Talk:2024 United States presidential election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. The opening summary is particularly egregious, as it rehashes the 2020 election denial which was not even relevant to the 2024 election. It is inaccurate for the mere purpose of gratifying the writer's bias by citing "anti-immigrant fearmongering"-- while I agree Trump is a fearmonger, the topic at hand was UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION and not general immigration. Everyone knows this, yet they willfully spread misinformation and I am disgusted by Wikipedia's continued descent into disrepute. Operagost (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I agree with you. But the editors here always revert to the "Our consensus position is ..." so any edit different from that of the "consensus" of the overwhelming number of liberal-minded editors will never be allowed. And only left-leaning, "mainstream" sources are allowed to be cited. Anyone who pushes for an unbiased, balanced, neutral point of view will be warned, and then silenced and banished.TopShelf99 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you please provide a list of sources that Wikipedia considers acceptable? TopShelf99 (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is a good starting place for regularly used sources. If you're unsure about something and it's not on that list, try searching the archives of WP:RSN. — Czello ^(music) 21:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Most sources are talking about modern presidential candidates. that's a big difference from saying his language is worse than anything any "political candidate" has "ever" said. I agree that some slight changes in language here are important. justtrujames (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Of course it's false and should be removed. Just be aware that simply because it's false is not sufficient. If it is reported in the mainstream media, no matter how biased to the left, the majority of editors here will support it, and vote to make the biased statement the "consensus" view. Remember - the editors here even take the position that MSNBC is an acceptable source to cite, despite its radically leftist leanings. You are not going to win this. TopShelf99 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If you think MSNBC is "radical left", then you have absolutely no idea what that term means. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@JimmyPiersall: The bot edit you are speaking of (Which can be seen here) occurred because the page had surpassed 75 Kilobytes, as detailed in WP:ARCHIVE; Additionally, your "Memory holed" edit can be found in Archive 16 of this talk page, which can be accessed from one of the templates at the top. Stop looking for conspiracies where there are none. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I agree - that's exactly what should be done. It is incredibly biased, and exaggerated if not false. TopShelf99 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

1st para of Analysis section

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

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

Most of the section seems problematic and WP:UNDUE. Why are we saying “this pundit said this, this pundit said that”? Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

In principle I agree that info could be useful here, but honestly this page lede is already close to being longer than some entire wiki pages...it would just get lost in the already thick forest of undue trivial nonsense there. Maybe we need a lede for the lede at this point. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that the lead is already close to being longer than some entire wiki pages; the lead is very much in need of a proposed re-write, it just depends if someone is willing to spend / has the time to draft a proposal. Until then, I don't think we should add anything on to it Artem...^Talk 23:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct as it looks like a small news article to be blunt. I would be willing to make a draft, but I will need another editor to add it, when/if it is approved with consensus. If I do make a draft I will make discussion on it here, though do not count on me making the lead. I have not yet decided if I feel like I can do it, as this is a big job for anyone. And it would be hard for anyone to keep it neutral as lets face it, this election has impacted the world. We don't need either side to get their ideas on the matter mixed up with this topic. I don't care what side anyone is on as long as they can write neutrally and are willing to see the other side, as not an enemy, but a different opinion. For everyone can have their opinion but that does not mean it is wrong, it just means they see it differently. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Well said, political ideologies should absolutely not make their way into the articles on Wikipedia, but unfortunately I fear that is easier said than done, this article being an example of that as it appears overwhelmingly negative... but then again if we are relying on WP:RS and the weight that they give these topics, unfortunately it may be unavoidable as the mainstream media seems to be very much in opposition of Trump Artem...^Talk 21:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct as there is a lot against him and not much for him. We should talk about Trump and the different things against him, but we have to keep in mind that we can't give it to much weight. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

County results

When will results by county for the statewide election results be added? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history of three states for the 2020 election: Florida, Indiana and Colorado. I live in Indiana, and I thought I would take one other red and one blue. None of them had county by county results posted before Nov 25, 2020 and one wasn't posted until the first week in December 2020. It takes a while for this information to be finalized and published. Some states still haven't counted all of the votes. rogerd (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite for Lead

I am making a draft for the lead. But could use some help with adding more information to the Harris/Watz section. If you wish to view it before I propose it, you can view it here. If you have any suggestions please post them on the sandbox talk page, so that we don't clutter this one for everyone one else. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 06:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 16#Bias in lead once again

Fyi the lead has been a contentious subject. CNC (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I am trying to see what can be done. I may or may not propose it based off how good it looks when I am finished.

I do non plan on adding till there is consensus, and even then I can't, it is protected from my level. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for starting this , I will take a look and offer what feedback I can Artem...^Talk 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Better map

This Boston Globe opinion piece points out that psychological studies have found that maps that show party strength with gradations of red and blue (as opposed to starkly 100% red and 100% blue) give readers a more accurate impression. The top map in this article could be improved along these lines. -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure a gradient map actually would give a more accurate impression. The map, as far as I can tell, is showing who won the electoral votes in each state (or district). It might be useful as a map of the popular vote, however. ScruffyUnicornBeard (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am open to other maps for secondary maps in the body. But the nature of the electoral college is winner-take-all, which is what the map reflects in the infobox. Margins don’t matter in each state, plurality (or majority for rank choice states) matters. Prcc27 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A map that uses two dimensions of color still accurately depicts who won all the electoral votes in a state, in the hue dimension. It just also adds saturation as a second dimension, indicating the relative strength of support for the winning party.

Margins do matter for lots of lines of inquiry. To what degree does the elected president have a strong mandate, and if so from which states? Where is the core base of support for each party? Which states could be flipped in a future election? To what degree are the political parties geographically segregated? The studies in question indicate that people who saw an all-or-nothing map have less accurate guesses about per-state political party strength, and degree of political polarization. For the popular vote, I'd probably want to see something at the county level to avoid giving inaccurate impressions about the uniformity of opinion in states. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would think a President’s mandate is actually based on the National Popular Vote. I don’t think Trump had a mandate his first term, but he will likely have one his second term. I think the current map is our best option. Prcc27 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's one very simplistic way to look at the question of mandate, for which we don't need a map and which I don't find particularly useful without more detailed information like demographics, issues, or geography. -- Beland (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge of international reactions list

The companion list of International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election was recently nominated for deletion and closed with a result to merge the list into this article. There are two problems with this:

1. This is a contentious topic, and the closer of the discussion is not an administrator (possibly WP:BADNAC);
2. Merging the list as-is would add a little over 100kB of text to this article, which is already far WP:TOOLONG. The merge would put this page up to about #11 on the list of the longest articles on Wikipedia. I already have trouble loading it on an AMD Ryzen 5 7000 series.

What should be done here? My suggestion would be to not merge the list. If it is to be merged then it should be trimmed substantially. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it would be unwise to add it to this article unless it is trimmed down, due to length. I am also having some trouble with loading this article, and I am on a gaming PC. I hate to imagine how others devices are doing with loading. And it sounds like it falls under WP:BADNAC like you said. Situation #2 and #4 look like they apply, which would mean that it could be challenged.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been over 72 hours, so I was about to do it. It can be trimmed, but it would need to be made clear what should be trimmed. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

correct so there will need to be some talk about that. I would suggest to open that talk on the other talk page. Since it is the article that will be trimmed then moved. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 15:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page." This is the destination to talk about this. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

An attempt was made to merge the two pages, but I reverted on purely technical grounds because it caused this page to exceed the WP:PEIS limit and prevented it from rendering correctly. Even if the flag icons were removed from the "International reactions" article, the number of citations alone would cause this page to exceed the limit after a merge. I will not pass any judgement on whether or not the "international reactions" article should or shouldn't be deleted, but as it stands now there are technical reasons preventing a merge. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This election result stands in stark contradiction with Wikipedia's so-called "consensus": A consensus of like-minded individuals is NOT a consensus.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are enough people in the United States who disagree with the over-the-top leftist viewpoint of this article to demonstrate clearly that your consensus is NOT representative. This is editorial nonsense. Such opinion and one-sided analysis belongs in a tabloid, not an encyclopedia; and certainly not on a factual page about a recent election. I had hoped you would be able to rise above personal opinion, but obviously not. Wikipedia was once a source of information; not opinion and propaganda. This article presents a single viewpoint, and the editors dismiss all other viewpoints... because why? Because 99% of humans do not edit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMPZ (talk • contribs) 00:54, November 18, 2024 (UTC) So get to work. You have 32 edits in 18 years as a registered user,[1] so complaining about what others are doing is not helpful. You may feel the article is biased because you are consuming right-wing propaganda, which is widespread and effective in the United States. In this, we are actually doing a lot of good by presenting reality to an audience that is not getting it from their standard media diet. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC) I would strongly argue that the media sources used for this article are far from reality. Especially the fascism nonsense. I would love to see the people using this as a political trigger point spend one week under real fascism Artem...Talk 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Where do you suggest real fascism exists today? HiLo48 (talk) @HiLo48: I would not suggest that any are really, not that I am aware of anyway... I have seen arguments that North Korea is more-so fascist than communist, and with this I guess would probably agree Artem...Talk 02:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC) You may feel the article is biased because you are consuming right-wing propaganda, which is widespread and effective in the United States. In this, we are actually doing a lot of good by presenting reality to an audience that is not getting it from their standard media diet. Yes… let me rewrite that… You may feel the article is biased because you are consuming left-wing propaganda, which is widespread and effective in the United States. In this, we are actually doing a lot of good by presenting reality to an audience that is not getting it from their standard media diet. See the problem? The same can be presented from the other. I’m not conservative but at the end of the day like it or not everything is propaganda: left or right or even centrist (which is what I consider myself). Don’t be delusional in thinking that leftists are somehow exempt from these matters because they are more common in “academia”; which, if the fat acceptance movement has told me anything, they are far from being more “educated” than the dreaded common. And don’t even try saying right wingers are dumb because “conspiracy theorist”, when I’ve seen an unfortunate large majority of leftists thinking that Trump faked his assassination or that he’s a secret nazi or that 15 million votes are “missing”; all of which is utter bullshit. Both are loony-pins when it comes to defending the tribe. Wolfquack2 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC) TL;DR: We need more libertarian sources than mainstream or conservative. The latter are always cartoonishly biased, equally so I may say, then libertarian ones which really have nothing to gain. Wolfquack2 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox count

The infobox count & the "results" section, don't seem to be adding up the same. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. I reviewed the numbers from The Green Papers and attempted to subtract third-party candidates to see if that might align with the AP's method, but the results still didn't match. Even summing their own figures doesn't seem to produce percentages that correspond with what they're showing. Maybe someone else can figure out how the AP is getting their percentage? DMBradbury 20:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if we should use a different source? If so, which one would be better? Prcc27 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump's So-Called "Big Lie"

Acclimating Trump's concern in regards to non-citizen voters as objectively false has no bases. My local elections office failed to verify my voter ID in person, and the voter report letter I received for my household confirmed that every voter registered at my address voted in the 2024 election. This is highly disconcerting when you take into account that one of the registered voters at my address has passed away. The elections office is not doing enough to safeguard ballot entries from non-citizen voting via stolen identities.

The line "Trump continued spreading his "big lie" of a stolen election" is biased and insinuates that Donald Trump had a false pretense to suspect undelegated referendums durring the 2024 election. Trump's concerns are not without solid reasoning. Vepuei (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Personal experiences can not be taken into account, but if things are as you say, surely there have to be plenty of sources besides Trump himself reporting that. Electoral fraud is serious stuff, regardless of the candidates. Cambalachero (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You can always go to your local news and if they verify and publish it, there'd be a reliable source to put in the article. That being said, you wouldn't want to write about yourself, but someone else can. I am sorry about your roommate. I hope you are doing alright ^-^ Catboy69 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your roommate/family member's passing. Whether or not a source is found, the overly harsh tone in this article could use some tweaking; there's a draft (see above section) to remove the rambling in the lede, and "big lie" is definitely unencyclopedic language even if I do think Trump genuinely lost 2020. Perhaps instead of "Trump continued spreading his "big lie" of a stolen election", it could instead be Trump continued to claim that the election was stolen? Unnamed anon (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This election repeated the lessons of Brexit, if people overuse visible hand or necessary evil manipulates big data will only cause greater reaction force. Cbls1911 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nominations

When will the nominations be moved up? The rest of the elections have the nominations are at the near top, only under the background. Also, I remember that a user made a topic regarding that. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I've no objections to matching how it's done in the other US prez election pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be ok to do. I would wait a day or so and see what others think. Then if there are no issues you could do the proposed change. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a particularly controversial move. It could be done right away. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Trump's criminal trials in the lead (also removed Trump's assassination attempts) and in the "Nominations" section

In short
I am not going to argue that everything is perfect and should stay as it is; it can certainly be improved to be more concise but the cited reasons for removal are fallacious and not supported by RS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1258880736 "Two paragraphs of negative commentary re Donald Trump in the introduction, with no corresponding commentary addressing negatives toward Biden/Harris, does seem indicative of venting political bias rather than a desire to provide unbiased information."

• This looks like WP:FALSEBALANCE to me. We do not have to add "corresponding commentary addressing negatives toward Biden/Harris" just to make it even with Trump. Whether we like it or not, that was a big deal in the election (we even had a Supreme Court ruling about Trump's eligibility due to his criminal trials), and of course that edit also eliminated Trump's two assassination attempts, which were among the big stories of the election. It may need to be reworded (and I am all ears and willing) but I think it belongs as Trump's criminal trials/indictments and his two assassination attempts were the big stories of the election cycle. It is not our fault if Harris was good enough to generally avoid controversies, let alone avoid being prosecuted, indicted, and convicted, or if RS simply did not cover Harris as much as Trump, who was sanewashed in contrast to Biden for the same issue.
• Also the lead must reflect the body and RS, and we cannot ignore sections like "Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump" or how this was significantly covered by RS. If we are going to mention that Trump is the first president since Cleveland to become president again after losing re-election, we might as well say he is the first convicted felon to become president, since this was also widely discussed by RS and that is probably a bigger deal. The fact he won despite his criminal trials just make it even more due to have it in the lead; the issue should be how to phrase it, and how much prominence should we give it in the lead, not whether it should be included or not. On that, I think that RS are clear, but please correct me if wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1258887316 "not relevant to Trump's nomination by the GOP"

• So much "not relevant to Trump's nomination by the GOP" that it is included in the lead of "2024 Republican Party presidential primaries" and it was clearly relevant from all the RS I read while following the primaries and remains relevant as he won the presidency. It would have been better to argue that it was already discussed in the "Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump" section and thus was redundant or a duplication rather than falsely say it is "not relevant to Trump's nomination by the GOP". I think it belongs, maybe it could just be condensed, that is all.

I have not reverted these edits or re-added the content myself. I would not lose my sleep if they are not re-added but the given reasoning is weak. Davide King (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)