Talk:2024 United States presidential election

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018Articles for deletionDeleted

Kennedy in infobox[edit]

I do not believe that Kennedy should be featured in the infobox. He does not have substantial support in the way Trump or Biden do. Is there rules for this? (Aricmfergie (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I Support him being in the infobox, due to him polling above 5%, which is WP:5%. He is also gaining ballot access very quickly, and now has it in 7-8 states. Lukt64 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. WP:5% rule should be the end of the discussion. This has already been addressed in previous RFC's. As NYMag notes: The general election is now projected to be a three-way race between Biden, Trump, and their mutual, Kennedy, with a cluster of less popular third-party candidates filling out the constellation.. Editors who say that the infobox inclusion requires a substantive (which I'm assuming is 20% or more) chance of winning are violating the rule.
Considering previous consensus, precedent, and the present polling, this shouldn't even be a controversy. The guideline's are clear. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly Support.
People have used any argument they could to keep him off the infobox, but suddenly now without Trump or Biden getting their conventional nominations, or without requiring the pledge delegate threshold, suddenly it's that far out of the question to include a guy that's polled at Ross Perot levels? Definitely violation of the five-percent rule and Neutral Point of View to be saying that Kennedy shouldn't be up there.
There was no consensus before putting Biden and Trump up there, despite the flagrantly premature decision to do so, but it's premature to put him RFK Jr up there? What gives? Borifjiufchu (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose as the 5% rule only applies to actual results. Not just potential polling numbers. The 5% rule comes into play from the national threshold needed to get matching funds for party presidential campaigns, but even within our guidelines, it would not need to apply until actual results came in, as has been seen in every other page with election results present in the United States. Tipsyfishing (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tipsyfishing Support: The 5% rule as clearly defined in text doesn't specify rather if it is for election results or all. By default, it seems to refer to all.
I don't think we should do what SCOTUS constantly likes doing which is make up or use outside sources and say a law means something else when the law says nothing on it, which is lazy. 2600:100B:B13E:D56B:68C7:7A6:67CD:755 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to just who get to be on the infobox by the actual results, then why put any candidate's name on the infobox until results come in on Election Day (when they are published by polling stations and news outlets)? We don't even know if Trump or Biden will still be the candidates come election day, they're just merely presumptive. And if the counter-argument is "well obviously they'll get more than 5%", then you have to look at polls to do so, which we are doing for Kennedy. Therefore I Support RFK being in the infobox 2600:1700:3A40:4800:68BD:F98A:5791:775F (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s what it truly means why aren’t you taking down Jorge Álvarez Máynez from the Mexican presidential info box? His election isn’t in 3 months and he’s polling numbers far bellow RFK here.
frankly, keeping RFK off the United States presidential infobox is only furthering biased reporting that’s trying to down play his campaign’s credibility. AfricanAlGore (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — AfricanAlGore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support he meets the polling requirements the guy may be a nut which is why people don’t want to put him up there but the rules don’t care about our opinions he meets the wiki requirements to be up there 2600:8801:1187:7F00:25D3:B97C:DDCA:F27C (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose Kennedy's inclusion in the infobox, as well as the descriptors in the opening paragraphs characterizing him as a major 3rd party candidate and the first since Ross Perot--too early to make such a claim. He may be a serious contender, but that is yet to be seen, him polling in the high single digits well before July/August conventions does not warrant treating him this way. For the moment, the race should be treated as a two-way rematch between Biden and Trump until we have more evidence that Kennedy can continue to remain relevant and pull significant support--especially after Biden and Trump are confirmed as their parties' nominees. If, even after that, Kennedy is polling at 10% or more (aggregated), then I think he would be worth mentioning. JUBJUBBB (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose bringing RFK Jr. into infobox. I suggest waiting until July to see if his average poll numbers can get above 10. Vuvietanh6204 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed. (Provided that Biden and Trump are additionally excluded.) There was never a consensus to include anything in the infobox for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support because the 5% rule is clearly applicable here and he was considered a serious contender in the dem primary. Notwithstanding, He has already received serious and significant media coverage, way more than Johnson got in 2016 Cannolorosa (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support Kennedy to be included in the infobox. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aricmfergie I think it's about time we put this as an official vote. 170.10.51.116 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aricmfergie RFC has went with 1a, 6 was not in the official consensus, he goes in Infobox now Buildershed (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Kennedy from the infobox, until a consensus is reached to include him. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy consistently polls at 5%+. I don't expect him to win the election (or even a state) but that's not the criteria of inclusion. WP:5% rule is clear here. 1980 United States presidential election, 1992 United States presidential election, 1996 presidential election, and others all show candidates who received 5% of the vote. It's widely expected that Kennedy Jr. will obtain this. I haven't seen an argument against inclusion that doesn't go against precedent and previous RFC's.
He should be included, as @Lukt64: mentions. It would be a violation of WP: NPOV (and an instance of WP: CRYSTAL and WP: OR to do otherwise). KlayCax (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My major concern here, is that there's no edit-warring over this. BTW - If it's decided to include Kennedy? Please adjust the images (downsize from 200px to 160px), so that they don't make the infobox too wide & thus squash the written intro into the left side of the page. The 1992 & 1996 prez election pages, are a good guide. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works with me. KlayCax (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there is no such thing as a 5% rule. That is the name given to an information page that attempts to summarize prior discussions the subject, and generalize conclusions that do not appear in the discussions themselves. Wikipedia does not have rules; we have policies and and guidelines and this is neither. In any case, most prior discussions concerning a 5% threshold for inclusion in the were about election vote totals, not polling numbers. Those that do concern polling are about exclusion, not inclusion, of those candidates with ballot access. For example, Jo Jorgensen had ballot access, but some wanted to exclude her due to polling numbers. A larger issue is those discussions (like this one) concern very specific contemporary scenarios such that editors are commenting on the specific race and not the 5% principle more generally. There has never been a consensus on including a candidate without ballot access polling above 5%. And frankly, because the scenarios are so different, forcing a phony rule on the proceedings is unnecessary. It makes sense to evaluate each event separately. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Kennedy in infobox, as he is a significant candidate. For now, his chance of winning is vanishingly small, but that isn't the point. He has more support than any independent since 1992 and is likely to change the outcome in some states, perhaps even the national result. Moonraker (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 5% does not apply to polling. Gary Johnson in 2016 had a few polls that hit 10%, but was never included on the infobox. Ballot access is irrelevant as well. Kennedy's ballot access in 7-8 states is nothing compared to historical Libertarian access (typically all 50 states). If Kennedy is included in the debate or something similar, then there is a real case to include him in the infobox. Currently, there is none. Burger1018 (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But getting above ten per cent in the opinion polls makes Kennedy a significant candidate, and there is a big problem with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For consistency, the most relevant WP precedents to look at are the infoboxes of the previous elections in 1912, 1924, 1948, 1980, 1992, and 1996. Going against all precedent gives an impression of partisan bias. Moonraker (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those elections has third party candidates that obtained more then 5% in the actual, final results, hence why those were included.
I'm all for 5% being the benchmark when it comes to actual, final election results. But not when it comes to polling. Tipsyfishing (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We include "systematic opposition" candidates in Russian presidential elections that get 3-8% of the vote, are widely regarded as kooky, and absolutely have no chance of winning. It's inconsistent and goes against precedent if we exclude Kennedy Jr. but include them. There's no good argument against exclusion. CrackTheJack (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — CrackTheJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As the users you've responded to have emphasized, though, that's about actual election results, not polls. We don't know what % of the vote RFK Jr will get. There's not even a lot of high quality polling data yet--you could make a stronger case for RFK in the infobox if he's polling at 10%+ in June or July when more Americans are paying attention and more polls are being done/aggregated. Right now, it feels super premature.
Arguably, isn't their inclusion in Russia's case quite different? They have sham elections, Putin has no real opposition (unlike Biden and Trump) so documenting the silly, sham candidates that are put up against Putin is important context? I'm not sure why we would use the same standard for entirely different electoral systems and levels of institutional legitimacy. JUBJUBBB (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right.
And unlike the Russian candidates, Kennedy Jr. has a chance of actually competing, unlike Vladislav Davankov or Nikolay Kharitonov We don't know what percentage of the vote any candidate in this race will get.
The sources agree that Kennedy Jr. will likely get over 10% of the vote. New York Magazine labels him a major candidate. He routinely polls in the mid-20s. Only listing two candidates (and then hypothetically waiting until November) isn't neutral. It's tilting the scales to include Biden and Trump while excluding Kennedy Jr. CrackTheJack (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — CrackTheJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I agree he *could be* a major candidate, and I agree editors should not wait until November if he continues to poll significant support. But the singular NYMag article calling him a major candidate doesn't feel very convincing to me (nor the idea we can know 8 months in advance he'll get 10%), is major candidate a technical term? What does it mean? Do other outlets call him thus and continue to? I also do not put much stock in current polling--of which there is not a lot and even less of great quality. But more of the electorate will be tuned in and there will be more relevant polling 3+ months from now, but still before the election. JUBJUBBB (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes? It's 5% in the general. The evidence is overwhelming that Kennedy Jr. will obtain that. He's listed as such by multiple citations, and even pollsters skeptical of his campaign's vitality believe he'll almost certainly obtain it. We wouldn't exclude Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996 from the infobox at this stage. The same should apply to Kennedy Jr. Only including two candidates gives an implicit bias of its own. The majority here is right. He deserves to be included in the infobox.
It's a double standard to include members of the Russian "systematic opposition" while excluding Kennedy Jr. If we adopt the same standard for Russian elections, then we should simply exclude anyone other than Putin, as Kennedy Jr. has an infinitely higher chance of becoming president than any of them.
Either we're consistent and exclude every candidate until the nominating convention or we include Trump, Biden, or Kennedy, anything else in my view gives a significant bias, as other editors have already expounded upon. CrackTheJack (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — CrackTheJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
He does not "routinely polls in the mid-20s". RCP has him maxxing out at 22, and only hitting that 16% of the time. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those candidates that you listed have actual election results though. Not just polling. I'm pretty sure everyone here is in agreement that any candidate that actually gets 5% of the vote would be included in the infobox. I'm in favor of that too, that's what we currently do with election results. However, polling is not election results.
Rags saying that he "might" get 10% of the vote doesn't mean anything.
If Kennedy gets on enough state ballots to reach 270 in the electoral college, then we can re-discuss. Till then, I will stay opposed. Tipsyfishing (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonraker Tbh, WP:FALSEBALANCE should be more limited in its appliance to political articles as it can result in accidental bias caused by our selected "Reliable Sources" 2600:100B:B13E:D56B:68C7:7A6:67CD:755 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Why is Kennedy excluded from the infobox if he's being called a major candidate in multiple sources? Even wacky Russian candidates with no chance of winning are displayed before the Russian presidential "election" results are "announced. Yet, Kennedy Jr., who is consistently polling in the double digits, is getting removed by certain editors. What gives?

I don't like the guy but like others here I immediately noticed the bias. If we replaced "Kennedy Jr." with "Perot" in 1996... Would editors still exclude him? Seems much of the opposition is based on him being a kook rather than the data. CrackTheJack (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — CrackTheJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP did not exist during the '96 campaign, so we cannot speculate about how we would have treated Perot at a similar time in the campaign. That said, Perot received 19% of the vote in the previous presidential election, where RFK has not. No one is arguing that Kennedy should never be added to the Infobox, only that he be held to a similar standard as the others shown there. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:'s proposal to exclude the infobox until either 1.) A majority of delegates are obtained for both 2.) The convention floor is the best course of action. @CrackTheJack: and @Moonraker: have expressed similar sentiments.
The essay of WP:NOTNP is apt here. Can someone revert every name from the infobox for the time being? There was no consensus to add it KlayCax (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting these two debates together makes sense: delay B/T as long as reasonable, and we can punt the RFK discussion to a point where we will have a greater sense of his credibility. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. It would save editors hundreds of hours debating whether "Kennedy should be in the infobox" and whether "Trump and Biden are the nominees yet".
We all know it's coming otherwise. I was initially in favor of including Trump, Biden, and Kennedy in the infobox, but after the debate on here, the opinion I leaned towards reversed. It's still too early in my view.
If Kennedy Jr. however remains at current polling levels: I agree he should be included in the infobox. But let's punt that question for a few months. KlayCax (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article you linked calls him a "major candidate." The closest is this section: "At this point, all that’s clear is that no one has any idea what will happen between now and November 2024 or how to respond to the threat Kennedy poses to the Biden-Trump binary. As it is, Kennedy is in some cases polling not far behind either likely major-party nominee and in all cases polling well enough that, were the election held today, his presence in the race would define what the next chapter of American history looks like." That's very tentative. It recognizes that at this stage we have no way of knowing anything. What we should be looking for is articles that are about the election generally talking about him as if he's a factor, rather than articles about him. --Jfhutson (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he has been polling above 10% for months.. Lukt64 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others have pointed out 5% only applies to results. I think RFK should be added to the infobox in one of two scenarios: he garners over 5% in the actual results in November or he is treated as a major candidate by: a clear consensus of sources treating him as such, invited to the major national debates, etc. Yeoutie (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already enough of a consensus of sources treating him as major third-party contender that could even qualify for debates. We are lenient with other countries when it comes to candidates consistently hitting 10%+, but suddenly because it's an American election and you see a lot of reactionary behavior towards a third-party candidate, you get a lot of biases thrown around to exclude him.
Why should what one source say what is a major candidate be a major stepping stone anyways? That's heavily subjective. There is enough raw numbers and data as is, and precedent in certainly more than one country for what qualifies other candidates for infoboxes. Seems to be the American-bias in articles speaking more so than actual Wikipedia precedent and policy when it comes to people that Oppose him. But this goalposting in opposition is nothing short of, well, unfortunately baffling. Borifjiufchu (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we know what his ballot access looks like. Then I have no problem if his polling is still strong. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat regarding existing consensus. I believe there is already consensus on this issue that candidates should be included if they poll over 5% and have ballot access in sufficient states to win 270 electoral votes. Naturally, the nominees of both parties have automatic ballot access in sufficient states. However, my understanding is that RFK Jr. does not have sufficient ballot access yet because a number of states require a vice presidential running mate to be granted access. With that in mind, we should reconsider whether Donald Trump will be added to the infobox upon his declaration as presumptive nominee by the Republican National Committee, or whether he must also choose a running mate and thereby gain ballot access to be added. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that Trump has been added despite my outstanding questions regarding his ballot access. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a moot point until he secures ballot access in enough states to actually win the presidency, after which a polling threshold is sufficient to determine his inclusion in the infobox. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has had write-in candidates for many state elections, but ballot access is now a threshold? That part I don't get. There were a lot of candidates that had specific regional support or didn't have sufficient ballot access or nationwide representation, but still get represented in parliamentary or congressional elections. This sort of line of thinking is what Ballotpedia has, but it's not something that's consistent with Wikipedia. Borifjiufchu (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good but even counting states where he's eligible as a registered write-in that only brings him up to 122 delegates. We're not at a point where he can yet reach 270 and actually win. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Evidence speaks for itself. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't to say he doesn't post relevancy and ignored what I said. 5% rule and relevancy are likely to be in order, although even when he does inevitably cross eligibility for 270 (like any third-party candidate polling above 3% typically has), people will find yet another goalpost to make-up. He has the percent, and sources to back him up as a relevant candidate, which is what matters most - in consistency with other nation's elections, which are applied far more lenient standards than what you see here in U.S. election infoboxes. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Until he has ballot access in 50 states & if he's still at or above 5% in the polls. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, by this logic, Biden will have to be removed from the infobox if he ends up not being excluded from the ballot in Alabama and Ohio. There have been a number of times a major candidate has been excluded from a states ballot, for example in 1948, Harry Truman was completely excluded from the ballot in Alabama and won the presidency that year anyway. Being on the ballot in all 50 states has never been a threshold for inclusion in the infobox, and is entirely irrational and ridiculous.XavierGreen (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I support, however i believe that as a matter of compromise we should wait until he gains ballot access that gives him the ability to get 270 electoral votesCompromise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannolorosa (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Clearly meets the criteria. He's polling at 15%. American exceptionalist arguments from editors don't hold water. HickTheStick (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — HickTheStick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support Would be prejudice against Kennedy Jr. if he was not included. Echoing what others have stated. He's a major candidate. Roadtruck (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Roadtruck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

By my count, that now makes three new SPAs created to support Kennedy in this discussion, all with bold accusations and claims. WP:NEWBIES are welcome, but this tone is a little suspicious. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we attacking the person? They brought up their own points. That's like if I were to go around attacking people because of blatantly pro-Democrat influences on their profile/talk page, then going towards their social media page, and finding out the amount of parroted stuff from the media that makes its way onto here without much independent thought or understanding in Wiki-historicism and precedent (remember the Gary Johnson debate?). I'm not advocating people to do that, but that is something you will easily find on the background of other users if one is to play the superficial context game of ad hominem 'kill the messenger', in which case, why shouldn't we be talking about the 'message'?
So again, what relevance does this have? Because in that case we can use that logic to say we should be suspicious of people that have been here long enough yet continue to indulge in echochambers and faux populi sentiments to deny candidates on rather systematic overtures of "American exceptionalism" when discussing sensitive elections. As you may be able to note that there are people here using the talk page to express their like/dislikeness for candidates. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We expect editors to contribute to improving the project, not advocate for their personal politics. The consensus has held that RFK has not yet demonstrated the relevancy to be added to the infobox. That we now see the opposing argument gaining significant support from IPs and and accounts created specifically for this discussion is clearly suggestive of sockpuppetry. KlayCax has made edits to the article citing support of these socks as rationale, and that is a mistake that needs to be avoided. It is difficult to recognize SOCK when it supports your own position, but it is incumbent upon a good wikipedian to do so. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that falls on the jurisprudence of Wikipedia. But I am more skeptical of people that advocate for personal politics and let their biases get in the way, I would ignore these sockpuppets either way when it comes to any argument, as again, proper moderation would have the means to filter and deal out with such accounts, as they seem to work on both sides and lower the common denomination of the discussion - which seems better worth ignoring. Which is the habit that I follow - as indulging in them isn't generally worth the average user's time nor responsibility. Borifjiufchu (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, until he gets more ballot access. At his current polling numbers, it's really not a question that Kennedy should be included. However, he isn't going to get 5% of the vote if he's only on the ballot in 8 states (which he's only at now). Once he reaches 25 states, or if the Libertarian party nominates him which has been speculated, I think this discussion can be reopened. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really silly way to shut down a conversation, we already know the Libertarian party shut down this stuff if you were paying attention to the news, and that most of it was just speculatory media indulgence.
    Then you go on to assume 'however he isn't going to get 5% of the vote if he's only in the ballot' which are two major leaps in assumptions. Then you say he needs ballot access, in which case, if we look at that track record you have the Constitution Party and multiple Nader candidacies. When in any other country this polling would be equivalent to act as a third way alignment in contrast to major parties (pre-coalition). And then more goalposting, and saying the conversation isn't worth talking about until they fulfill your criteria. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may have to go to a RFC. It's presently 55-45%/60-40% in favor of Kennedy, but a mere numerical majority isn't how the process works, and editors on both sides have given good arguments. There's no present consensus for either removing or including him in the infobox. We're going to have to take a (temporary: which could change) side in the next day or two. I personally favor inclusion, however. KlayCax (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If he gets on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes, then maybe I would see the argument. 3rd party candidates always poll higher than they actually perform. CoryJosh (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Because of the electoral college, that's not how the United States presidential elections work. Even a candidate with 50 electoral college votes can have immense influence. (This was Strom Thurmond's goal as a Dixiecrat in 1948)
2.) Third party candidates do not usually perform anywhere near this well. Kennedy's polling around 1992 Perot numbers.
3.) Kennedy Jr. doesn't have to win to merit inclusion in the infobox. He just has to get 5%. He's polling that way and WP: RS's are unanimous in stating that he will likely get it. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding a bit snobbish... come on, he's not a real candidate. Gary Johnson polled at around 15%, and he (rightfully) was not included. CoryJosh (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People said the same thing about Donald Trump in 2016. Look what happened. Gary Johnson never averaged anywhere near where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is. KlayCax (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He actually was included, various times, and up until the end of the election. So you're quite wrong there. Not only that, but his numbers were more around the 10% ballpark. Not 15%. John Anderson got around 15-20% and ended up with 7% in the end, but did he have an influence? Considering the massive polling errors (both in 1980 and 2016) that ended up benefitting the Republican, it is definitely fair to assume they had significant relevance both times, and did have an impact on the election. So even with that logic, you get someone that's more akin to John Anderson and not, say, Ross Perot, you are still getting a precedent for relevance. But saying 'he isnt' a real candidate' is far too subjective, and can be used to dismiss hundreds of other candidates in infoboxes all across Wikipedia. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he’s in poll aggregates at over 10% still, I think that’s something to not really sweep under the rug. I think he should be included, but maybe wait until Summer and if he’s still polling well, maybe add them then XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

i support. he's outpolling Biden in several states. it would be really really unfair to exclude him. all the major news networks are talking about him. JohnX92 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — JohnX92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Agreed, I would’ve thought he would’ve fallen further by know, but he’s doing well still XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Exactly, and keeping him off the infobox to me feels like trying to hide his campaign, considering he's polling very well. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I’d add him for now, but I don’t know if he’s decline substantially, he’s polling very strong for a third party candidate 8 months out. So it’s probably better to see if he’s still polling at least high single didgets by summer. I think he’s gonna play an interesting role here XboxGamer2002! (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I might also add depending on what polls out there he’s polling at like 15 on some, like that’s something that’s not been seen since Perot, he’s definitely getting more chatter lately I’ve noticed in the media too XboxGamer2002! (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose for all the reasons I've opposed including him before. He's an unserious third party candidate like the others. I'm not sure that I believe that Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura top his VP list, but I don't not believe it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I have concern with single-purpose accounts in this thread. The possible sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry on the supporting side of this argument needs to be taken into consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Kennedy polling in the 20s in numerous states is unserious?? Wow, okay. Keep your opinions to yourself. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A serious campaign would have ballot access to 270. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The ballot process is ongoing so keep your opinions to yourself. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can call this out as the publicity stunt that it is in a discussion about how we editors should consider the campaign. A poll in the 20s in March doesn't mean it's serious. You don't have to reply to me when I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow Lostfan333 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You haven't done your research on the Constitution, Libertarian, or Reform parties if you think ballot access is the sole metric, nor are you aware of how people write-in candidates that get over 10% in races, or even win in the case of Murkowski if name recognition is high enough.
      Instead of looking for 'hey what's a serious candidate or not, oh god he has Ventura on his VP list according to some speculatory article', one should indulge in proper precedent more and look towards other info at the state and international level for how one measures and anticipates "seriousness". So far polling from many different organizations is a pretty reliable indicator all things considered (even if they get half of that, it still holds better weight than getting .5% with ballot access). Borifjiufchu (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps you should read about how polling this early is not predictive of results. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You know I'm a frequenter of 538 - and it pertains to a 2 person race. If you've seen my other replies, I've mentioned many other examples far beyond what that article even begins to touch upon. John Anderson polled in the 15 to 20% range in '80 election, and ended up with 6-7% of the vote, but undeniably had a major effect on the election. RFK Jr trumps Johnson's numbers during any point in the 2016 race.
      In-fact 538 has gone on to defend many polls as being pretty accurate, as a normal margin of error around the last quarter of the election season is typically 4%. Most people don't want Wikipedia to have anything pertaining to bias by having just Trump/Biden, and not a guy that has polling that would put him well above the 5% for qualifying for infoboxes and nearly dancing with qualifying for a debate.
      Not only that, but in that article, there is no examples of any elections post 1992 (when hyper-informed cycles and electorates became a significant norm) where there was any 10 point difference in major candidates when it came to polls in the early year vs the election results. I highly doubt editors would keep a Perot or Anderson off, and only try to have Reagan Carter, or Bush Clinton in the infoboxes when we had Gary Johnson in mid-2016. Borifjiufchu (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ross Perot lead Bush and Clinton at certain points in 1992. Anderson looked like a joke for much of the summer. Speculating how we would have treated them with contemporary knowledge is a fool's errand. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "looked like a joke for much of the summer", you mean garnering 20% polling averages?
      Even aside from that, polling in the 3rd millennia hasn't been as variable as one may claim or suppose. Considering the bar for recognition, the shock and rebound factor for name recognition to dissipation has leaned towards inelasticity when you count national polls for various sources (and consider the fact modern polling and news cycle isn't as centralized or few and far between as the past).
      And were any other candidates jumping both of the candidates in polling, or hitting 20% averages? Your points just cement the fact that it would be of the reader's interest, and consistent intrigue that they hold historical relevance, rather than a 'joke' or 'fool's errand', so I am not quite convinced here. Borifjiufchu (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only if sources treat him as a serious candidate. Right now he is being treated just like Johnson or Stein in 2016. Yeoutie (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not true at all. Kennedy has way way more media coverage than Johnson or Stein, is outspending them both by an order of magnitude and has polling that bounces regularly between 10 and 20% nationally. Stein never had more than 2 percent national polling, and Johnson's polling was never as high either. Kennedy's situation is much more akin to Ross Perot than anyone else at the present time.XavierGreen (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Strong support in favor of including Kennedy.
      • Posting from mobile, so apologies for any strange formatting.
        I am reposting this comment from another thread on this subject, which I replied to mistakenly believing it was this one:
        RFK Jr. is, beyond a doubt, a relevant national candidate and will very likely affect the election, according to literally *all* available polling data and news reports. He is polling at over 15% and has been covered by every major news agency — not just after the announcement of his campaign, but repeatedly and at-length. A quick google search of “RFK JR.” will result in dozens of articles popping up — many of them published within the last *day*, from outlets such as the New York Times, ABC, MSNBC, etc.
        In the face of this, this entire “irrelevancy” argument several editors keep harking on is, frankly, a bit bizarre. The only
        conclusion I can draw is that the reason some would seem to keep perpetuating this idea is because they don’t appreciate Kennedy’s extremist ideology, and desire to, in a sense, “consign him to irrelevancy” because they believe promoting such ideas is harmful.
        Which would be reasonable, if it were not for the fact that this irrelevancy argument is, in fact, wholly illusionary, as I have laid out above. This seems like patent WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
        P.S.:
        Here are several arguments I have seen against this notion, and why I think they are invalid:
        1. “Third Party Candidates poll higher prior to general elections, and rarely meet expectations”:
        This argument fails to recognize the fact that, quite simply, the level of support these candidates achieved — such as Stein, Johnson, etc. - never came close to reaching that of Kennedy’s. That’d seem to indicate a far stronger base of support. He has also remained remarkably consistent over the course of many, many months, hovering around 10-20% and never dipping below 5%. And every poll his numbers continue to remain stable - or even improve — makes me find it increasingly harder to believe that he will simply “fizzle out” as some claim.
        To bring this point home: Kennedy’s numbers have never dipped below Johnson’s *best performance* in 2016.
        2. “Kennedy is a crank, and should therefore be excluded”
        This argument is entirely invalid. A candidates beliefs should not exclude their inclusion in the infobox if they meet the proper criteria.
        I do not know why several editors keep citing WP:FRINGE as evidence to the contrary. The page clearly states that “a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.” However, we have repeatedly acknowledged conspiracy theories/theorists who reach Wikipedia’s notability standards — which Kennedy certainly does, as I’ve argued at length — while clearly demonstrating these beliefs are not based in reality, a la Alex Jones. Half of the Republican party would seem to be shifting towards these very notions. Should we exclude these (certainly) notable candidates on the basis of their odd beliefs, or acknowledge them and make it clear how they are false? Gambitenthusiast99 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well Put. Gambitenthusiast99. InterDoesWiki (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also Support basically for your reasons above, unless there's a huge polling dip for Kennedy sometime soon he should be added now Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait: Ballot petitioning is still ongoing. As it stands, even including write-ins. Mr. Kennedy only has access to 137 electoral votes. That number drops to 71 if you include only states in which he will appear on the ballot. Until Mr. Kennedy obtains access to 270 electoral votes (a majority) I agree to keep him off the infobox. When he does obtain access to the majority of electoral votes. At that time I do not see a reasonable argument to oppose addition outside of personal bias. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reliable sources consistently state the race is a two-way between Biden and Trump, with Kennedy as an outlier in the same vein as Jill Stein or other third-party bids in years past. Kennedy has not even been able to get on the ballot in all states. As Wikipedians, we should go off of what reliable sources state the race is, not our own personal determinations of who is a major/minor candidate. BootsED (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Name one state where Kennedy has been excluded from the ballot. The deadline to apply for ballot access has not yet passed in the vast majority of states.XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Relying on sources to parrot subjective information on their interpretation of a competitive race by jumping to conclusions in contrary to polls, and wikipedia precedent is a horrible standard to abide by. You say you shouldn't go by personal determinations, yet that is the very definition of 'personal determinations'. Look at the 2016 election and see how they handled third party candidates during the middle of that year - all I gotta say.
    And like other people said he has not been excluded. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey proposal[edit]

We had a similar argument in November about whether we should add Kennedy to the infobox and we have clearly not gotten any more. We obviously need to come to some sort of consensus not only whether we should include Kennedy but when we should include Kennedy (or any similar third party candidate). I've come up with some options for citeria, but am very open to other criteria.

1: A consistent polling criteria (generally this has been assumed to +5%)
2: Some sort of ballot access criteria (reaching ballot access is enough states to win the presidency, 25+ states, etc.)
3: Reaching a Presidential Debate
4: Media coverage that treats Kennedy as a serious threat to affect the election.

Personally, I think we should have a mixture of 1 and 2. Someone who has consistently polled over 5% against major candidates, and has ballot access in a majority of states could reasonably effect the election. Whether or not he wins or even could win is irrelevent in my mind because all it takes is neither major candidate getting a majority of electoral college votes for Kennedy to have had a serious effect on the election. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Lostfan333 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think as long as a candidate meets 2 of those 4 criteria, said candidate should be included . Cannolorosa (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we definitely need some kind of blend of these qualifications. I think that the 270 ballot access criteria (2) should be the most important, with the candidate then having to poll above 5% to qualify (1). So, if a candidate polls above 5%, but does not have ballot access in enough states to amount to 270 votes, they do not qualify. That way, we exclude the litany of smaller parties that have wide ballot access but no mainstream impact. Maybe also an inclusion of a stipulation that if a candidate is polling ahead in a state but fails the first two, then they can also qualify? I'm mainly writing this with Evan McMullin in mind, as a win in Utah would have meant he would have won electoral votes and have been in the 2016 election's wikibox.
I feel like options 3 and 4 are more subjective and definitely more difficult. Presidential debates are notoriously difficult for third parties to get into, and require their own polling threshold (15%). Doing so would just switch the 5% criteria to a much more stringent 15%, which excludes notable campaigns like Ross Perot's 1996 run. Media coverage is also a tricky thing to measure objectively, and I feel like any candidate that passes the first 2 criteria outlined above will already be in the limelight. We saw extensive coverage of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in 2016, though those two campaigns never amounted to much, so anyone that polls higher should be equally as written about. QuailWatts (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the ballot access proposal should be some sort of benchmark(ie take the number of EVs a candidate has balllot access to and compare it to the EVs a candidate can not get ballot access to due to failure to meet ballot filling deadlines. The candidate can be included in infobox if he/she has ballot access to more EV than he/she cant get) Cannolorosa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Fringe rules it out His beliefs go against mainstream science. Duneatlas (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is not relevant here Cannolorosa (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 & 4 are probably the most important but I can also go with 2. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)5% is the threshold for votes, polling would need to be higher. 2)Necessary, but not enough. Libertarian will be on the ballot in all states but not in the infobox. 3) Fine, but too high a standard. He is almost certain to be excluded. 4) Candidates who actually did swing the election are not there in 2000 and 2016. I would suggest name on ballot (not write-in) in 25 states or 270 votes AND polling at 10%. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not a candidate reaches a presidential debate is an entirely irrelevant factor. It is entirely possible that Donald Trump will not participate in debates set up by the commission on presidential debates or alternatively could choose to debate against third party candidates simply to afford media attention to them.XavierGreen (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Collorizador (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. John Anderson got 6.6% of the vote and is in the infobox for the 1980 United States presidential election. RFK is at least as notable as Anderson was in that election, if nor more so. Don't let your opinion of his political beliefs bias you here, Wikipedia articles have no opinion. Fryedk (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His beliefs are completely irrelevant to whether or not he should be included in the infobox. If there were an American Nazi Party candidate who got over 5%, they would still be included in the infobox. AmericanBaath (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Kennedy is polling above 5%. Any candidate that polls above 5% or has access to 270 electoral college votes should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, He is clearly above the 5% threshold, as shown by a plethora of polling. So... what needs to happen to actually get him into the infobox? Does some need of final vote need to happen or what? Chipka (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're going to get a narrative about how he needs to qualify for polling, and then you're going to get some other interpretations based on total lack of precedent and goalposting before people will even begin to give him the same credence as they would towards literally any other election - look at how we handle other countries and determine candidates of interest. It's a uniquely American perspective, and people are turning towards echo-chamber and bubble behaviors to intercede thought on what a relevant candidate is. Wikipedia should make that determination, not a bunch of op-ed perspectives that people keep on parroting. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom[edit]

Due to the importance of this article and the fact that we have been going in circles on this and will probably continue to do so, would it be best to sumbit a request to wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests Cannolorosa (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom doesn't settle content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)[edit]

There has been a longstanding debate on this page about the criteria required for a candidate to be eligible for the infobox.

  • Criterion #1a: A candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
  • Criterion #1b: A candidate who generally polls at 10% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
  • Criterion #1c: A candidate who generally polls at 15% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
  • Criterion #2a: Media coverage that considers them to have a significant chance (>5-10% or above) to win the national election.
  • Criterion #2b: Media coverage that considers them a major candidate in the race, regardless of whether they have a significant chance of winning.
  • Criterion #3: Reaching and participating in a presidential debate hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
  • Criterion #4: Nomination from a major party only. Third-party candidates shouldn't be listed.
  • Criterion #5: If the candidate holds political beliefs that are non-fringe, mainstream, and polls above a certain percentage. (Whether 1%, 5%, 10%, and 15%.)
  • Criterion #6: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and meets criteria #1a, #1b, or #1c.
  • Criterion #7: Another criterion not listed or a requirement that they fulfill multiple criteria of the above. (Explain how and why.)

The results of this RFC should not be interpreted as WP: PRECEDENT outside of this article. KlayCax (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO if the media coverage deems someone will be a major candidate - the polling will eventually reflect this. Henceforth I don't hold very great weight on media coverage on that. Wikipedia included Johnson, Stein, and McMullin in 2016 within the last quarter of the 2016 election when this was a concern too. In 2020, needless to say, third parties didn't have a very great effect on polling, and ballot access historically is not very indicative of successful candidates (see Reform, Green, Libertarian party in the past 20 years).
    Of all these, polling tends to be the most reliable and neutral way to approach it. Participating in a debate is optional and just adds more grounds for unnecessary contestion if someone barely makes it to a 15% threshold during a certain polling period. And #5 would be used to exclude countless candidates from infoboxes across the world, no use in trying to think this one out, for this is argument's galore. Of all these I think #1a makes the most sense and is line with candidates that have been included in infoboxes. If there is any way you have to look at this, you should look at what gets a candidate to an infobox in past elections and use that as your baseline. Borifjiufchu (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cannot possible be serious. You've got scare quotes in four of the options. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KlayCax: Stop removing candidates from the infobox! We have consensus from this page to have Biden and Trump listed. You must gain consensus BEFORE making the change, not change it first then act like reverting requires a new discussion. Separately, several editors you list as supporting your perspective are transparently sock-puppets. Please refrain from reading consensus as supporting your own position, especially when the support comes from newly creates single-purpose accounts. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not scare quotes. They are italicized to place emphasis on generally. Meaning that one strange outlier poll would not qualify a candidate in the infobox. (As often happens with third-party candidates.) KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You changed them after my comment. There is a page history. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of prolonging this tangent, they were indeed italics markup from the beginning and never scare quotes. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meeting #1A, and 2B is probably enough. Ballot access is important as well so some sort of small requirement would probably be helpful, see Evan McMullin 2016 presidential campaign for why Ballot Access is neccesary. I also agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. We have long standing consensus to include presumptive nominees from the two major parties, removing them because you aren't getting your way around Kennedy is very disruptive. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Evan McMullin would have won Utah, his ballot access in other states would have been moot. You only need 1 pledged Electoral Vote to be include post-election. If RFKJR was leading in the polls in one state (and had ballot access there), I'd say include him. Prcc27 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was more than Evan McMullin failed to get the national attention he needed to win a state because he didn't have ballot access. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made several points about why ballot access doesn't really guarantee this. In-fact of the people planning to vote in protest against Trump - many were leaning towards Gary Johnson, with polls as high as 5-10% generally speaking. You really think people didn't vote for Evan McMullin because he wasn't on the ballot when some of those people were planning to vote for a third-party anyways (i.e. not Trump)? In-fact 30% of all his votes were write-ins. Now let's say in some unforeseen circumstance that RFK Jr doesn't get ballot access (despite polling and having recognition similar to John Anderson/Ross Perot), would he not get tons of write-in votes, and still be polling just as highly? That's the line in the sand that I don't get with regards to why ballot access is a serious qualifier, since it doesn't disqualify someone from winning, nor does it seem to be reliable at all considering the amount of parties that do get ballot access, yet little in the way of substantial votes beyond a decimal percentage impact. Borifjiufchu (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "ballot access" should include write-in access. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #7:: 5% of the national popular vote, or winning a state (or electoral vote in the cases of Maine or Nebraska). I could be convinced to change my mind to criterion #6. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you arguing for the fourth criterion? Nomination from a major party only. Third-party candidates shouldn't be listed [until the results of the election are known].
    Since the RFC is about whether third-party candidates should be included before the 2024 presidential election is held. KlayCax (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is only about pre-election results, then yes, criterion #4 would be my vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if we went back in time and had Wikipedia in the past, you wouldn't put Perot in the infobox for 1992/1996, Wallace for 1968 or Roosevelt for 1912? Not to mention Anderson, La Follette, Weaver or the others? Greeley for 1872, when there was no Democrat candidate?
    Why discard third-party candidates wholesale - what makes the USA's elections unique that they can't be included when they get included in Russian (even less viable candidates than the USA), Brazilian (similarly polarized to two candidates like the USA), French, Ukranian, Portuguese (a strong two-party system between the PSD and PS when it comes to presidential elections), South Korean, Mexican (SK and Mexico have no second round akin to the USA) and other presidential election pages? Should Javier Milei have been discarded from the Argentine election's infobox when he was a third-party candidate in the beginning of 2023, occupying a space in polling similar to RFK at the beginning of 2024?
    Inherently disqualifying third-party candidates seems to, at least according to my perception, fall under WP:CRYSTAL because this stance seems to pass judgement over who "has a chance at winning" and who doesn't. This is obviously absurd to do, as Wikipedia is intended to present information rather than editorialize about chances of victory.
    It is better to choose a different metric than #4 because it follows objective metrics - "major party" is also subjective as the two parties may potentially (although not plausibly) change as they have done several times throughout the history of the USA. Collorizador (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1a (ideal) or #1b — best in line with the WP:5% rule and WP: PRECEDENTs established on other election articles. I'm willing to raise it to 10% before the election simply because of the fact that third-party candidates tend to decline in polling before the election. As the United States elects its presidents through the electoral college, rather than a national popular vote, requirements that candidates appear on a X amount of ballots simply don't make sense. KlayCax (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1b before the election to ensure candidates will likely secure at least 5% of the vote in the election. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally #6: Ballot access (including write-in access) in 270 Electoral Votes, meets national polling requirement; OR #7 a serious contender in at least one Electoral Vote (state, district, etc.) in which they are likely to get a pledged electoral vote post-election. Prcc27 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's best to do this sui generis, as the issue to me is a certain level of success at a certain point. 10% in October would be enough, as would 10% plus ballot access to 270 votes, as would participation in the debates. I don't see any of those things happening, but I would support something lesser, but I'd have to know it when I see it. Perhaps 10% after the conventions? I don't know. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1a due to this being precedent in other articles, and is in good condition. Lukt64 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with Criterion #1a too. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 (with #1a). As has been previously discussed, criterion 1a is widely used.
    • No matter what you say regarding this decision being unique to this election, all decisions should be reasoned by general rules and not specific whims. Otherwise, we risk this decision coming down to pure bias for or against a candidate.
    • Using 1a alone as a rule across articles sets a confusing precedent, since party candidates may poll over 5% in hypothetical matchups before winning their nominations. To then require them to get their nomination to be included would actually create an irrational bias against party candidates.
    • But because getting ballot access in states representing 270 electoral votes is sufficiently analogous to being a presumptive nominee (and therefore getting automatic access in most states), we should include this requirement.
    • Requiring access in sufficient states to theoretically win the election avoids WP:CRYSTAL and relies solely on objective metrics, avoiding endless debate over reliability of sourcing and precise meaning of language.
    Let me know if this should be clarified; I realize it's a complicated argument with several steps. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add an addendum here that the subjective purpose of the infobox is to "tell the story," so to speak, of the election and not simply show candidates who could win. Thus, if we're going to fall back on a subjective perspective, Kennedy should be included whether or not he has a shot in the eyes of the media, as it seems clear that he will have an impact on the race. With that said, I think we should fall back on objective principles given the likelihood of controversy. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 - DEFINITELY ballot access. It being mathematically possible to win the presidency should be a given. criterion 1b or 1c is also preferred - third parties almost always don't hit the same numbers as the polls may indicate. Longestview (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 and 1a (though prefer them not being added until results, as we do with every other US based election)
    We include folks on the infobox for other US based elections if not of a major party if they get 5% in the final results. A third party candidate polling at a certain percentage has yet to actually net that high of a result, especially so far out, and especially with the weird skewing of polling that we have seen the last two cycles. Actual results, and polling are two vastly different things.
    However, if the third party candidate is not even on enough state ballots to get 270, then they flat out should not be included in the infobox.
    Honestly, would prefer third parties not be included in the infobox until they have actually shown to even get 5% of the vote in national elections. Something that hasn't happened in nearly 30 years. Tipsyfishing (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do include independent candidates before the election on state-level articles if they are polling well. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria #6 & 1a. Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1996 set a clear precedent about infobox inclusion. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 It's the percentage of the vote that counts, polling is provably unreliable and therefore irrelevant. GhulamIslam (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #7. 5% of the national popular vote, or winning a state. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we include the Libertarian nominee then, even if they poll below 1% of the vote? -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We never do in the infoboxes. Tipsyfishing (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and my understanding is that this is because we use polling as a criterion. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfC is about the pre-election inclusion criteria. The post-election criteria are already set. Prcc27 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6. Without a path to 270 electoral votes, inclusion in the infobox is just plain undue weight. Okay with either 1a or 1b after that. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1a: This aligns with Wikipedia precedent as prior U.S. presidential elections' infoboxes generally display candidates who received over 5%. Okay with 6 in addition to it. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1a: This is the closest to consistency with other countries' election wikiboxes-in the 2024 Russian presidential election, for example, candidates are included despite the fact that some are polling below 5%, while the German state elections seem to be using 5% as the criterion Cas2024 (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria #6 & 1a. With write-in states counting as ballot access. Cuddle567wow (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 - is sufficient. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 works. Whether it's paired with 1a, 1b, or 1c I'm not as sure of, but #6 keeps us from putting someone in the infobox who could only win in a highly unlikely write-in scenario. The Savage Norwegian 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add that this is my opinion for before the election only. If any candidate gets over 5% nationally in the results, that'd warrant infobox inclusion, like in 1996 United States presidential election. It's undue to add it before the fact if the candidate has no electoral path. The Savage Norwegian 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can theoretically win 5% of the national popular vote post-election with a mix of ballot access and write-in access. The goal is to include candidates in the infobox pre-election, if they have a fair chance of being included post-election. Having actual ballot access (rather than write-in status) is not a criterion post-election, so it should not be one pre-election. Prcc27 (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but we can't add RFK based on what he theoretically could get, because there is no way to know that. The Libertarian candidate will have their name on the ballot in every state, and so could theoretically get 5% (or 50%!) but they will not be in the infobox before the election. Why are we treating RFK different? Because of his actual achievement: elevated polling. Getting your name on the ballot is another achievement. Write-in access is an achievement, too, but a much lessor one. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreatCaesarsGhost: Who said anything about special treatment..? Any candidate that meets the ballot access and polling criteria should be included; I simply think write-in access should count as “ballot access”. If the Libertarians meet the threshold, I say include them too. Prcc27 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Write-in access quite literally means nothing. In most cases, you just send a document to the state, no fee or signatures required... If you can't even get enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, that means you probably don't even have the grassroots support to get enough votes to be placed in the infobox. In many states, they don't even report these numbers even if you get write-in access, and just report it as "scatter." Longestview (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Write-in status can mean something if you actually win.. Biden recently won NH as a write-in, Murkowski became a Senator as a write-in. I can’t speak for all states, but California does report write-in totals. That’s a huge chunk of popular votes up for grabs. Grassroots support is important, but when you have a lot of name recognition and media coverage, it certainly is not the end all, be all. Prcc27 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A) Murkowski did not become a Senator as a write-in. She was a 8-year sitting Senator running for re-election when she won by write-in. Similarly, Biden was the sitting president, running virtually unopposed, when he won NH as a write-in. Neither situation is remotely comparable to an outsider candidate that no one has suggested is even a remote threat to win a single state. B) I never said special treatment. I said different. As in, here we are discussing RFK, and why is that? The reason is that he's polling well. For some that is enough, for the majority it's not. That majority wants something more, and this RfC discussion confirms that something more is name on the ballot. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreatCaesarsGhost: I also agree that polling alone is not sufficient, because you have to actually be a candidate that gets votes to actually win 5% nationwide. You are right, RFKJR is no Murkowski or Biden, but the threshold for the infobox post-election is relatively low: 5% popular vote nationwide. Wikipedia is not a crystalball, but if a candidate has a *fair* chance of winning 5% nationwide or 1 pledged Electoral College vote, I say include them in the infobox pre-election, then remove them post-election if/when they get less than 5%. RFKJR may not be able to win as a write-in like Biden or Murkowski. But does it not seem plausible he could win 5% nationwide as a write-in and/or ballot access/write-in hybrid? Especially if it was something like ballot access 269 votes vs. write-in access 269 electoral votes? Prcc27 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "if a candidate has a *fair* chance of winning 5% nationwide or 1 pledged Electoral College vote" is a reasonable standard, but I think we will have very different ideas about how to evaluate that chance. Personally, I think that if RFK starts registering as a write-in, that's a giant red flag that he's not trying to actually contest the election, and we should not elevate him to the infobox, period. However, I also very confident that will only happen if his polls continue their decline. It's silly to consider these these factors as if they are independent from one another. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 works well and makes sense along with #1a. I feel that 1b and 1c are a bit excessive especially when a candidate already has enough ballot access to win the needed number of electoral votes. Also should they qualify for the presidential debate, it's an automatic no-brainer to include them in the infobox too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria #6 and #1a seem fair due to how the system works and the WP:5% rule. Although this RfC won't create precedent, we should still follow it. signed, SpringProof talk 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2b: The purpose of infoboxes is to summarize key facts about the subject (MOS:INFOBOX). How do we know whether a candidacy is a "key fact" for this race? If reliable sources about the race are talking about it in that way. I'm not sure that's exactly what 2b says, but it's the closest. Basically, editors need to be reading reliable sources, and summarize them. Even if there are reliable source articles about a third party candidate, I don't think it's until the more general articles about this race generally are consistently talking about those candidates that it makes sense to include them in the infobox. There is no reason to make up a rule, such as criterion 6; we just need to follow the reliable source reporting and do some thinking about whether a candidacy is a "key fact" about this race. As a ridiculous hypothetical, if the grand wizard of the KKK started running and developed a big enough following, even though he didn't get ballot access in enough states to satisfy criterion 6, it seems at least plausible that reliable sources would talk about it a lot to the point it became a "key fact" about this race.--Jfhutson (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would recommend closing due to near unanimous consensus to include Kennedy after he gets ballot access. Lukt64 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and once Kennedy reaches ballot access he must be added. No more buts. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still not a consensus on whether 1a, 1b, 2b, or 6 (with 1a, 1b, or 1c) is best yet. That's why the RFC is still going. KlayCax (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primarily #6 w/ 1a but also #2a or 2b if a candidate can achieve it. Any candidate that has ballot access in 270 electoral votes of states and is getting 5% in national polls is a significant enough candidate to potentially affect the outcome of the election even if they don't win, and therefore should be included. But even if a candidate doesn't reach this threshold, if the sources agree they're very significant they should be included anyway. Loki (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a candidate is almost certainly going to pass #6. Why should we wait for it to be de jure rather than de facto? It's no different from including Biden and Trump in the infobox now; people who claim it is WP: CRYSTAL are being inconsistent here. Present exclusion violates the WP: PRECEDENT established on other candidate pages. Considering that third-party candidates are still polling in the upper-10s to low-20s. KlayCax (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the waiting for BA to 270 votes officially is probably too long, which is why I advocated for a sui generis decision as facts emerge. I believe this RfC only requires us to add him when he reaches 270; it should not prevent us from adding him earlier if consensus deems appropriate. Aside, it is VERY different from Biden and Trump for reasons too obvious to state, and there is no precedent for WP adding a third candidate to the infobox on a US Presidential race before the election. Even if there were, consensus overrules precedent every single time. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a sui generis addition is that *someone* will inevitably revert it as soon as it is done. Meaning, we'll be quickly back at this debate treadmill over and over again for the next few months.
With Kennedy's VP pick, it's already a fait accompli, and stated as such in reliable sources. It would just save us a ton of time and a ton of energy to just place him in the article now. KlayCax (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best to let the RFC run its course. I'm confident that all will respect the decision, when it's closed. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much NOT a fait accompli that RFK will achieve ballot access, or that by the time he does he will still be polling well enough to meet the standard set here (he has already receded from a peak ~ 19% to ~ 9%[1]). This was seen by some (including me) as somewhat inevitable: as the campaign season begins in earnest, support moves from novelty candidates to the more credible. If RFK bucks this trend, that is proof that his campaign is more serious and warrants adding to the infobox. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2a or #2b. Ultimately Wikipedia's role is to reflect what reliable sources say; it isn't to try and second-guess them. This is especially true for infoboxes, where we can't really present much context. If the sources treat someone as a major candidate, we should as well, regardless of how they poll and regardless of ballot access; if they do not, it is WP:OR to dig through polling and ballot access to try and present them as significant ourselves. The only complex part of this ought to be figuring out what sort of coverage makes someone a major candidate, which ultimately does have to be decided on a case by case basis; this gives me some preference for 2a (which provides a clear example) but it's probably not sufficient, which leaves us with only 2b as a realistic choice. Oppose #6 in strongest possible terms - based on that, a candidate with no coverage at all could be added to the infobox; that simply isn't how we write encyclopedic articles. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KlayCax
1a
per Wikipedia precedent, 2b should also be considered if Wikipedia's reliable sources "perennial sources" guidelines are reformed. (I am not getting into the whole RS/PS thing, that would be for that page and not here) Buildershed (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KlayCax This was just closed, then reopened, what happened? Buildershed (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buildershed:, the closing was done by a brand new account (not necessarily a new editor). Someone took exception to that and reverted the close. -- Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status read I am applying a ranked voting logic here by assuming that those who support a lower standard would move to the next lowest standard if their preference is rejected. By my count, there are 22 contributors so far. 4 support 5% only. An additional 2 support 5% + write-in access - TOTAL 6. An additional 7 support 5% + ballot access - TOTAL 13. An additional 3 support 10% + ballot access - TOTAL 16. By my reckoning (which is not authoritative), we have consensus for ballot access + 10%. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, yes, most of us can agree that a candidate with ballot access (270+?) and 10% polling should be included in the infobox. Arguably, there is a consensus, albeit weaker consensus for a 5% threshold. I have expressed support for a 10% threshold in the past, but I will yield on the 5% vs. 10% for now. Prcc27 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #6 along with #1a. Out of all the options. This is the one that is the most impartial. And makes the most sense for the infobox pre-election. In terms of #1a, until there's another RFC for polling we shouldn't change the precedent. Which at the time is WP:5%. As for the 270 electoral votes. That is how many are needed to win the election outright. So if a candidate achieves access to those votes. And meets the polling precedent. They should be added to the infobox. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are looking for the pre-election equivalent of the 5% consensus for results, bear in mind that a candidate polling at 5% but with access to only half the votes would only get 2.5% of the vote (if they match their polling). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if polls in the near future will adjust themselves based on ballot access. If not, yes, the 5% threshold could be too low for candidates that lack ballot access. Prcc27 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to the idea of a 50 states or a 50 states + DC rule. Don't entirely agree with it since it's not required to win the election. But if that's something we wish to entertain the idea for I won't offer any pushback. Now whether or not that would change the polling criteria is another question. If there was a rule for ballot access in all 50 states is 5% still sufficient? Or should it be raised to 10% in national polling? This is the problem I'm seeing with this RFC. Since it's not going to set a new precedent. I don't see a reason as to why we should alter what is established. Dr. Stein, Mr. McMullin and Mr. Castle were all in the infobox in 2016 based off the 270 (including write-in) + 5% rule. I'm all for a 10% national polling threshold (and maybe could be convinced to get behind a 50 states rule) if this was a discussion to change the precedent going forward. And I do believe that is the discussion we should be having. Since we are not though, that is why I'm sticking with previous precedent. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most users here including myself agree to add Kennedy until he reaches enough ballot access to 270 electoral votes. Now you wanna push it to "must be in all 50 states?" Come on, now. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one person in this entire Talk page has made the argument in favor a 50 states rule. And that argument was made outside of this RFC. I said I do not agree with such a rule in the next sentence and followed that up again saying I would need to be convinced. I could be convinced. Hence is the nature of being open to something. The likelihood of my mind changing on that however, is slim. Now if you read the rest of what I said after the first sentence. We are both in agreement that the ballot access requirement to be in the infobox is 270. That is the one thing this RFC has created a consensus on. Which I do need to make a correction to my argument including the 2016 election. Upon further review of that article. The polling average was ignored outright. Only three of the six candidates met the polling average. But all six had access to 270+ electoral votes. The question we have now is what should the polling requirement be? Which again we're in agreement at the 5% threshold. Our reasoning may be different, but we agree. However, there is no consensus on what it should be. There is a majority for 10% that has been counted. But a two vote majority (adding myself to the minority side) is not a consensus. And I don't think we'll come to one with this RFC not changing precedent. Which is why I proposed the idea of one. Which if the majority of editors here are not open to that discussion. That's perfectly ok it's just an idea to try and end the stalemate. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was considerable acrimony on this issue in 2016 right up to Election Day, so I don't believe we have anything approaching established consensus on the issue. Still, that was 8 years ago and consensus can change. The discussion here has been oddly much more civil. My argument is simply that if 5% in actual voting is the standard, we should apply a similar standard to polling, but with a multiplier for ballot access. A candidate on the ballot in states with 270 EVs would need about 10%, a candidate in every state needs 5%, etc. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I failed to locate the archives from the 2016 election. I admit fault in stating any falsehoods. Your argument is a good one. And largely I agree. The only reason I can't get on board is due to the fact WP:5% applies to polling not just raw votes. There was an RFC last year that agreed to not have it strictly enforced in parliamentary elections. That is something I believe is something we too should discuss. But since this RFC doesn't apply long term. I'm sticking with those parameters. Think we see where each other is coming from. There's agreement, but also disagreement in implementation. But as you even said things change with time. So I'm going to stick with what I originally said we should do. And rest in a sort of "agree to disagree" standing. I'm not entirely sure a consensus will be reached in terms of polling. So I'm going to let it rest there and accept whatever outcome is decided. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #1b and #3 or #6. 5% for polling is too low. Third parties usually underperform, so 10% consistent polling should be required. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion #2a, #3, and #4 necessitate immediate inclusion. For anything less, #2b should be used. I am opposed to using a specific polling percentage or electoral votes as used in #1, #5, or #6. We should first and foremost rely on what reliable sources are saying rather than these other criteria which is borderline original research. Yeoutie (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a candiate has ballot access to 270 or more electoral college votes, they should be added to the infobox. There is not likely to be more than 4 such candidates, so there will be no issue with crowding.XavierGreen (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 2b should be a given, as media coverage in reliable sources basically defines notability as far as wikipedia is concerned. I'm also inclined to allow one of the Criteria 1 options in addition to 2b, not supplanting 2b (so a candidate that has low or non-existant polling data, but is still covered extensively by reliable sources who take the candidate seriously, should still be allowed), but I'm ambivelant as to what the exact threshold should be. 5% seems popular above, and I don't object to that, but I can see an argument that 10% would make for a better cutoff. I'd lean more on the 5% side if you really pushed me for my opinion, however, since taking 5% in the general election means that the narrow thin margin between the two major parties is going to be significantly effected. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b (and 2a) does nothing to settle the discussion, as it requires us to interpret whether media coverage of a candidate is "considering" them to be a major factor. Each additional article mentioning the candidate would be seen by someone as cause for a re-evaluation (or by WP:BOLD fans to readd him without discussion). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • criteria 1a. You'd put him on once he gets 5% of the vote, so you should also put him on if he's polling over 5%. I'd be okay with adding criteria 6 as well, but it feels unnecessary to me because he would still be added to the infobox post election if he made 5% of the national vote but failed to be on the ballot in some states. Chipka (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to close as RFC has been open over a month and contributions have slowed. I believe we have consensus to add when and if a candidate has achieved ballot access in states holding 270 electoral votes AND received 10% support in recent polls. In addition, there is sufficient support that the discussion can be reopened should the candidate be at 5% when 270 votes are accessed. Otherwise, the issue should be considered closed absent substantial deviation from the status quo. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatCaesarsGhost I see more consensus on 1a than 1b Buildershed (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies- I intended this as in updated to my prior status read, but neglected to copy it to my comment. My read is there are certain lesser standards that, if they lack sufficient support to carry, may reasonably be applied to the next lowest standard (for example, those that support 5% polling only would certainly support 5% plus write-in access as a backup). By my count, there are (UPDATED) 28 contributors so far. 4 support 5% only. An additional 2 support 5% + write-in access - TOTAL 6. An additional 1 supports BA only - TOTAL 7. - An additional 8 support 5% + ballot access - TOTAL 15. An additional 4 support 10% + ballot access - TOTAL 20. But I would suggest that the 15 of 28 supporting 5% + ballot access is insufficient. But 20 of 28 supporting 10% + ballot access is sufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure where I fit in this tally.. But I support write-in access and lean towards a 10% threshold, unless we can somehow account for margin of error. We also need to account for the fact that candidates may be included in polls even in states they do not have ballot/write-in access. Prcc27 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can take this RfC as reading the temperature of the room. There are a lot of hypotheticals involved, and I think the discussion will be easier once events come to pass. If RFK decides to go the write-in route AND hits 10%, we could discuss adding. If he goes for ballot access and hits 5%, we could discuss adding. But if he goes for ballot access and hits 10%, we already have consensus to add (in my estimation). But we shouldn't discuss again until he hits 270 votes (write-in or BA), gets invited to a debate, or something similar. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is backwards. Those with lower standards can't be imputed to support the higher standard. There are five votes for 10% against fifteen for less stringent standards, and given that there is no particularly compelling argument one way or the other for either standard. This whole RfC has been poorly conducted. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a + 6. 5% is the standard for other elections, and should be applied here. Fryedk (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original post specifies a "candidate who generally polls at XX% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)" Those aggregators currently show RFK between 7.2 and 8.8% - well above the 5% but not meeting the 10%. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should presumptive nominees be listed in the infobox? (Question 2)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is overwhelmingly clear that major party candidates should be included in the infobox now, and inclusion for third party candidates is pending another RfC. (non-admin closure) Prcc27 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There has been a longstanding debate on this page about when candidates should be added into the infobox.

  1. Wait until the major party conventions nominate their chosen candidates.
  2. Wait until we see which candidates will ultimately qualify for the infobox, per the decided upon criteria of the above RFC.
  3. Include major party candidates now; decision for third-party candidates should be decided upon criteria of the above RFC.

The results of this RFC should not be interpreted as WP: PRECEDENT outside of this article. KlayCax (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option #3 I'm okay with listing Biden and Trump now, that they are presumptive nominees (enough delegates to clinch the nomination). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3 As long as major party candidates have the majority of delegates, they should be included. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3 for the reasons mentioned above. But keep the "presumptive" labels until after their respective conventions. --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3 seems obvious and is consistent with #6 in the first part of this RfC. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3:
    I support RFK in the infobox. Whether it's now or after the election, he almost certainly will be added at one point. IEditPolitics (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kennedy could easily drop out of the race, between now & election day. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is 100% certainly NOT going to happen Lukt64 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no idea what will or won't happen. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He shouldn't be added before the election and should only be added after if he wins 5% of the popular vote or a state. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3 - We do mention them as "presumptive", so no problem. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3 sounds fair. signed, SpringProof talk 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KlayCax when does the rfc close 170.10.51.116 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RfCs are not normally time-limited. That said, Legobot will remove the {{rfc}} tag and delist the RfC thirty days after the first timestamp, that is to say at approximately 07:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC), unless the RfC is terminated early or extended. More information at WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 because the coverage clearly treats it as decided, but note that this is dependent on coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - It's pretty clearly the best and most obvious option for how to do this. Fieari (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: In states where he has ballot access, should Kennedy Jr. be in the infobox of states without polling?[edit]

There is currently an edit dispute on whether Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of states that will likely not receive polling in the 2024 presidential election or have not been polled yet.

Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.

Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.

Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.

Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • #3 - We should wait until after the November election, to see if Kennedy (assuming he still in the race) gets at least 5% of a state popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems unfair, then why include anyone? PeacockShah (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need an RFC for this? Prcc27 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Prcc27:. Because editors are going to keep reverting it back and forth if we don't. KlayCax (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Editors” meaning you? The consensus is already clear without the RfC, and the RfC is only going to reaffirm what was decided, this is a waste of time. Prcc27 (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My simple opinion is this;
What’s the point of adding him now? Let’s be honest here, everyone knows of RFK Jr. now. He’s a Kennedy, people have seen him on TikTok, the Super Bowl. Wait till he gets the votes, THEN add him. I expect him to get 8%, which is an impressive demographic to be honest. IEditPolitics (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be even more reason to add him now.. If the media is treating him like a serious candidate now, and he has ballot access to a state, why would we exclude him until after the election? An infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of the election, and if RFKJR is going to have a significant impact on the election, he should be included. We should probably wait until he polls consistently at 5%-10% in states though. Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I agree with what you have said. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#1 it would be unfair if he has access to them yet can't be on the infobox. InterDoesWiki (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are usually around 10 people that have ballot access. We will not add them all to the infobox, so we need some additional factor for those that we do add. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's again clarify (because there has been confusion on this point) that ballot access means name on the ballot. Write-in access is a different thing. As to the question, I pick none of the above. If Kennedy has ballot access in a state that is not polled, he should be included on that state if he has met the standard for the national infobox. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The state is polled, he just wasn’t included in it. Prcc27 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(For Utah that is; I know this RfC is for all the states in general). Prcc27 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KlayCax option #1 commie (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#1 Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option #1:, every entrant on the ballot should be listed.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if 20+ people are on the ballot, we should include all 20+ people in the infobox? Prcc27 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3: don't include him without any polling of the state. Including all candidates on the ballot without polling would be unworkable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump photo in infobox[edit]

How come Trumps official presidential portrait isn't being used for the infobox but it is for the Republican primaries section? Also, if Biden wins, should we replace his portrait in the infobox with a more up to date picture of him until his second portrait is released? CY223 (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be due to the consensus generated at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#Biden and Trump pictures, which found to change the image to what it is now and keep Biden's the same. Courtesy pings to participants: @TheFellaVB, @IEditPolitics, @GhulamIslam, @GreatCaesarsGhost:, @Wikipedia1010121, @Lostfan333, @Punker85, and @PizzaSliced. —Sirdog (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what are the chances that if Biden wins his portrait in the wikibox is replaced with a more up to date photo of him until his second portrait is released? CY223 (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on a high quality image being available and proposed. This other discussion gives some insight to that question. Note that the two images gaining most support are the oldest. While the picture should be somewhat contemporaneous, the quality of the photo comes largely into play. The age in absolute terms is less concerning when the target is elderly, as the appearance changes less. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it'd be unnecessary. It's only going to be a three month gap in-between the election and the second official portrait being released should he win. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the discussion was also about Biden picture, it was Trump picture that was mainly discussed in the page and, so, I think this discussion should prevail over the other one since it was specifically about Biden picture and it have a lot more responses than the other discussion Punker85 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's really funny how people will be upset at a decision even though they had 2+ weeks to contribute to the conversation yet chose not to TheFellaVB (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the first question: I mentioned in the discussion about Trump picture that, if Trump picture should be changed in the infobox, his picture should be changed accordingly in the Republican ticket table, which my proposition for the picture was this. Since nobody opposed nor approved my suggestion, I guess that his picture in the Republican ticket table should be changed? 🤔 Punker85 (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image in the ticket table should be changed accordingly and approve of your suggestion. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the image in the ticket section should match the one in the main info box XboxGamer2002! (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of using his official portrait as long as it is a better quality photo and Trump has his gaze turned towards the lens. This portrait is more correct. Besides, Wikipedia must be neutral. It is not up to Internet users to choose one photo over another. I don't see why Biden would be entitled to his official portrait and not Trump since there is a consensus on Wikipedia to use the official portraits of American presidents in the Infobox when possible. Sthubertliege (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a WP on election pictures. Actually, in all cases of 3-time major presidential candidates (Nixon, FDR, Cleveland, Bryan, Jackson, Jefferson & Clay) the same picture isn't used throughout all their candidacies. GhulamIslam (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every U.S. elections always using official portrait but not in presidential primaries so then. Memevietnam98 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Trump's portrait. We've essentially used official portraits for nearly every election article. Plus, Trump's 2017 portrait doesn't show a drastically different Trump/no change in appearance. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue it's quite a difference -- People's appearance can change a lot in 7 years, for example, Trump's noticeable weight loss. Portraits used should be an accurate portrayal of that person's appearance in that specific time frame, which, in my view, supersedes how "official" a portrait is. Biden, on the other hand, remains much more similar. Longestview (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this photo better. It’s relatively recent, and seems more presidential. Prcc27 (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is for his official presidential portrait (2017). But if it is decided to choose a more recent picture, I agree this one is better than photo currently used. Sthubertliege (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a short majority is in favor using Trump official presidential portrait. 2A02:2788:72A:37D:18D7:7A33:6228:6B6C (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it does not look like there is consensus, especially not as much of a consensus as the previous discussion on the matter. Prcc27 (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia usually uses official portraits for infoboxes.[edit]

Why has Trump's 2017 presidential portrait been replaced with a non-official 2023 one in all infoboxes? WorldMappings (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it have been decided in this discussion that a more recent picture of Trump should be used instead of his presidential portrait Punker85 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's presidential portrait is 7 years old and does not reflect his current appearance. A more recent photo is necessary. AmericanBaath (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You had over 2 weeks if not a month to contribute to the discussion. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I think so, well actually everyone's lines which said that because the official portrait doesn't reflect his current appearance. But they don't explain why Bill Clinton's official portrait appears twice in 1992 and 1996. Memevietnam98 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a photo from 1993, one and three years from those respective elections. Clinton didn't look particularly different in those time periods. I'm not sure if anything about Trump has changed beside oranginess but the seven year span for his photo is over twice the largest one for Clinton's. AryKun (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polling aggregators[edit]

A few weeks ago, I removed RealClearPolitics from the 3-way race section of our polling aggregators, as it seemed quite clear they were no longer tracking that race actively. Now I'm seeing that "Race to the White House" has only added 5 polls of the race since Feb 1 (and 3 from the same pollster). by way of comparison, The Hill has 50 polls in the same time. ~ I understand the intent to here to list multiple aggregators as to reflect different opinions and weighting done by different sites. But I think if one site is only listing 10% of the available polls, they are failing to serve the purpose of an aggregator. For us to present their average alongside The Hill's gives it credence it does not seem to deserve. I'd like to suggest we remove RttWH now, with the understanding that we can add back any aggregators that appear to be taking the task seriously in the future. Thoughts? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be very valid methodological reasons why a polling aggregator is excluding various polls from their aggregate, for example they may be excluding polls that don't meet a sample size threshold or polls that use only online responses. Simply handpicking which aggregators you personally think are more accurate than others is not a valid reason for including or excluding a particular website and violates Wiki:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, "handpicking which aggregators you personally think are more accurate" would be invalid, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying it would be reasonable for us to evaluate collectively if there are valid methodological reasons for omitting 90% of polls or if the aggregator is just being lazy. I would note in this case that RttWH does have a listed methodology for weighting, and the pollsters it includes for the 3-way race are poorly rated by them. But there is no listed policy for excluding pollsters. Further, polls listed at The Hill and omitted from RttWH include many long-standing reputable pollsters (NYTimes/Siena, Rasmussen). Given all these facts, I can see no reasonable conclusion other than RttWH is not taking the task seriously. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And your conclusion in itself violates Wiki:Synth.XavierGreen (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how assessing the quality of a source is in anyway related to synth. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem now. RttW is no longer maintaining their 3- and 4-way trackers. Instead, they are listing all 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5- way polls on a single chart they are calling "National + 3rd Party." The resulting average currently shows a 4-way output (incl West but omitting Stein), but I assume they will modify this based on the West's average being above as certain threshold. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump image[edit]

I suggest we use this one: File:Donald Trump (53299658788) (cropped).jpg It's front-facing and not at an angle that potentially obscures trump's face like the first image. Furthermore, it's more recent Expoe34 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo looks very unnatural and off putting, I think there are far better alternatives than the one you suggested. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That's not at all a representative photo of Trump. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump image RfC[edit]

Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article: Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.

Trump infobox images
  • Option A (Current infobox image)
    Option A (Current infobox image)
  • Option B (Nominated for deletion)
    Option B (Nominated for deletion)
  • Option C
    Option C
  • Option D
    Option D

Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option B: it is a recent photo, and it looks more presidential. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close: A discussion on this was just opened above and thus WP:RFCBEFORE hasn't been satisfied. Let people try to reach a consensus before starting an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are actually several sections open, and it is becoming very difficult to try to discuss and form a consensus. Better to centralize the discussion into an RfC. We typically decide photos via RfC anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tend to agree. Multiple discussions (mostly among the same handful of people) about what amounts to the same thing but not producing a clear and actionable consensus, isn't helpful. RfCs are useful for several things, and agreeing on the best option among a choice of available photos is often one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I missed the 4/8 discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B as first choice, A as second. C looks ridiculous. A is arguably a better picture from a portrait perspective, but has distracting background elements. B doesn't have those, and is a reasonably good as a portrait, and is not a silly, hammy thing like C, so let's use that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding C, Biden and Kennedy both have the same fulsome smile in their photos, it's fine from a portrait perspective. GhulamIslam (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or C are equally fine for me. "A' looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy, but we're supposed to be neutral here, for almost anyone that means using a positive-looking picture when one is available. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A or C - The lighting on B doesn't look good for an infobox. Longestview (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B is the cleanest looking. There's no guideline relating to the lighting of photographs in infoboxes. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: It is somewhat recent with it being 9 months old and, in my opinion, looks visually pretty good with him not having a awkward smile and is well lighted. B is not a bad pick but it is soon to be 1 year and 9 months old, so this is an important reason why I am holding this option back Punker85 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it has to be that recent, after all, Biden’s presidential portrait is older (2021). I think the main argument with regards to recent photos was that Trump’s 2017 portrait was way too old for an infobox in 2024. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A or B. C just looks ridiculous, as User:SMcCandlish said. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. He has a more neutral expression. Senorangel (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose a photo of Donald Trump, I would still choose his main presidential portrait, but if one of the three above is complete, B would be better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. C looks very unnatural, as said by many people. While A Isn't really Presidential like. InterDoesWiki (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C. Most representative of how he currently looks, especially in regard to his weight loss, and the best match with Biden's picture out of the three. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The new “option D” is not good; eyes looking away from camera, mic in the way, head slanted. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - used in our article for the Republican primaries. In B he's blending into the background chameleon-style and C and D are fairly poor. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - neutral expression, portrait-style. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B — neutral, non-distracting. A would be my second choice (per Herostratus: "[A] looks a little smarmy. Not that he isn't smarmy"...) and C is my last choice, as it looks entirely ridiculous. What's a picture from, the dentist's office? Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per reasoning given by other editors here. It definitely should not C. KlayCax (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - seems quite moderate looking, to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A or a more recent photo of him from his trial. He looks pale and sickly in B and not his usual orange self! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A because C and D are poor for reasons others have mentioned, whereas B makes Trump blend in. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Option B is currently nominated for deletion, which could impact this RfC. [2] Prcc27 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume That is going to be the deciding factor, because it seems more than a majority have reached a consensus on using B, though the RFC is still ongoing. InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first choice, D second choice. There's too much shadow in B and C looks a bit goofy. Some1 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first choice, B second choice if B is not deleted. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is my only choice. B is too shadowy, C is too smiley, D has a mic in the way and his head is slanted head, so those are out of the question IMHO.
Which is not to say there can't be some other picture E which is better than any of these, but that's a bit besides the point.
Subjectively, A also seems more representative of his personality—which precise adjectives it conveys is left as an exercise to the reader, as different people may assign positive or negative ones, but in any event it is very, very much a quote-unquote "Trump" look 167.88.84.136 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. B's nominated for deletion, C looks ridiculous, and his head is cockeyed in D. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333: In the event that B does not get deleted, would you still prefer A? Prcc27 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...like others said, B does seem pretty shadowy. Yes, I would still prefer A. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A is the best option here. C and D have downsides, A does not; it's neutral. I was going to add that the lighting on B is a tad dramatic, but seems like we don't need to worry about that anymore. TheSavageNorwegian 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should assume Option B is an option if/until it is actually deleted, but of course users that prefer option B should have a backup option just in case. Prcc27 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's a fairly open and shut case. The user uploaded a number of Getty images because he did not misunderstand the license, and they are subsequently getting pulled. There is zero reason to think we would retain it. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - For the high visibility contrast. B looks likely to be deleted, but is also low contrast and fades into the background. C is ridiculous and objectively doesn't even look like the subject. D would be my second choice. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1220630917"