Talk:2024 United States presidential election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguing with these people about why this ridiculous, untrue, and biased quote isn’t needed in the article is like arguing with a wall. It is bias, and it definitely has no place in this article. CavDan24 (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He absolutely did not and disavowed these things more than any candidate for president in history. The false narratives must be removed. MrElculver2424 (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely false and must be removed. Wikipedia cannot stand as a propaganda wing of the Democrat Party and mainstream media biased agenda of serially lying about the Trump campaign and its supporters. MrElculver2424 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article reeks of bias. No wonder wikipedia is so hated by many.Bjoh249 (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Now, even this talk page has been dumped down the memory hole. Ironically, my comment about Wikipedia being Orwellian was "archived" with most of the talk about the obvious left-wing bias. A "bot" did this on November 10. And now they are limiting who can edit the talk page. JimmyPiersall (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it may be better to just remove the paragraph. As written (experts in general, no contrasting points of view) it sounds as if there was Academic consensus on that view, and for that we need a specific source saying so. And contrasting points of view do exist, see Donald Trump and fascism#Criticism of the comparison. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What I did was merely crafting a different wording using the article's current sources.

But by itself, I agree with you that it may overrepresent that points of view with, especially when I came here, an excessive zeal. When you bring scholars into the game, especially people without a scientific background would be tempted not to add any grains of salt. Shoshin000 (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Arizona

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a bit late to reply, but exactly. Regarding NBC, the main reason I focused on them was to cut out a bit of math. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

It's over - the score: Trump 312, Harris 226. Harris was soundly defeated, by any measure. TopShelf99 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Umm.. the tally has already been on the article for a while. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote total

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

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

Didn’t they project Hillary to win the popular vote early on in 2016? Bjoh249 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In 2016, I remember CNN had a confusing infograph on their website which made it look like Trump had been projected to win the popular vote. I was so confused. I don’t really think networks go, “we project Donald Trump has won the national popular vote”. It’s a beauty contest, so unfortunately, it gets overlooked. Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

CBS News has stated that he has won the popular vote [1]. The article says "It's the first time in Trump's three campaigns for the White House that he's topped his opponent in the popular vote, and only the second time since 1988 that any Republican has done so." CountyCountry (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that article is from a few days ago now.How is that going to stack against the remaining votes to be counted? California gave Hillary the popular vote in 2016. Is Trump projected to win the popular vote? I can’t remember how it went in 2016 and when it was projected Hillary would win the popular vote back then. Bjoh249 (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it took long for Clinton to lead in the NPV. If Harris does win the popular vote (doubtful), I would except it to be by a significantly slimmer margin. But anyways, we should do our best to stick to what the sources say. Prcc27 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the news agencies should at least project the winner of the popular vote. It won’t make any difference in determining the winner, but it will determine the incoming administration’s mandate. If Trump loses it it will also give more ammo to the popular vote movement to try to eliminate the electoral college. Most of what’s left to count is in California around 25-30% left. Certainly someone can look at where the outstanding vote is and make an estimate. Bjoh249 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No news networks have called the popular vote for him as of 11/12 11:20 Trump has a 2.1% lead John Bois (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Swing states section wording

In the Swing states section, there is wording:

Most states are not electorally competitive and are usually certain to vote for a particular party. Because of the nature of the Electoral College, this means that a limited number of swing states—competitive states that do not clearly lean towards one party over the other—are vital to winning the presidency.

The phrase I put in bold implies the Electoral College itself is the reason for swing states being vital to winning. This is not correct. It is the winner-take-all method that most states use to select their electors that makes these states vital. The winner-take-all method has nothing to do with the Electoral College itself.

I propose rewording the quoted portion to say:

Most states are not electorally competitive and are usually certain to vote for a particular party. Because of the winner-take-all selection of electors used by 48 states and Washington DC, this means that a limited number of swing states—competitive states that do not clearly lean towards one party over the other—are vital to winning the presidency.

Thought I'd propose this here before updating the article myself. Timmeh 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be ok to add, it would give the reader more information than the other format. And give a clearer picture too.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Format needs to be improved

The page's format is so messy compared to every other Presidential election page. The background needs to be dramatically shortened/moved into "Campaign issues", on top of that the nominations section needs to be moved above "Campaign issues" and "Electoral map" as it is listed in every other Presidential election page. TheFellaVB (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a "Nominations" section and moved the "Republican" and "Democratic" sections there. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The Introduction (2024)

Trump, who lost the 2020 election to Biden, ran for re-election again, this time for a non-consecutive term.[15] He was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Vance, after winning the Republican primaries. The Trump campaign was noted for making many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, engaging in anti-immigrant fearmongering, and promoting conspiracy theories.[20][21] His speeches were widely described as marked by authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents. His campaign and populist political movement were characterized by several historians and former Trump administration officials as featuring parallels to fascism.

Putting this paragraph front and center in the introduction approaches being laughable. Regardless of the veracity of any claims by Trump or his campaign or lack thereof, would any election covered 100 years ago be this focused on electoral editorializing in its introduction? Here is, I guess, the equivalent paragraph from the 1904 election (and that introduction is, tellingly, 3 paragraphs rather than 6):

As there was little difference between the candidates' positions, the race was largely based on their personalities; the Democrats argued that the Roosevelt presidency was "arbitrary" and "erratic". Republicans emphasized Roosevelt's success in foreign affairs and his record of firmness against monopolies. Roosevelt easily defeated Parker, sweeping every US region except the South, while Parker lost multiple states won by Bryan in 1900, as well as his home state of New York. Roosevelt's popular vote margin of 18.8% was the largest since James Monroe's victory in the 1820 presidential election, and would be the biggest popular vote victory in the century between 1820 and Warren Harding's 1920 landslide. With Roosevelt's landslide, he became the first presidential candidate to receive over 300 electoral votes in a presidential election. This was the first time since 1868 that Missouri voted for the Republican candidate.

Surely it would be far more in line with Wikipedia's remit to provide a tight, concise paragraph that sums up the mechanics of the election and the issues relevant to its result in the simplest and cleanest fashion, than something which reads like a very childish and frankly desperate safeguard against imagined readers interpreting an article which states someone won an election as meaning the person who won the election must be good, something which does not credit the reader with any critical thinking skills, or really any intelligence at all. In summation, the introduction is far too long and reads like shit. ColonelBustard (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:DEADHORSE territory, since this is the third or fourth time in the past week the wording in the intro has been brought up. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The only "dead horse" I see is Wikipedia's so-called "commitment" to WP:NPOV. Earl of Arundel (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hear, hear TheRazgriz (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Go away. I will rewrite the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelBustard (talk • contribs)

Not without consensus. — Czello ^(music) 12:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

“the first at a rally in Butler Pennsylvania”

There should be a comma after "Butler" in this phrase in one of the introductory paragraphs WumBis (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if there's any more, I added a comma to the paragraph which talked about assassinations Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Starlink conspiracy theory

might be good to include under the "Stolen election" conspiracy theories subsection: AllSides: Newsweek User Mag 🐦DrWho42👻 03:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

These would need to be discussed per WP:ALLSIDES and WP:NEWSWEEK. User Mag has only existed since October 2024 per this article, though it appears to be run solely by Taylor Lorenz. Digging for more sourcing, I found this Al Jazeera article which briefly refs to Starlink though WP:ALJAZEERA might apply. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

NOTNEWS, NORUSH, could probably name a few other things too. As of right now, this "conspiracy theory" is the result of a relative few accounts opining on Twitter/X and is not actually something that should be included per DUE. If it results in court cases - big if there - then it will tell us whether it's actually a conspiracy theory (if they lose) or a valid concern with the election (if the court cases show there was misconduct on Elon/Starlink's part). But as of yet, it's probably not DUE weight to include as a conspiracy theory - we are not a database of everything some people said on X from any viewpoint. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 09:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"2024 election voter demographics"

Under Results article, there is a voter demographics graph using exit polls from NBC conducted on Election Day. It's inaccurate to add a page like this to begin with, without all votes counted, but displaying the last exit poll by NBC as the voter demographics for the election is inaccurate. There is no national results voter demographics. Should be removed. Minnesotawaterballer (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific with your reasoning please, I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't really follow why you have an issue with the exit poll data from a WP:RS being presented here Artem...^Talk 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, with the point made here.

User is saying that whoever added that to this page has conflated "media polling prior to election results" with "actual election results", specifically as it relates to demographics. In this manner, NBC is not an actual WP:RS on this. "We asked some people, here is what they said" is not the same as "Here is the factual final dataset on the results of an election".

I second that the source and the mention of demographics should be removed until such time as actual voting demographics from the final results of the actual election are publicly available. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You realize that's not actually possible, on the account of voted being secret and such? So the only indications of demographic breakdown for any election come from exit polls. This should not be mistaken with the opinion polls before the elections, which generally ask potential voters who they're going to vote for. Exit polls ask people who actually just voted ("exit"ed the voting place) who they voted for and are generally much more reliable. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Part of your reply is sort of the point that the other User and I are making here, the fact that there is no way to actually verify this information.

But more to the point is that this demographic is being presented in the form of a fact, when its just 1 media networks poll. I doubt NBC is the only media network that conducts exit polling, and there is bound to be exit polling by (other media networks) in areas/counties/communities where NBC polling was not present or less effective at data gathering. One poll by one network should not be misused to assert its findings as a presumed fact. TheRazgriz (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct as they can not be everywhere asking people, they likely were only at a few select places. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Harris' result of 226 electoral votes was the worst performance for a Democratic presidential ticket since Michael Dukakis in 1988."

Could a link to 1988 United States presidential election either replace the link to Michael Dukakis, or be included as a link for 1988? I'm not sure the biographical link is the best link, considering the subject of the sentence is the election, not the person who ran in it (at least not directly). Perhaps:

"Harris' result of 226 electoral votes was the worst performance for a Democratic presidential ticket since Michael Dukakis in 1988." ScruffyUnicornBeard (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a major change and does not change the content of the article. It also helps the reader with the context and provides them with a link to the election in question.

I have boldly added the link per your request Artem...^Talk 04:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is an improvement! User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe seems like more of a minor arbitrary “fun fact” fit for the body than a definitive historical statement fit for the lede, but that’s just a thought. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove false descriptions of Trump campaign

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
False comparisons of the Trump campaign to “fascism, authoritarianism, and hateful rhetoric towards minorities and immigrants” absolutely must be removed. Wikipedia cannot stand as a fake propaganda tool of the Democrat Party and the mainstream media. MrElculver2424 (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately Wikipedia considers mainstream media a reliable source. I don't think that you can get it changed as others will say that is it well sourced. Just be thankful that, Trump is in office at last!!! They can say what they want about Trump, but that does not change a thing about him. He will not have to face reelection so all of this will die down in a while. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC) To pick just one example, "they're eating the dogs" was hateful rhetoric towards minorities and immigrants. Or have you already forgotten that? If he didn't say and do horrible things, no one would be writing about him saying and doing horrible things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) There is *ample* evidence showing that these things were indeed happening. And yet they tried to paint him as a liar and a racist instead of addressing the issue, which is that immigrants should simply be properly vetted (remember, the US took in at *least* 10+ million illegal immigrants over the passed four years!). But of course this site has basically become the mouthpiece for the extreme-left, happily parroting its propaganda while pushing its pro-censorship agenda. As such, Wikipedia NPOV is functionally dead. Earl of Arundel (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I wouldn't worry too much about this. The way WP is set up, with legacy media outlets being considered "reliable," this won't change. It'll only damage the credibility of this project moving forward as it pertains to politics, and eventually, change will be forced. In the meantime, people are obviously not buying it, as evidenced last week. It's a shame since in every other topic, WP has pretty reliable information. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC) What happened last week? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Can you rephrase that so we know what you refer to. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC) There is, in fact, ample evidence that these things were not happening. Springfield pet-eating hoax. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC) See here [[2]] for one such example. Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC) A video of a man, of unknown nationality, in an unknown place, butchering an unknown animal? Not exactly air-tight proof. Especially when presented by a person who is, herself, making unsubstantiated racist allegations. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC) This isn't about racism. It is about being honest about what was actually happening there. Do Haitians traditionally eat animals which the average American typically does not (including cats and dogs)? Yes. Were new-comers from Haiti observed in communities doing so? Yes. Did the mainstream-media lie about it? Yes. The leftist media has silenced conservatives and that is the true reason why we have pages such as the "Springfield pet-eating hoax". It is flat-out propaganda and just another example why the un-American censorship machine must be dismantled. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Can someone archive this already? It's gone off the rails. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Had this project not "gone off the rails" in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There was a time (believe it or not) when Wikipedia administrators were committed to neutrality in editing. Clearly that is no longer the case. Now, would you like to actually address the issue? Why indeed are we allowing such partisan yellow-journalism here? Does it hurt or help the credibility of the project to reflect such biases? Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC) The article is severely biased and something needs to be done about it. I suggest we start by re-writing this section entirely (or perhaps even the lede?). Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC) This passage, for example: "Trump, who lost the 2020 election to Biden, ran for re-election again, this time for a non-consecutive term. He was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Vance, after winning the Republican primaries. The Trump campaign was noted for making many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, engaging in anti-immigrant fearmongering, and promoting conspiracy theories. His speeches were widely described as marked by authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents. His campaign and populist political movement were characterized by several historians and former Trump administration officials as featuring parallels to fascism." A more neutral phrasing would be something along the lines of: "Trump, who lost the 2020 election to Biden, ran for re-election again, this time for a non-consecutive term. He was nominated during the 2024 Republican National Convention along with his running mate, Vance, after winning the Republican primaries. Various commentators have accused the Trump campaign of making many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, engaging in anti-immigrant fearmongering, and promoting conspiracy theories, his speeches described by some as marked by authoritarian and dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents. His campaign and populist political movement were characterized by several historians and former Trump administration officials as featuring parallels to fascism."Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) The Wiki-community a while ago, decided (via consensus) what media outlets are reliable or what media outlets are not. That's all we can go on. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC) The issue is the wording of the article. Spouting DNC talking points as facts is both misleading and uncouth. The majority of Americans voted for President Donald J. Trump and so they obviously disagree with such a narrative. Just state the facts and let the people decide for themselves. Is that really too much to ask of editors and administrators of the Wikipedia project? Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Nice job, this wording adds necessary grains of salt Shoshin000 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Thanks, yes, a few simple changes is that is needed to bring this article back up to a standard worthy of Wikipedia's core values. Earl of Arundel (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Well you can feel free to add it Shoshin000 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Apparently not, Shoshin000 and Earl of Arundel. Looks like it was both reverted and Earl was taken to Admin's noticeboard. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC) I can’t believe people are actually trying to argue that Haitian migrants were eating dogs and cats, even though there is no reliable evidence of this. Prcc27 (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Prcc27, I wasn't really referring to that. More just the reasonable edit that Earl made in regards to a paragraph in the lead, where they attributed some of the accusations to the media, where we have information verified. That's all. Wasn't making a comment about pets and Springfield. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC) As I explained in reverting that edit, it added WP:WEASEL wording, removed valid wikilinks, and lessened our accuracy by taking out that the alleged 2020 fraud is "false", suggesting there could be validity to that nonsense. And I took Earl to WP:3RRNB for a blatant 3RR violation on this talk page and continued edit warring. I can't speak for anyone else, but I welcome attempts to rework this page. I certainly don't welcome edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentalities. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC) I agree. We should be working together to rework this page (ie. less tabloid-ish and more encyclopedic). Do you have any specific suggestions? Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Having issue with section

When I am closing Results section all other sections are closing Ktdk (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a similar issue. I can't see the See Alse and References sections independently. If I want to see them, I'm having to open the Results section and go all the way down which is really inconvenient. Not sure why this is happening EarthDude (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, when I checked the mobile version with the Chrome Developer Tools, it was erroring out in jQuery. Not sure what the issue is, though.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) --19:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed it a few days ago [3]. I was able to figure out that this edit here [4] caused the error, but I'm not sure what the problem is.

You can see that the previous edit [5] renders just fine on mobile. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to show up on Firefox 132, but should it be reported as a bug since it appears to be unintentional behavior? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It was fixed earlier today by Ammarpad here: [6]. There was a divider that wasn't properly closed, and that was messing up the formatting. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't see the issue when looking at the revisions provided, but it seems I misunderstood and it was just an issue when using mobile (and only because of a formatting issue, so no report needed). --Super Goku V (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Tactics Democrats used to try to win

WP:NOTFORUM – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There should be some mention of all the strategies the Democrats / left used to try to win the election. Certainly there should be some mention of Lawfare (the questionable suits in Manhattan and Georgia), as well as the lack of sufficient Secret Service protection for Trump even after the first assassination attempt, the overwhelmingly biased media which made no secret of their desire for Harris to win, social media sites which were "encouraged" by the Biden administration to delete pro-Trump accounts, Saturday Night Live not penalized for a last-ditch appearance by Harris the weekend before the election, attempts to link Trump to Project 2025, blatantly false claims in political ads against Trump, etc. TopShelf99 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC) And of course the lack of voter ID in plenty of states... Shoshin000 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) It's funny when you claim Democrats / the left are biased, and then we see posts like these that are full of Republican / right-wing bias. Prosecutions of Trump are legal processes, not campaign tactics. Secret Service failings are now related to the Biden and Harris campaigns? Voter ID is used to suppress the vote. NBC gave Trump equal time after Harris went on SNL. Twitter / X is literally owned and operated by one of Trump's biggest donors. Project 2025 will be implemented in 2025, to the extent they can. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Spending all your time on a golf course leaves you exposed to assassination attempts to a degree that makes it impossible to adequately protect you. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC) According to wiki policy you first need to find and provide some sources. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting count meter

Trump has won the election. Nevertheless the voting count meter says that 99% of votes have been counted my question is what is the source of that since I can’t seem to find a source for that? Any answer would be greatly appreciated. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, how does it equate with 76/77 % in California. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed it back to the last reliable meter % based on sources. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If we do want to attach a source to the meter, I would suggest The New York Times unless we are consistently using another source. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Salandarianflag (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

1st para of Analysis section

It seems to be just trivia. I don't really think it belongs in the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it just seems like an amalgamation of facts to form a paragraph, with only two sources, a clarification needed template, and two citation needed templates. It also does not seem to provide any analysis and therefore not fit into the section of which it belongs. I will wait a few hours to see if anyone else has comment on this before I make a WP:BOLD edit and remove the entire paragraph - worst case scenario someone can just revert my edit Artem...^Talk 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sentence flow in the last paragraph of the lede

I've noticed that the sentences in this last paragraph are a bit silted; many of the sentences feel a bit more like trivia, as they're presented, than a properly coherent paragraph. Particularly, a lot of the sentences open with 'Trump <x>', which feels almost point form (but it's possible that this is deliberate wiki style thing too). I would like to suggest something like:

"Trump achieved a decisive victory, sweeping every swing state in addition to holding all of the states that he had previously won in 2020 [citations], as well as winning the popular vote, the first Republican presidential candidate to do so since George W. Bush in 2004.[citation] He also saw significant improvement in his vote share among almost all demographics nationwide, particularly among Hispanic voters, in a working class coalition described as the most racially diverse for a Republican presidential candidate in decades [citations]. Having previously won in 2016, and lost in 2020, Trump became the second president to be elected to a non-consecutive second term since Grover Cleveland in the 1892 election[citations]. Trump also became the oldest person ever elected to U.S. president, at age 78, while Vance is the first millennial to be elected vice president[citations]. Harris' performance of 226 electoral votes has been noted as being the worst performance for a Democratic Party presidential ticket since the 1988 election[citations]."

I left off the line about New York here, simply because I think it's probably better elsewhere in the article, presumably in the analysis section. I also find myself thinking that the one sentence about Harris either needs to be bulked up (more things of historical note for Harris) or removed, since the paragraph is almost all about Trump's campaign with this sentence tacked on at the end. Hopefully this suggestion is a bit of an improvement. I would try to make these edits myself, but I don't have the levels necessary unfortunately. ScruffyUnicornBeard (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be a nice cleanup, it currently reads poorly and almost as if it were lazily written with no real flow to the sentence structure. I will wait a few hours for the opinions of more experienced editors before I implement any changes Artem...^Talk 22:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It is better in not sounding like trivia and other things. But it needs improvement for sure. I would add some more things about Harris as the opening paragraphs hardly mention her. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: A note on when the EC will formally convene to cast their votes

Should there be a mention at the bottom of the lead of the specific date on which the Electoral College will formally convene to cast their votes? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there should be. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)