are they happening. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Which they aren't. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Then show what he said. Not add an opinion about what he said as a statement of fact. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

AstrosFan30, does your user name refer to astroturfing? Dimadick (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably refers to the Houston Astros. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, the topic about "Bias needs to be fixed", it is necessary to work together and there are many suggestions for this part, so I wish to add the template for this crucial task on this main article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The main issue here I believe is not that it criticises Trump, but that it hones in on him compared to Harris. The entire first 4 paragraphs mentions Harris only twice, and she isn't really the topic in either instance. I think if the article gave her more light, and the factors influencing her loss were included, it would balance the article.

And no, I don't think her loss was at all down to (paraphrased) "not passionately lying". Fantastic Mr. Fox 12:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the main factor to her loss is the fact that she began her campaign in late July. April or even May would increased her chances but July?. Almost impossible.213.230.87.6 (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nancy Mace and stating the obvious.

Trans rights have once again become under attack after Trump won. Why do we persist with LGBTQIA+ rights as oppose to Trans Rights when it's clear Trans people have been the ones targeted by the Right wing media in this particular election cycle? 68.189.2.14 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

With respect, I think the answer to your question is multifaceted. Part of why certain topics don't get immediately updated is just because Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, needs time for events to unfold and become history. Another part is that some people probably still feel that many American conservatives hold political opinions that would affect more than just the T element of LGBTQIA+. Only time will tell what Trump's second presidency will be like. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider using a bathroom intended for the opposite gender, playing sports against the opposite gender, or transitioning children as rights. Rxm1054 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not the site to discuss those issues.

Bjoh249 (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I know. I didn't bring it up. Rxm1054 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The OP's comment didn't try to talk about bathrooms. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

> when it's clear Trans people have been the ones targeted by the Right wing media in this particular election cycle? Rxm1054 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

`

Adding neutrality templates

In response to previous concerns about content neutrality, there were suggestion to add a neutrality template improvement template after the presidential election results came out and fixing the neutrality of articles.

Can we please work together? For related information, please see the archive below. As far as I know, concerns about neutrality have been raised repeatedly.

• Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 12[[1]]
• Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 13[[2]]
• Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 14[[3]]
• Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive 15[[4]]
• Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 16 [[5]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up the same issue over and over again is disruptive behavior. We have already explained to you on more than one occasion why the article is written how it is. Disruptive editing can result in sanctions. For anyone that is confused, please read the FAQ at the top of this talk page. I oppose adding a template for something that isn’t even an issue. Prcc27 (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - This article undeniably needs some tonal neutralization, which may also help with some of the general bloat. I see no issue with a genuine good faith post-election reflection on some of the more pointed campaign rhetoric and sensational news stories. Any cited source that was published prior to the election should be carefully considered against the actual results. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, — Big Thumpus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Given we have had trouble with sockpuppets in the recent past, just want to put this on everyone’s radar. Prcc27 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow this is about as far away from WP:AGF as you could get. Jumping right to accusations of sockpuppetry against an editor who doesn't agree with your opposition, nice. The grand majority of your last 100 edits have to do with American politics - should you be on anyone's radar for that? Big Thumpus (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Nobody here has accused you of sockpuppetry. Let’s try to get back to the original discussion, which is that adding a badge of shame template will not improve our article. The current consensus is to include Trump’s controversies per WP:DUE. We do not do this to pick on Trump or to favor any side. It is actually very common for Wikipedia articles to address significant controversies of a particular subject in the body and even in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it as a badge of shame - per WP:NPOVD:

- "there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it probably is not neutral"

- "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral."

- "The tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern."

We've had a lot of people come to the talk page with NPOV concerns and now someone is formally proposing that we place the proper template on the page to resolve this. I think it's fair as long as it's grounded in policy. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

A dispute tag is added to an article only when there is an active discussion on the matter. A) There is no active discussion on the matter, and B) opening a new discussion on something that has been discussed several times with consensus not budging would be disruptive behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we are literally actively discussing the neutrality of the article at this very moment, are we not? If there was general consensus on its neutrality no one would show up on the talk page asking about this. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s the same people that have already been complaining about the neutrality of the article before. Beating a dead horse is frowned upon by most Wikipedia users. Like I said, starting a new section every month when you don’t agree with consensus is disruptive. We are not going to add a dispute tag, just because users want to be disruptive and don’t know when to drop the stick. Prcc27 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah well call me crazy but I don't think that the only person who has openly declared their political conflict of interest on this article trying to shut down an NPOV discussion is a great look, maybe that's just me. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You forgot the part where we actually already had a discussion on neutrality several times before. I welcome this discussion, but not when it is done in a disruptive and repetitive manner. The only person that has declared a potential COI ≠ the only person with a potential COI. AFAIK, the only clear COI I have is with local politics, which is why I am not allowed to edit certain local political pages without making a COI request first. Prcc27 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

this was obviously written by a liberal Democrat. 2601:5CE:380:5D0:49F5:4ED4:C1DF:3C8B (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll need to cite some actual examples of what you're talking about and ways you think they should be changed if you want to be taken seriously Big Thumpus (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

These have been cited repeatedly in the linked threads but are handwaved away. Among other things, the fact that there's a paragraph-long Trump Bad screed in the lead is not serious. JDiala (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I just see a lot of comments like the one from this IP get outright deleted per WP:NOTFORUM. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support This article is about a resent election and so there is a lot of neutralization that needs to be done, as things cool down and more becomes known. There also appears that somethings have been left out, as there is not a lot about Harris.

I have looked at WP:NPOVD and this article does fall under it at this current point, as multiple editors have raised their concern over neutrality of this article in general. I personally am one of those editors that think there needs to be improvement.

@Prcc27 You seem to have good intentions, but at this point adding the template will be a wise move on our part. There is no need for there to already be a discussion, as this is the discussion.

@Goodtiming8871 Thank you for pinging me. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support. This is a biased and unencyclopedic article. If I am frank, it reads like a Democrat partisan wrote it. Neutrality work is needed. JDiala (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

In your opinion, what needs to change to make the article more neutral? How would you address Trump’s controversies? Prcc27 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry: This is a courtesy ping to the users who initiated this new topic, to improve this article, or who suggested I open a talk page about the neutrality template after the election

User:JDiala, User:Bigdumbdinosaur, User:Shoshin000, User:GoodDay, User:Oogalee Boogalee, User:Personisinsterest, User:Blackmamba31248, User:MrElculver2424, User:Sheriff U3, User:Davide King, User:Billionten,

Please note that I am currently occupied with personal tasks. To ensure I'm aware of and can respond to any feedback or responses, kindly ping my username.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a courtesy ping to the users who initiated this new topic, to improve this article, or who suggested I open a talk page about the neutrality template after the election User:JDiala, User:Bigdumbdinosaur, User:Shoshin000, User:GoodDay, User:Oogalee Boogalee, User:Personisinsterest, User:Blackmamba31248, User:MrElculver2424, User:Sheriff U3, User:Davide King, User:Billionten, Please note that I am currently occupied with personal tasks. To ensure I'm aware of and can respond to any feedback or responses, kindly ping my username.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If we are even discussing the neutrality of the article in any detail here I think it's fair to place the template on the page Big Thumpus (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added the template into the article. I am not opposed to it being reverted by another editor or substituted for something better.

While I'm here, I will advise @Prcc27 to be a tad more WP:CIVIL. WP:CCC applies here and I'm not getting the impression that Thumpus, while new, is here to embark on a stonewalling campaign. Fantastic Mr. Fox 16:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS also applies. Votestacking is not a way to achieve consensus. I have not done anything uncivil. Prcc27 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me? I strongly suggest you strike out that WP:CANVASS allegation. Right after I remind you about WP:CIVIL, too. Fantastic Mr. Fox 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We need to make sure that “courtesy pings” are given to all users recently involved in this relevant discussion, rather than selective users. It may not be an intentional incident of canvassing. However, we do need to be vigilant. Prcc27 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Then why are you pinging me? If you think someone who participated in a discussion similar to this previously is not being pinged, take the initiative to do it yourself. Dropping a WP:CANVASS allegation and implying that votestacking is taking place here isn't progressing the discussion at best and creating toxicity at worst. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned canvassing, is because you seem to think consensus changed. I beg to differ. Prcc27 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No I said it can change with little room for interpretation (WP:CCC- Consensus can change). Unless there was a ban on another discussion on the topic of a neutrality template implemented after a previous discussion, this issue can be rediscussed whenever. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)i

No. You can’t start a section on the same issue that was already resolved multiple times recently, over and over again. A few months ago, a user got a topic ban for doing just that. I strongly recommend that users do not repeat this behavior, or else they too could receive sanctions. Prcc27 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

...it's very obviously not resolved. If it was resolved, no one would show up on the talk page saying they think the article is biased.

But here we are still having a discussion about the disputed neutrality of the article without having the proper template on the page, the one meant specifically for that situation. Big Thumpus (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge, anyone can start a new discussion whenever, although the same editor repeatedly doing so is frowned apon. Whether you want to engage with them is a different matter. Plenty of people have came along suggesting changes and nobody engages them. The same user repeatedly bringing up the same discussion is a different matter, but everyone bar yourself here is new to my knowledge. Instead of finding ways to shut down all discussion, make a convincing argument. Fantastic Mr. Fox 20:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, well I believe Goodtiming8871 has started a section on neutrality in the past on at least one occasion. And given the links they posted of the relevant past discussions, they seem to be well aware that this issue was resolved several times before. So I am concerned about their actions possibly falling under disruptive behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

And it was immediately removed. Not a great look. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Nobody has identified any specific changes they'd want to make; the previous discussions all reached a fairly clear consensus, so there's no justification for a continued template based on that. And more generally it's important to remember that the purpose of a template isn't to serve as an eternal badge-of-shame on an article; if there's no specific actionable change then the template doesn't belong on the article. Especially for a hot-button article like this, there are always going to be people who feel that the article is biased; but I'm not seeing any specific, active, policy-based disputes that would justify the template. --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a badge of shame. Per my comment above, WP:NPOVD seems to be pretty clear about the point that if we're even having this conversation right now it's absolutely fair game to place the template on the page.

  We can't initiate the conversation to any meaningful degree according to policy if the neutrality template is removed 15 minutes after being placed. Big Thumpus (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I mentioned above in a different discussion earlier about the article not being biased for talking about Trump and the controversies around him, but due to focussing too much on him. For example, Kamela isn't focused on at all bar a few passing mentions for the entire introduction.

  
  

  For a better example, under the "Campaign themes" section, both candidates are talked about. However, Trump gets talked about a lot more. According to my count, Trump's section has nearly double the text:

  
  

  Trump section: 1160 words.

  
  

  Harris section: 666 words.

  
  

  There are two possible scenarios here:

  
  

  1: Trump is being talked about too much, and the section needs to be trimmed (this solution kills two birds with one stone, since their are article length)

  
  

  2: Harris is talked about too little, and thus needs more information added to it.

  
  

  For (2), I haven't personally checked, but I would be astounded if there wasn't more sources out there covering the themes of the campaign. I don't know if a policy exists describing my point, but I think this would solve at least some perceived neutrality issues. And it requires editting. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well. Harris was a presidential candidate for far shorter, and she has less prominent controversies. I think that explains the disparity. We are just following the sources, so I fail to see how this is a neutrality issue. Prcc27 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  3: Both are being talk about proportionally. A person who causes controversy will be discussed more by default than one who does not. For one person, their actions caused incidents that are discussed here due to their relevancy. For the other person, their actions were less meaningful and they themselves were discussed less. Add in their lack of controversies outside of an odd focus on their specific job as a young adult and a funding controversy that occurred after the election, and this is what you get. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree. With the 2016 United States presidential election article, both major candidates get a lot of coverage to the point I can look at it and say "Yeah, this looks fairly neutral". There has been effort put in to creating the article

  
  

  In this article, I actually have to scroll to find what Harris has stated. And rarely is Harris criticised by the article. I just removed a statement there now that basically amounted to synthesis, using 2 articles claiming that Democratic rallies had happy supporters to state the campaign had a "joyful tone" (this can be applied to almost any American campaign).

  
  

  I would encourage anyone who is knowledgeable of the US elections and the Democratic Party campaign to focus on adding statements and analysis based off multiple sources. Many issues of the article right now related to Harris can be traced back to the sourcing being largely constrained to NYT and the Washington Post, from what I can see. Fantastic Mr. Fox 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  In 2016, both major candidates had a traditional primary process, and both of them had controversies. For Mrs. Clinton, hers was her emails and the October surprise regarding that. Unlike Secretary Clinton, Harris has no major controversies and she was only a candidate for a brief amount of time. Please do not conflate neutrality with WP:FALSEBALANCE. Prcc27 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  So Harris was a flawless candidate who had no issues and lost only because Trump told lies cleverly? I find that hard to believe.

  Il make a start: Let's look at a statement from BBC's analysis:

  "she then failed to deliver a convincing argument about why she should lead the country, and how she would handle economic frustrations as well as widespread concerns over immigration."

  The information is there. Someone, use it. Fantastic Mr. Fox 21:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  My personal POV is she lost because the economy is bad and Democrats are the party in power. But that’s besides the point. Failing to deliver a winning message is hardly a controversy. The lead does not insinuate Harris is flawless; she just happens to not have a major controversy. Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I mean if there were criticisms or potentially incorrect statements I think it should be put somewhere in the article, no matter how much/how little it featured in the mainstream media. From my (personal) view Trump heavily relies on creating drama with false statements with the intention of the media picking them up and heavily reporting on it. Harris doesn't do this, so while non-partisan sources do exist focusing on her, it is necessary to swim further down the iceberg as they are not accessible from the top of it (the top being the front-page headlines) Fantastic Mr. Fox 21:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think it should be put somewhere in the article, no matter how much/how little it featured in the mainstream media. Except that goes against various parts of Neutral point of view. Personally, I think each person has a slightly different opinion on how one party won and the other party lost, so I don't think discussing opinions matters too much. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  That would perhaps be a valid point if that statement wasn't ripped out of context from this discussion. I said above if criticisms or further information exist (provided they come from a reliable sources), then it should be included. The article has no problems with throwing in statements about Trump that may irritate large amounts of people, so what's the issue with Harris? The sources exist and I'm not referring to the scores of deprecated ones. Fantastic Mr. Fox 13:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Not this again. Goodtiming8871, do you recall the last time you made a discussion like this? Because I do. Please suggest an exact wording of what you want to change. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In all fairness, there does not seem to be consensus on this. In this thread, there are 4 editors in favor of adding the neutrality template and 3 against it, with one of those 3 being the only person to openly declare a political conflict of interest on this talk page. That person is also who reverted the template 15 minutes after it was placed.

Every word we add to this thread is part of a dispute over the neutrality of the article. WP:NPOVD makes the case that if we're even having this discussion, the article is probably not appropriately neutral.

If you are asking someone for examples of changes they would like to see, that is further evidence that the neutrality template is appropriate because... that's the entire point of it. Big Thumpus (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me? I haven’t even took office yet, and I am not actively involved in federal politics. The declaration was a courtesy to be fully transparent. I have always edited election articles in a neutral manner, and saying I have a clear COI regarding federal politics would be a stretch. This isn’t a vote, and only 1 user has made a proposal on how to, in their view, make the article more neutral. Also, I respect the consensus process, so I wouldn’t have deleted the template if it was a result of a proper discussion. Instead, we have a user that is bludegoning the talk page, and vote stacking. Prcc27 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

...You have chosen to openly declare your political alliance here, and you just so happen to be politically opposed to the person who is the subject of the grand majority of neutrality complaints brought to this talk page. Because of this, at the very least I think you should be careful about being the person discouraging and even removing neutrality dispute templates on the article.

Again - here we are, still debating the neutrality of the article, without the NPOV dispute template on the article. It's just a procedural action, not a "badge of shame". We would not be having this discussion if consensus was that the article is appropriately neutral, and we can't properly open the discussion according to policy without following the template. If we're trying to follow policy, the template should be on the article. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry. How am I “politically opposed” to Goodtiming8871? Wikipedia is not a political battleground. And I actually have expressed openness to improving the neutrality of the article. For example, I don’t think being a liar is a political controversy, given many Americans think all politicians are liars. So I was open to removing the part about him telling a lot of falsehoods from the lead (albeit promoting election denialism and conspiracy theories are controversies that should be left in the lead). However, the way some users have been going about this discussion is disruptive. And we can’t keep having this conversation every month. Prcc27 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think the neutrality of the article could be improved... why don't we add the proper template for that to the page? Big Thumpus (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Because I am not nit-picky, and we already had a discussion on the matter and it was resolved. To be fair, Trump has told some significantly controversial falsehoods about the 2020 election, immigrants eating pets, etc. So I guess I kind of understand why it is included in the lead, even if I do have concerns about whether it is necessary. Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care about the banner being included or not. I mainly have concerns this ends up back at AN for some reason or another. I am hoping that Goodtiming8871 can resolve some of my concerns. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh no, this again? Seeing as I am one of the largest contributors to this entire article, I am surprised that I was not included in the courtesy ping. BootsED (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2025

Change Donald Trump's popular vote percentage from 49.7% to 49.9%. 49.37.145.11 (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump's percentage is 49.7% - not 49.9%. The 49.9% is only used by AP/NYT, and they are not including many write-in votes, which of course were cast and are votes too. The lack of inclusion of these write-in votes leads to Trump getting a higher percentage than he actually received. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he earned 49.9% of the vote. AP and NYT are trusted sources. “Dave Leip’s Atlas” is not a reliable source compared to those. 49.9% is the correct percentage, the other percentage is wrong. LessHuman (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You do not understand what you are talking about. AP/NYT are not using write-in votes and are not even portraying all "other candidate"-votes as released by the states. The fact that Leip's site is from the 1990s (design-wise) isn't relevant here, but his results are the most accurate. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If you show me anywhere on there site that says they don't include write-ins then I will agree with you. Just because it doesn't show up on their vote list on the main website doesn't mean it's not counted. One of the most trusted election sources is not incorrect, compared to a random guy on the internet. This change needs to be reverted. LessHuman (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

See also this source; https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html (Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections) LennBr (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. One look at the site can show you it’s poorly made. 49.9% is the correct percentage, and Kamala should have 48.4% not 48.3% LessHuman (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No, see above. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Percentage is incorrect Trump has 49.9 percent according to the AP vote Harris is correct Mpdaly86900711 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The AP numbers are incorrect (= not complete). They are missing hundreds of thousands of write-in-votes and votes for other candidates. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

So what source is being used? Breathe vote totals here a look the same as the AP vote 104.181.101.203 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

So what source is being used? Vote totals on the AP site look the same as here Mpdaly86900711 (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again, we need proof write-in votes are not being counted. Otherwise this change is an error and must be reverted. LessHuman (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For some discussion of "invalid" or "void" write-in votes that are listed on some states' election websites but not included in the totals on those states' certificates of ascertainment, see above on this Talk page in the "Popular Vote tally" section. The two most notable examples are 46,404 such votes in New York, and 24,904 such votes in Utah. Probably those write-in votes were cast for RFK Jr., but that likely won't be known for sure (or ever) unless some enterprising journalist investigates the details. As for whether those votes should or should not be included in the totals, I don't know who gets to make that call. That said, even if you disregard those votes, as the Results by State table here currently does (and that table is derived from each state's official results), you can see that Donald Trump did not receive 49.9% of the total. (Right now that table has him at 49.81%.) NME Frigate (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Which would still mean it’s not 99.7%. We cannot change the election results just from information that might be, if the votes were invalid / uncounted for a reason then it needs to stay that way. And yes invalid/void votes shouldn’t be included for obvious reasons. So the current total is incorrect. LessHuman (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Write-in/other votes are not "invalid", they are legitimate votes that were cast in the presidential race and have to be included. This is what Dave Leip's Atlas and Green Papers do, but AP (and NYT, which uses AP) are not or only partially doing. That's why their results are incomplete and must not be used. There are actual invalid votes (over/undervotes and spoiled ballots) which are excluded, about 1,3 million ... but that's another topic and they are not used or included because they are not votes that determine percentages in the race for President. Look at the German Wikipedia results table, which is the most accurate (because I created it). The percentages and sums are all adding up there, and here they don't. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"because I created it" You can't just say that, it's not how it works. You can't say it's the most accurate because you say so. Until there is proof that AP/NYT didn't count votes, the 49.9% figure needs to stay. And you were the one who originally said some votes were invalid, not me. LessHuman (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely not 49.9%. You can add up the votes yourself in the state-by-state table in "Results" section of this very article, and if you do (setting aside some statistically insignificant errors which I will list in a new topic if I find a moment), you will find that Donald Trump received 49.81% of the total and Kamala Harris received 48.83% of the total -- which is what is currently shown in that table.

And those state-by-state results all are sourced to states' official election pages.

That has nothing to do with the previously mentioned write-in votes, which are not currently being counted in that table. If they were counted, the percentages for Trump and Harris would drop slightly.

In other words, the percentages shown in the info box at the top of this article should be adjusted to agree with the state table in the Results section. NME Frigate (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Left-wing biases

The entire third paragraph can be considered framed by democratic party talking points. This kind of left-wing hatred has likely let to a near assasination of Donald Trump. And if you wanna compare pro-Israel and jewish friendly Trump to Hitler why not link Harris to Stalin? 2003:DA:C747:7F00:49E2:CECC:A59C:3E95 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The name "Hitler" does not appear on the third paragraph. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say. Which reliable sources compare Kamala Harris to Stalin? Cullen328 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean the near assassination perpetrated by a registered Republican? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Both assassination attempts were by Republicans lol EarthDude (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Your point being? The Republican Party has a history of in-fighting. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Results

I know there's a dispute about write-in votes, but shouldn't the numbers at least add up. Currently, they don't! Philosopher Spock (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are some specifics to add to Philosopher Stock's point. In the state-by-state table in the Results section:

1. The total in the column for Donald Trump is shown as 77,303,574, but the sum of each line is actually 77,303,569 (in other words, the total shown is 5 too many).

2. The total in the column for Kamala Harris is shown as 75,019,230, but the sum of each line is actually 75,009,233 (the total shown is 9,997 too many).

3. The total in the column for Jill Stein is shown as 861,486, but the sum of each line is actually 861,164 (the total shown is 322 too many).

4. The total in the column for Chase Oliver is shown as 650,228, but the sum of each line is actually 650,138 (the total shown is 90 too many).

5. The total in the column for Others is shown as 624,343, but the sum of each line is actually 642,273 (the total shown is 70 too many).

6.a. The total in the Total Votes column is shown as 155,204,384, but the sum of each line is actually 155,204,803 (the total shown is 419 too few).

6.b. However, the total of the sums of the columns is 155,204,770, which is 33 more than the total shown for that column. NME Frigate (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2025

Please change == Opinion polling and forecasts <span class="anchor" id="Opinion polling and forecasts"></span> == to == Opinion polling and forecasts == — the span appears to be of no use and causes an error "Tags without content" (priority 3). 91.94.115.229 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2025

Change the Heading from “presidential election” to “Presidential Election” 49.47.217.47 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Article names/headings are in sentence case, not title case — Czello ^(music) 16:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

I have opened a discussion on WP:NPOVN about issues that have been cited before on this talk page. If you wish you can view the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#2024 United States presidential election.
User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)