Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Split proposal -> Results and aftermath of the 2024 United States presidential election

I've complained about the article being WP:TOOBIG a while back, and I still see that the article is hovering around ~13k words. What do y'all think of splitting the Results section and every section below it off into a separate article? Possible page names include Results and aftermath of the 2024 United States presidential election. Feel free to suggest other page names or other ideas. Some1 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am not opposed to this, but my preference would be to shorten the article some more rather than splitting it. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a good approach too, but unfortunately, I think very few editors would want to take on that task (which is completely understandable). Some1 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought about doing this awhile ago, and even created this draft. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I lean against splitting. I think the results section is one of the most important parts of the article. And previous election articles include the section. Prcc27 (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the keeping the Results section here, but splitting the Analysis of results and every section after it off into a separate article? Some1 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

We should keep some results, but the detailed tables, exit polls, and detailed analysis can and should be spun out into their own article and a briefer WP:SUMSTYLE section should be kept here. DecafPotato (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am more open to that and more willing to support that. But I would also want to keep the exit poll section as is as well. The rest of the sections can be consolidated into a few paragraphs on here, and then split into a new article for further information. Prcc27 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned with the details or the specifics of how the article is split, but just that a split occurs so that this article isn't so ridiculously long. I won't be the one to create this new article, so whatever you folks decide for the new article, I'm fine with. Some1 (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I support splitting the Aftermath and related sections into their own article (as that is information surrounding the election rather than information about the election itself), but think that the election Results should stay in the article. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

13k is still within recommended size guidelines per WP:SIZERULE, but if splitting is favored I would split off the Aftermath and analysis sections. I think simply calling the page "Analysis of the 2024 United States presidential election" would be a simpler title. "Aftermath" seems to be contrived and suggests some sort of natural disaster occured. BootsED (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with a split. I don't think the 'aftermath' section is particularly large necessitating a split like the results and analysis section. Thus I would like to see a "Results and analysis of the 2024 election" article encompassing these topics, of course with an overview staying in this article. I would note I haven't found an election article with "analysis" in the title; the closest I found was Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit. Also to other editors, "results" articles are somewhat common for other country's articles such as Germany in 2025, although these typically don't include analysis/aftermath of the election. Yeoutie (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I support the split, but this article should remain for the results and be in line with other "yyyy United States presidential election" articles. 19:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC) 47.185.4.111 (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, it would be weird if this election had its own results page. None of the other U.S. presidential elections have results pages. People can shorten the article by removing unnecessary information if it is too long. Retailandrestaurantfan2025 (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am against the split, i do not think this has been done with every year and it is clearner of one page in my view. James4pk (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that is similar to what I said before. It would be better not to have its own results page, just like all the other U.S. presidential elections before, which did not have a separate results page. Also, like someone said earlier, the article is not too long. Retailandrestaurantfan2025 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

From a month ago, from a different editor: Talk:2024 United_States presidential election#Article too big. And a different editor Special:Diff/1267006299. Some1 (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree, it should be consistent to all other Presidential elections. James4pk (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

E 103.152.101.236 (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think some elements of the election process need to split. Cbls1911 (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I lightly disagree with the split. This is the perfect example of a topic that justifies the added reading material, and none of the individual sections feel like they're too long. Also, it would be inconsistent with the other presidential election articles (however, we can just make results pages for those too). Even still, results seems like the most important part of the article, and the last thing that should be split off.

That being said, it is still a really long article, and I would completely understand splitting it if we did. Terraviridian (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I oppose. This election did not have a particularly unique aftermath. A winner was projected, the loser gave a concession, a transition ensued, a new administration took office. The winning party made all the usual spin about having secured a mandate, while the losing party debated their direction (as always seems to happen) . All of this is coverable without a spun-off aftermath article.

There wasn’t particularly sizable (or at least notable) protests during the transition. There were not lawsuits challenging the results. There was not a Jan 6 attack. Things proceeded as is normal between an election and an inauguration, apart from some peculiar choices of the transition team that are within the scope of the transition’s article. Biden issued some unusual preemptive pardons before leaving, but again this is coverable within existing articles. One of the only other peculiarities outside of the U.S. politics articles was that Trump’s threats of a trade war seemingly contributed to the pressure for Trudeau to relent to resigning in Canada making way for a new Liberal Party leader. SecretName101 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose due to the being that the results are part of the election. If it was two separate events, then splitting would make more sense. However, the results are simply the effects and aftermath of the 2024 election. Rager7 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose

Not a single presidential election has this, it makes no sense and there is not a strong reason to do this. Cajundome24 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I am pretty sure that WP:TOOBIG applies to like normal average articles. Average in terms of the size of its topic. This is not an ordinary topic with limited appeal. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose 2600:1700:1D60:1A50:9829:7295:9803:5EAA (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

You can't just say "Strongly Oppose" and then drop the mic like nothing. Do you have a reason for opposing? 12.32.37.18 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The majority of the problem is the two exit polls. Hiding both of them would cut the results and analysis part in half. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Bomberswarm2, lets shorten the section rather than splitting it if at all possible, even if that means hiding or removing exit polls. Cheers! Johnson524 22:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and now oppose this proposal. Other users are correct in stating that we should shorten the article instead. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

To shorten the article, I propose to substantially edit the "analysis of results", "aftermath", and "media analysis" sections. Specifically, I propose to reduce those three sections from their current combined total of 38 paragraphs to half of that (a combined total of 19 paragraphs), which can be done without removing any essential content. I am willing to do the work myself. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Just leave the page alone. It's June 2025. The election was 7 months ago. What is wrong with you guys? Let me guess everyone running these "info" pages are all opininated Democrats that don't like the results? Grow UP! And pass it on to stop blocking people, including independents like myself, that don't share your ugly view of America from presenting facts on Wiki pages. Quit acting like yours own the internet and only your thoughts matter! You guys lost the popular vote. Remind yourselves who got 48% like last time in 2016, and who went from 46% to 50% the second time. Chew on that, children. TorySLivingston (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - I second this opinion. Anyone trying to re-title a new page "Results and aftermath" clearly has an agenda to push. Just the use of the word "aftermath" implies a negative preceding event, and in my mind it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to pass this sort of judgement on the results of the election and it would be wholly inappropriate to do so. It's almost as though they're saying that the election itself was the negative event. I'd go further to say that just because you do not like the results of an election does not mean that the election itself was a negative event -- democracy is inherently positive. This election is nearly 8 months past. Anyone who is trying to split this page when no other US election page has this to push whatever their agenda may be on that new page clearly has issues beyond their silly attempts to turn Wikipedia into a chamber for their views. This is an encyclopedia, not the Democratic National Committee. ArchMonth (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@ArchMonth I agree with you that elections – whatever their outcome – are an integral part of democracy and a positive event. I also agree that it's not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide which elections are "good" and which are "bad." However, I doubt the use of the word aftermath was meant to characterize the 2024 election as a negative event: aftermath often simply means the result or consequences of something, without any connotation whatsoever. That said, I understand that the word can also carry a negative connotation; I'm sure that everyone here will be open to any suggestions you'd like to put forward for alternative titles.

Also, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that anyone who thinks this page should be split is trying to push an agenda. Wikipedia has a guideline that says that any page with more than 9,000 words should probably – although not necessarily – be split into multiple articles, and this page has 13,000 words (according to the original poster, I haven't double-checked). This guideline exists purely for the purposes of ensuring Wikipedia provides its viewers with a good reading experience and has nothing to do with any partisan agenda. Although I can't speak to the political views of the people in this discussion, I can say that there are certainly other reasons one may suggest a page split.

Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You raise very fair points. I read the word “aftermath” before noticing it’s used on almost all US election pages. Wrt the Wikipedia guidance about splitting pages, I think that might be generally reasonable but not when a page is an event that occurs at fixed intervals, and where no other page for past occurrences of that event displays that type of proposed split, with the event in question being US elections. I think making a separate aftermath page risks people pushing their own views more than on a generic election page. ArchMonth (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That's probably true. I'm more or less content whether or not the page is split, so long as it remains as unbiased as possible. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose A lot of points in this discussion just seem like solutions in search of a problem (like deleting the exit polls). The article length doesn't really seem like a problem. American elections are probably one of the most important regularly occurring events at this point, and I can't recall ever seeing an election on Wikipedia with the results on a separate page. Ketrit (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

To add to article

In an effort to help make this article more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we add the number (and percentage) of eligible voters who did not cast a ballot in the 2024 U.S. presidential election to this article? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly support this proposal. HiLo48 (talk)

I don't, but only because of the sourcing issue that we previously discussed: "How many didn't vote?" If the sourcing issue can be resolved, then I am on board. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Swing w.r.t. NE districts

Both the Nebraska and Maine district results are affected by redistricting, so the margin swing given should be annotated with the caveat. In the table, NE-01 swing appears to be the only one that swung towards Kamala (-1.96%) while the rest of the country swung to Trump, but that may be misleading. Similarly, NE-02's swing to Trump (1.91%) may be overstated as it does not account for redistricting. Similar changes shld be made in the article pages for Nebraska 2024 and Maine 2024 results. 2409:4055:2DB2:124A:546:E91F:A575:1ED (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

biased language

President Trump does not have an "isolationist" policy. He wants to deport people who are in the country illegally and raise tariffs to make other countries (especially china) see how it feels when we buy less of their stuff because its more expensive to do so just like they do to us. That is not the definition of isolationist. Isolationist would mean we wont trade or allow immigrants from other countries. The article is written with a huge bias. 107.13.142.122 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Take that up with the sources that describe his policy as that. — Czello ^(music) 17:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Your reply is even weaker than the OP. The Tyranny of the Citations is why WP is the punchline to a cruel joke now. 76.71.140.194 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

107.13.142.122, the current version of this article uses the word "isolationist" twice. A cited source (CNN) described Trump's foreign policy as isolationist. A Google search shows that some sources describe him as an isolationist and others take issue with that description of him. It may be that the article should provide more nuance on this point. I am not sure why you see the existing language as an indication of bias, however; that seems like a bit of an overstatement. In any case, Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to use the encyclopedia to win arguments or advance perspectives. We are supposed to provide information that is supported by reliable sources. If you believe this article needs improvement, why not create your own Wikipedia account? Once you have been around long enough, you will be able to edit the article and add whatever additional information or balance you believe is needed on the subject of Donald Trump's foreign policy. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Too-Rye-Ay What is the reliability of the sources that take issue, and are the number of reliable sources that use that term vs. take issue with the use at all comparable numbers?

I ask not in argument (having not done my own search on what reliable sources a search would find, I could only offer a prejudgment/assumption), but rather as an illustration the sort of questions we would be asking to assess this sort of thing SecretName101 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't get that far, SecretName101. I just ran a Google search. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No country has ever been isolationist to the degree that you seem to require. The term has never been understood as an absolute. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Trump's infobox picture

Why is his new official portrait (released June 2nd, 2025) not being used on this article? LcsRznd (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's an extended protection page, which means less people can edit it. All the state-specific pages are already being updated. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 18:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I support updating it. It's the new portrait and it's honestly much better. The previous one was... all over the place. AsaQuathern (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I oppose changing it, and instead prefer keeping the January 2025 photograph. It's also an official portrait. It is of similar crop/scale to the Harris portrait, and having use of two separate official portraits on his official article infobox and the election article is a slight positive (not using the same exact photo everywhere). Also, the January portrait is slightly-more contemporary to the election itself by the measure of several months. I see no need in having his most recent portrait used in an article on an election that actually occurred closer-in-time to his previous official portrait. Both are quality portraits and official portraits, and the January one is better-fit for this use in my personal opinion. SecretName101 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention the new one is lit....dimly. Looks bad downsized to election infobox size SecretName101 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I guess. We need to establish consensus because a bunch of editors already changed most state election pages. AsaQuathern (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@AsaQuathern already reverting those for the interim until either a consensus-change is established or previous consensus is re-affirmed. SecretName101 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I support changing it to the official portrait. It doesn't matter how we "feel" about the lighting or anything else - this is his official portrait and it should be used on official pages. The previous photo is unofficial and shouldn't be used now that we have a new one that is actually legitimate.TJD2 (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@TJD2 The previous photo was official. Your assertion that it is "unofficial" or "illegitimate" is contrary to fact. It was hung in embassies, government offices, and other places as the official presidential portrait over the course of his first several months in office. That's why the government publishing office has copies for order under the category of "Historical Official Photos of the Presidents".

This is the reason why news stories on the new portrait describe the new photo as an "updated" official portrait, because the earlier one was already an official portrait for his second term

• "new portrait...replacing the image taken in January" -NPR
• "The picture, which replaced an earlier portrait released around Trump’s inauguration in January" -CNN
• "Trump replaces his official portrait" and "It is uncommon for a US president to change their portrait so soon into their term" and "Donald Trump has updated his official portrait just months after taking office, in an apparent bid to appear less menacing" –The Telegraph
• "The White House has released a new official presidential portrait of Donald Trump, his second version since he returned to office." -USA Today
• "The White House unveiled a new portrait of President Trump on Monday, showing him in a slightly different light than the portrait released ahead of his inauguration in January." –CBS News

Can we stop with this assertion that the currently used photo is not an official portrait? Reliable sources clearly say otherwise.

I urge whoever (later on) closes this discussion to keep in mind that claims about one portrait being official and the other not being official are false assertions, and arguments founded upon such assertions should be disregarded. Arguments that rely on outright misconceptions or falsehoods should be disregarded in weighing consensus. SecretName101 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent my argument. The photo in question is an official INAUGURAL portrait, not an official White House portrait. There is a huge difference, and to say my vote should be disregarded makes just about as much sense as your vote being disregarded because you have no real argument other than you "like" this one better. Obama's most recent portrait is included within the infobox - as is the case with George W. Bush. You have to go back to Bill Clinton to see anything different. As we are using the official portrait for Trump's main page, I think it is fitting to use it for the 2024 election page as well. THAT is my argument.TJD2 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@TJD2 you are still wrong. As I illustrated, reliable sources consistently outline that the current photo was his presidential portrait. Additionally, the fact it was hung as his presidential portrait in government offices, and is distributed by the Government Publishing Office as the official presidential portrait makes that pretty clear. as I said, you founding this argument on a clear misconception. SecretName101 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

And when you say Obama and Bush (as you named) somehow differ in timing of their photographs from the one currently used for Trump, you are making another falsely-premised argument. Those portraits were more similarly-timed with the current photograph used for 2024 than the one you are supporting switching to.

Take note that:

• 2000 election uses a presidential portrait of Bush that was created on the day of his inauguration
• 2004 election uses a presidential portrait of Bush captured in January 2003, mid-way through Bush's first term (not even after the election)
• 2008 election uses a presidential portrait of Obama captured on January 13, 2009 in advance of his inauguration
• 2012 election uses a presidential portrait of Obama captured in December 2012, in advance of Obama's second inauguration

SecretName101 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

And anyways, if there was a practice to use the "most recent" portrait, would it not be most recent to the point-in-time in which the election occurred? Meaning, we'd stick with the January portrait over one several months more removed from the election?

Regardless, such a practice does not seem to exist. 1976 election uses the first official portrait of Ford as president (captured August 1974) instead of his second portrait (captured Feb 1976). 1988 election uses Bush's 1981 vice presidential portrait instead of his presidential portrait.

Since none of what you are claiming pans out as accurately-founded premises, it seems pretty darn clear either photo is acceptable to use. Therefore, the discussion of which portrait is better-suited visually for use in the infobox is the relevant one to have. SecretName101 (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Not to Interject, but Didn't Trump also have an Inaugural Portrait in 2016 too? If so, why isn't that also used for the 2016 Presidential Election Article? InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems that December 2016 portrait was removed from Commons for a while amid debate on Commons over its copyright status. So I figure, got taken off the article and nobody cared to subsequently propose for it to be used instead of the 2017 portrait.

None of which binds us to need to use either of these photos instead of the other. Hence my point that we are free to use whichever one is better visually suited for use in election infoboxes. SecretName101 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You've made your point, but thus far I only see people that disagree. It is at least 4 to 1 if you count the original poster and the IP below who says "change Trump's pic to his new portrait". I would say that's a pretty solid consensus. TJD2 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@TJD2 closure/judgement of consensus on discussions like these are typically not judged by involved editors, nor within less than a day's time. Patience, my friend. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Having read all the replies, I actually see no harm in keeping the january 2025 portrait as the infobox picture. Despite being released as the inaugural portrait, it also has official status: it was submitted to the presidential portraits gallery of the Library of Congress[1] (VERY relevant, in my oponion), it was used by the official @potus accounts, it was up on the White House website, it was (is?) hung on the White House, the list goes on.

It's important to note, as others have mentioned, that there is little modern precedent for this situation. Biden, Obama, Bush Jr. and Clinton did not have inaugural portraits and had only one official portrait released per term. Speaking of Obama, his 2008 portrait (which is used on the 2008 United States presidential election article) was actually taken before his inauguration.

Therefore, although there would also be no harm in using the June portrait here, I think it's perfectly reasonable to keep the January one here and the most recent one on his personal page and elsewhere. The List of presidents of the United States article already uses the newer one, and I don't think there's a need to change that. However, to keep at least some level of standardization, I'd reccomend we change the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries Trump infobox pic to the January one also. LcsRznd (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should keep the inaugural portrait (and therefore oppose the change). I think "official portrait taken closest in time to the election" is a good standard, and is consistent with other articles (we just don't have an inaugural portrait for Biden in 2021, for instance). As for visual concerns, I don't think they matter as much as — in my opinion the January official portrait should be used over the June one no matter what — but I do agree they favor the January one.

IMO there's no reason to use the new portrait when we already have one closer in time to the election. If Trump gets a new official portrait in, say, 2028, should we use that? It would almost certainly be used to represent him and his second term, so many arguments here would imply we should use it here, even though that would be nonsensical. DecafPotato (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

So, what I'm hearing is that there are a lot of articles where the picture is straight up lying to the reader. Looks like we need to change a bunch of articles. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Khajidha I am not sure what you mean by "lying"? We can only use photos that are public domain or released by their owners under commons licensing. Which often means there are no quality images of a candidate during the campaign. And the purpose of the photos in the infobox is typically to represent roughly what they looked like contemporary to the election. SecretName101 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"And the purpose of the photos in the infobox is typically to represent roughly what they looked like contemporary to the election." That's my point, exactly. It isn't contemporary. Therefore, it is a lie. How is this hard to understand? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the current pic and the new official portrait. This is an article about the election, not Trump. The picture should be a picture of him from during the election. Not months afterwards. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Khajidha Alright, you can propose an alternative of your own if there's one properly licensed. As for the two photos being discussed, are you saying you are neutral, you weakly favor existing consensus (keeping the currently-used photo), or weakly favor changing the photo to the new portrait? SecretName101 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

If we cannot have picture that is not a lie (ie we should not have a picture that did not and could not exist until after the election) then we should not have a picture. There are lots and lots of pictures of Trump from before last November. Pick one. Just don't put lies on the page. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Khajidha To be clear, the photos in the infobox are just representations of what the candidates look like. Nowhere are they labeled with captions implying that the photo was taken before the election. There's not a lie. SecretName101 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A picture illustrating an election shouldn't need a caption to say that the picture was taken before the election. That should be a given. A picture illustrating an event should be from the event. So, yes, putting a picture of him from now up to illustrate the election is a lie. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I would probably be fine with that, if that was possible. There have been multiple long debates about Trump's infobox picture. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I support changing it to the new one. The 2016 article uses his official portrait from the summer of 2017, not his temporary inaugural one. Plus 2020 uses Biden's official portrait too even though it was taken well after the election. I don't see why this should be any different. Pickle Mon (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to change those pictures.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, we should use Trump's June portrait even though it was taken after the election. The 2020 election has Bidens portrait even though it was taken after the election. And we don't use Trump's ingaurual portrait in the 2016 election, we use his presidential portrait, we should keep it consistent and use his new portrait. Rizzington (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rizzington Consistent with what though? There's not a consistent pattern about which official portraits are used. I pointed that out.

What are the benefits of a portrait switch, and what are the negatives of maintaining the status-quo portait? SecretName101 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, if we use Trump's 2025 inaugural portrait, we should use Trump's inaugural portrait from 2017 then in the 2016 United States presidential election. We should keep these pages consistent and clear. Rizzington (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rizzington But why? What's the reason that we should? If I offered "if we used a portrait of Hillary Clinton wearing red clothes in 2016, we ought to use one of Kamala wearing same 2024 in order to be consistent", wouldn't that be insufficient rationale? What's the reason that if we use the inaugural portrait in one election, it would be wrong or inconsistent to use anything else in the other? I don't follow. SecretName101 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – Seems to have been changed anyway in spite of this discussion, but show me the logic in using a photo taken literally six months later versus the one from months earlier that is actually far closer to when the election actually occurred. So if he gets yet another portrait in 2028, we should be using that photo and not the obviously more relevant portrait from close to the election? The logic for the 2016 election is that people on Commons claimed it wasn't in the public domain despite being a work paid for/by the White House (which was ridiculous in my opinion, but is neither here nor there), and for the 2020 election, the portrait used in the article for Biden was dated to March 2021 and didn't have an equivalent from closer to the election. Master of Time (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  The image has already been changed on several related articles, such as 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. This one still using the old one sticks out. TheBritinator (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Change Trump's pic to his new portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:3FF0:D40:7554:7E08:D47B:552C (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this before making an edit request. There is an ongoing discussion on this topic above. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

If we change the picture on this page, it should be to go back to a photo that actually existed at the time of the election. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Support changing the infobox image to the official one. Consensus seems to be reached at this point in my opinion. Saying this so there's a record. LJF2019 ^talk 23:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Support, mainly because we have had lots of cases of portaits for infoboxes be used for elections prior to the portait being taken, those being

- Henry Clay's portrait in the 1844 election that was taken in 1848 (4 years after the election)

- Lewis Cass' portrait and Martin Van Buren's portrait in the 1848 election that was taken in 1850 (2 years after the election)

- Winfield Scott's portrait in the 1852 election that was taken in 1862 (a decade after the election)

- Ulysses S. Grant's portrait in the 1868 election that was taken in 1870 (2 years after the election and a official portait)

- James A. Garfield's portrait in the 1880 election that was taken in 1881 (an official portait taken his short 5 month presidency; active for 3 months)

- Grover Cleveland's portrait in the 1884 election and 1888 election that was taken in 1892 (an official portait taken during Cleveland's third campaign for president and the campaign which made him the first of two presidents to serve a second non-consecutive term as President. Taken 8 years before 1884 and 4 before 1888)

- Benjamin Harrison's portrait in the 1888 election and 1892 election that was taken in 1896 (4 years after Harrison had left the White House)

- William Jennings Bryan's portrait in the 1900 election that was taken in 1902 (2 years after the election)

- Alton B. Parker's portrait in the 1904 election that was taken in 1906 (2 years after the election)

- Woodrow Wilson's portrait in the 1916 election that was taken in 1919 (3 years after the election; official portait)

- Franklin D. Roosevelt's portrait in the 1932 election that was taken in December 1933 (3 years after the election; official portait)

- Franklin D. Roosevelt's portrait in the 1940 election that was taken in August 1944 (almost 4 years after the election)

- Thomas E. Dewey's portrait in the 1944 election taken in 1946 (almost 2 years after the election; official portait)

- Barry Goldwater's portrait in the 1964 election taken in May 1968 (almost 4 years after the election)

- Richard Nixon's portrait in the 1968 election taken in July 1971 (3 years after the election; official portait)

- Jimmy Carter's portrait in the 1976 election taken in January 1977 (just 11 days after being sworn in; official portait)

- Ronald Reagan's first term portrait in the 1980 election taken in January 1981 (taken few days after being sworn in; official portait)

- Ronald Reagan's second term portrait in the 1984 election taken in July 1985 (taken 8 months after the election; official portait)

- Bill Clinton's portrait in the 1992 election taken in January 1993 (taken a few days before his first inauguration)

- George W. Bush's portrait in the 2000 election taken on January 20, 2001 (same day as his swearing-in)

- John McCain's portrait in the 2008 election taken in January 2009 (taken 3 months after the election; official portrait)

- Donald Trump's first term portrait in the 2016 election taken in October 2017 (taken a year after the election; official portait)

- Joe Biden's portait in the 2020 election taken in March 2021 (taken a year after the election; official portait)

~ HistorianL (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of examples of us doing something dumb. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It isnt, to quote your own words, "us doing something dumb". Its actually helpful as the image after the election is a better quality image and more reliable, as is the case with the new Trump image, plus it is the OFFICIAL portrait of the second Trump Administration. So maybe, dont call something dumb before thinking of why it is the way it is ~ HistorianL (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

None of which is as important as the fact that these images are not of the candidates during the election. They are factually wrong. Using factually wrong images is dumb. But, to take your objections point by point: 1) better quality is an esthetic judgement, 2) how can it be reliable if it does not depict the candidate as he was during the election?, 3) as we are not an official publication, there is no reason to prefer the official portrait. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That was unnecessarily provocative and unhelpful. TheBritinator (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I would think having your attention drawn to the fact that you were presenting misinformation would be very helpful. The articles are about elections. The images used here are not from those elections. You don't see how this is factually incorrect? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Would you suggest a mass-editing of all those pages to use pre-presidency pictures? Pickle Mon (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

That would require a separate (and much larger) discussion. TheBritinator (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. As I explained above:

Having read all the replies, I actually see no harm in keeping the january 2025 portrait as the infobox picture. Despite being released as the inaugural portrait, it also has official status: it was submitted to the presidential portraits gallery of the Library of Congress[1] (VERY relevant, in my oponion), it was used by the official @potus accounts, it was up on the White House website, it was (is?) hung on the White House, the list goes on.

It's important to note, as others have mentioned, that there is little modern precedent for this situation. Biden, Obama, Bush Jr. and Clinton did not have inaugural portraits and had only one official portrait released per term. Speaking of Obama, his 2008 portrait (which is used on the 2008 United States presidential election article) was actually taken before his inauguration.

Therefore, although there would also be no harm in using the June portrait here, I think it's perfectly reasonable to keep the January one here and the most recent one on his personal page and elsewhere. The List of presidents of the United States article already uses the newer one, and I don't think there's a need to change that. However, to keep at least some level of standardization, I'd reccomend we change the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries Trump infobox pic to the January one also.

Also worth noting is that JD Vance's current official portrait is the January / Mar-a-Lago one. There's no reason not to consider his and Trump's from before their inaugurations officlal.

Having established that, I think official portrait taken closest to the election is a very good standard to go by. Others have even suggested ending the need to use official portraits at all and using pictures of the candidate taken during the election season. I'd be open to that, but I believe the measured approach is the best here.

There's no logic whatsoever to the logic that the infobox picture should be "the most recent official portrait". Why should that be the case for the article about the election? I can understand and fully endorse this being the standard for Trump's personal article and others about the POTUS, but there should be no such requirement for an article that is about an event, not about a person.

The picture used for him here should be as relevant as the one used by Harris. If the "most recent official portrait" requirement is to be applied here, why not on the 2016 United States presidential election article? By that criteria, HRC's infobox pic shouldn't be one of her on the campaign trail; it should be her 2009 official portrait as Secretary of State. Not very accurate, is it?

Again, official portrait taken the closest to the ellection is a measured approach and a good standard to be set. LcsRznd (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Exit polls

Why are the exit polls in the "Forecasting" section rather than in the Results section? 207.253.38.36 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

They are polls, they are not results. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't there still be a separate section for Voter Demographics or Exit Polls like in the other presidential election articles? 207.253.38.36 (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

"Analysis of results"

The first image in this section and the associated caption are blatant POV, dancing around the idea that a mandate only exists if someone wins 50% of the popular vote. This is obvious nonsense; the United States could easily have mandated run-off elections which ensure that every president has a majority vote...but it hasn't. Thus, if any president has ever been considered legitimate by anyone, they are tacitly approving a system which allows the inauguration of a president who didn't garner a majority of ballots cast. Being a filthy communist, I have no dog (pig?) in this fight, but let's just say that if this were an article about a Dem prez, there would already have been a Wiki-kerfuffle over it. 76.71.140.194 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

76.71.140.194, I took out the first sentence of the caption associated with the image in question, which came across to me as a POV potshot. I don't think the image itself is POV, however, so I disagree with you there. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a difference between being legitimately elected and having a mandate. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Removal of text about Trump campaign from lede

The following text (footnotes and citations not copied here) was removed last month with minimal discussion for being supposedly unbalanced, then restored, and then removed again:

The Trump campaign made many false and misleading statements, including the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Trump engaged in anti-immigrant fearmongering and promoted conspiracy theories. His political movement was described by historians and former Trump administration officials as authoritarian, featuring parallels to fascism, and using dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents.

In my view, the text should be fully restored because it is significant and reliably sourced. I also believe that it is in keeping with the talk page FAQ about "neutral point of view" and the weight of prior talk page discussions such as this, this, and this. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Include per Avial Cloffprunker. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include: As linked to, it has been repeatedly discussed and repeatedly confirmed that it should be included. There is no sourcing issue and there is no content issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Since it has been a full week without any objections here, I have restored the content. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Trump vote percentage incorrect

According to more specific statistics (New York Times, Associated Press) Trump’s vote total was 49.91, not 49.80 as this page suggests. Would this minor detail be able to be changed because it’s technically incorrect the way it is. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

From what I recall from past discussions, I believe the issue was that NYT and AP were not counting all of the non-Trump and non-Harris votes. This means that because we were trying to, our results show a lower percentage for Trump and Harris. (I think the issue might have been that NYT and AP were using the initial results from the counties as they came in and we are using the certified results.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the AP results, they actually do include the non-Trump and non-Harris votes, and they have Trump at 49.9%. Also, the fact that both candidates got below 50% can only mean that there were third-party votes included in that calculation. If you look at DDHQ, they also have the exact same popular vote margin with all of the third-party votes counted, meaning that it must be the case that Trump is at 49.9%. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

AP and New York Times include some, but not all, of the non-Trump and non-Harris votes. They do not include write-in votes in their totals or percentages. Write-in votes are included in the official report by the Federal Election Commission. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Then how come these sources aren’t cited? The main sources cited involve AP which has Trump at 49.9. I’m struggling to understand where these extra votes are coming from, since on this Wikipedia page it includes the same popular vote margin that the AP has which puts Trump at 49.9. If there are additional votes out there, then why aren’t they reflected on this article? 46.110.31.130 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The sources are cited. Here is the source, from the Federal Election Commission. [2] Esolo5002 (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This source isn’t cited well, it doesn’t bring me to anywhere that proves your point. From what I’m seeing, Trump’s percentage needs to be changed from 49.8 to 49.9. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Look there are two other people telling you the exact same thing. If you just don’t want to believe them, I don’t know what to tell you. [3] Esolo5002 (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

They are two people telling me the same thing, yet are unable to properly cite their source. The source you gave me doesn’t prove anything that you’re trying to say. That’s not my fault at all. Look, if you want to keep the misinformation on this article then go right ahead. I just gave a simple suggestion and you people can’t seem to accept that. Next time, properly cite your source before acting like I’m the problem. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time. Wikipedia is citing the certified vote totals from all of the states and districts. As you will see on the bottom of page five of this document, Trump is listed as having a combined voter total of 77,302,580 and with a percentage of 49.80% of all valid votes. As seen at the bottom of page nine, this was complied from State Elections Offices. This is the final totals for the election. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s as if you didn’t even read any of my other posts. The actual math puts him at 49.9. The source you’re citing is no different than the other false ones that put him at 49.8. You’re simply referring to another incorrect source. I’m tired of how toxic the Wikipedia community is, all I did was give a simple suggestion and you people harp on me for whatever reason. It’s ironic too, because as they say, Wikipedia is never fully accurate and has a lot of misinformation, I guess you people are just continuing that trend. No wonder this cite’s reputation is shot. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

On page 6 of this PDF from fec.gov, at the bottom of the right-most column, it gives the total number of valid votes from the entire election as 155,238,302. At the bottom of page 5 of the same PDF, it gives Trump's total vote count as 77,302,580. Trump's vote count (77,302,580) divided by the total number of votes (155,238,302) gives about 0.49796074167. If you multiply that by 100, you get 49.796074167. That rounds to 49.80, not 49.91. You can do the math yourself if you think I might have made a mistake.

The PDF I linked to above accounts for all votes for 24 candidates it specifically names, as well as 19,625 votes for "none of these candidates" and 210,381 write-in votes, where people voted for someone not listed on the ballot. I have not checked to make sure, but I assume that the New York Times and the Associated Press didn't include write-in votes and some of the more minor candidates in their tallies, which would ever so slightly inflate the percentages for the candidates they do tally. Thus, they report Trump's percentage as 49.91 when it was in fact closer to 49.80.

I hope this clarifies the reasons Wikipedia presents this the way it does. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem with this is that these other cites (NY Times, DDQH, AP) do in fact include all of these other applicants, such as third-party candidates or “none of these candidates” and it is in fact listed in their calculations. Some of them are included on the surface while others are hidden, but the percentage in each state is exactly the same. Additionally, this “calculation” doesn’t seem to apply to the 2020 or 2016 election, so why is it included here? Does this also happen to include ballots received but were ineligible to be counted? Because there were many thousands of those. I see the math you’re doing, but I don’t think the numbers you are doing the math with is accurate. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I checked the number of votes Trump received in each state according to the NY Times (boy did that take some time!) and compared them to the numbers given by the FEC. They matched in all but three states: Massachusetts (NY Times gave 1,251,308, FEC gave 1,251,303), New York (NY Times gave 3,579,519, FEC gave 3,578,899), and Virginia (NY Times gave 2,075,085, FEC gave 2,074,097). I also added up all the state totals for Trump given by the FEC and that was equal to the total vote count they list for Trump, but when I added up all the state totals for Trump as listed by the NY Times, it came to 9 more votes than the overall number they give.

I don't know what accounts for these small discrepancies, but I fail to see any evidence that the NY Times is more accurate in this case. Furthermore, the FEC's data is internally consistent, while the NY Times's data is not (albeit only slightly off). It's also worth noting that the FEC lists both Trump and Harris with a slightly lower vote count than the NY Times lists them with: if the FEC's data included "many thousands" of illegal/ineligible ballots, you'd expect that at least one of those two would have a vote could greater than that given by the Times/AP/etc., right? (At least, so long as the Times, AP, etc. are more accurate than the FEC with regards to the vote tallies, which is your argument, as I understand it.)

As for this being the first election where there's a discrepancy of this sort, that is easily shown to be false. Compare the FEC's 2020 results with the NY Times's 2020 results and you see a similar discrepancy, where vote totals reported by the Times and the FEC differ slightly for both Biden and Trump. I haven't checked, but I'd bet that a similar discrepancy exists for the 2016 election and basically all elections before then in modern times. And I have checked the Wikipedia page on the 2020 election and confirmed that we use the FEC data for that election as well, and probably also for previous elections.

Also, could you please link to the calculations you are referring to that include write-in ballots and all the third-party candidates? On quick inspection of the Times and the AP, I haven't found any explicit calculations for how they arrived at their numbers, although it's likely I'm just missing it.

It's also worth noting that I think the Times and AP, among others that report those vote counts and percentages, are very reliable sources, I just don't think they can be counted upon to have the absolute most accurate data in these sorts of circumstances where, at least during the election and for a while after it, they can only go off of indicating factors rather than the actual hard data. I'm still not sure why there's a discrepancy at this point, but I don't see any evidence at all that the problem is on the FEC's end.

Anyway, that's my understanding of it. I could be wrong. Hope you're doing well. :) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@46.110.31.130: Okay. What I am getting is that you believe the AP is more accurate than the FEC. You believe that the organization is more accurate than the certified votes. Very well.

But let me show you something.

According to the Associated Press, Harris won D.C. with a vote share of 92.5%. That sounds impressive, but there is one problem.

Harris didn't' win D.C. with 92.5% of the votes.

If you were to add Harris' 294,185 votes with Trump's 21,076 and Kennedy's 2,778 votes, you would get a total of 318,039 votes. But we say that it is 325,869 votes and so does the FEC. If we do the match, that is a difference of 7,830 votes. So, why are the numbers so different?

Well, what about the write-in votes? With that many votes, there has to be at least a single write-in. Well, that is the problem with the AP. If you go back to AP, there are no write-ins listed. But the FEC says that there were 7,830 write-in votes. The same number as the difference between the AP and the FEC.

Harris didn't win D.C. with 92.5% of the vote, as with the write-ins the actual percentage is 90.3%. This can easily be confirmed, by checking D.C.'s website for the Board of Elections where it shows that Harris got "90.28%" of the vote. The AP shows her as having an additional 2.2% of the vote share because of how they are counting the votes. By excluding the write-ins, Harris' win in D.C. has a higher vote share.

This is also why the AP shows Harris at 48.4% and Trump at 49.9% while we show them at 48.32% and 49.80%. By excluding tens of thousands of write-in votes, it slightly inflates every percentage for Harris and Trump. (Well, expect for South Dakota, Kansas, and Montana. South Dakota does not permit write-ins, Kansas requires them to pay a fee, and Montana had a less than 0.01% vote share of write-ins.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The reason this is hard to believe is because of two reasons: One, every election site actually does include these write-in ballots and third party candidates. Secondly, the sources you people are citing don’t show much of anything. It either brings me to a home page or shows results of elections that don’t even relate to our discussion. These election cites add up all the vote totals and gets the percentage from them, which puts Trump at 49.9. If what you’re saying is true, then how come this doesn’t apply to the 2020 election or 2016 one? I will say, I never expected to get this much backlash over a simple request. Like I said, Wikipedia’s reputation is that it is never fully accurate, so I suppose you people are just keeping it that way. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The "backlash" you are getting is from people frustrated that they have tried to explain that we are using the final, signed-off on results and not the preliminary results. While the user we are trying to explain this to makes attacks such as claim we are intentionally spreading misinformation, that we are not listening to you, that we are saying you are the problem, and that we are gatekeeping you. I have been trying to be nice to you and explain things, but my patience on that in running out.

As for the rest, I don't see the issues you are having. Like right now, I can check the District of Columbia's Certified Results (that in the article is currently citation number 496) where it shows Harris at 90.28% and also check the Associated Press' results for the same election that you want us to cite and it shows Harris at 92.5%. And they do relate to our discussion, because it shows that the AP focused more on the votes between Harris and Trump and disregarded the others, thus increase both vote shares. This goes for multiple states. North Carolina's government shows 19k votes for write-ins that for the AP are not counted. Massachusetts has a similar situation with write-ins where the Massachusetts' government counts them and the AP does not. For all 50 states and DC, the AP does not count all of the write-in votes. That means excluding somewhere around 649,541 votes. Which skews the percentages. Which is why you have suggested Trump has 49.9% and we have suggested 49.8%.

Regarding 2020 and 2016, I don't get what you meant by "this doesn't apply" at all. While somewhat off-topic, I will say that I just took a look at the 2020 article, and it uses the FEC's certified results report that was produced in October 2022.

And finally, These election cites add up all the vote totals and gets the percentage from them, which puts Trump at 49.9. We have WP:CALC. Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. So, if you were to take the 77,302,580 votes that Trump won divided by the 155,238,302 total votes that were cast, you will get the result of 0.497960742. 49.7960742% or 49.8% after rounding. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Your frustration is not warranted and is only a result of you people wanting to protect your own ego. You said you are frustrated because you’ve consistently been explaining this to me? I’m frustrated because every time you people reply to me or try to explain something, it doesn’t prove anything and you usually send me obscure links or data that have nothing to do with proving your case or even this entire conversation. I can’t help people who don’t want to help themselves. All I did was make a simple suggestion that amounted to 0.1%, the entire point of this talking thread is to resolve issues with the article, of which this one has many. There’s no point in this talking thread if you people aren’t open to fixing the problems. Like I said, you people are just keeping the trend that Wikipedia is not reliable at all. I’ll continue to support Trump getting 49.9% as that’s what the final results show. Also, if AP and Times aren’t accurate in this sense, then why do you still source them in this article? So much for wanting accurate information. Hilarious. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you please identify which links you find "obscure" and what data you find to "have nothing to do with... this entire conversation"? All the links I see are relevant and to reliable sources.

Just because the difference between what we currently list (49.8%) and what you suggest (49.9%) is small, that doesn't make it trivial. We value accuracy and truly believe that the current data is accurate, so our resistance to changing it comes from the fact that we believe that you have not offered strong evidence that the current information is false. Now, even though you disagree with us about the accuracy of the current data, I ask that you refrain from implying that we are intentionally spreading misinformation.

Just because the Times and AP give slightly different vote counts than the FEC doesn't mean they are overall unreliable. In most cases, they are some of the most reliable and accurate sources out there. Even for the election results, they're pretty good sources, just not quite the best. In other words, it's not all-or-nothing: just because we use the Times and AP in some places doesn't mean they're the only sources we can use.

Also, please refer to my new reply above for my other thoughts. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s stop wasting each other’s time. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Folks: This discussion is currently 2,973 words long. We are arguing over one-tenth of one percentage point in an election that was held last year. While accuracy is certainly important, this is really a bit much. Please, make it stop. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Don’t blame me, I made a very simple request and these people blew it way out of proportion. Then they got way side-tracked and started sending non-relevant information. I agree, this is a bit much. Tell that to everyone else. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2025

Instead of saying "false" claims, they should put true claims. I will list the claims below. Also we should add that some states don't require voter ID. (In the lead-up to the 2024 election, the Republican Party made false claims of massive "noncitizen voting" )

Here are the true claims of elections fraud from non citizens below.

Michigan: An audit found 15 potential noncitizen votes out of over 5.7 million cast. Georgia: A comprehensive audit of 8.2 million registered voters uncovered 20 potential noncitizens who registered to vote, with 9 actually casting a ballot. Iowa: 35 potential noncitizen votes were found out of nearly 1.7 million cast. Ohio: The state's attorney general announced investigations against six individuals for illegal voting. Federal Charges: A Colombian national was charged with voting and passport fraud, including casting a ballot in the 2024 election. 98.63.116.69 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The false claims made were of "massive voter fraud" or "thousands of dead people who voted" and the like. A few dozen (under 100) votes does not mean that those claims were true. Knowingly exaggerated claims are still false. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This exaggerated claims are not false. The Arizona audit found several thousands of: Dead people voting, non-citizens of both the country and state voting, many ballots with no return addresses, many people who voted twice or more, etc. The video of this audit was taken down by YouTube, further proof of the fraud being legit since YouTube was involved in the coverup. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Prove it! Using reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s as if you didn’t even read my reply. I literally said the video was wrongfully taken down and all what’s left is the left-wing media completely lying about the story. It’s hard to prove something when all the evidence is destroyed and you’re too stubborn to admit that you’re wrong. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the YouTube video that has been taken down your only source? If there are any other sources available, I kindly ask that you provide one of them. If not, how do you know the video was legitimate? Let me be clear that I am not saying that you are wrong, I am genuinely trying to understand what reliable sources you have seen indicating that there was widespread fraud. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the low amount, I think Electoral fraud in the United States would potentially be a better fit for this. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

What low amount? There most certainly was not a low amount of fraud. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, prove it. And not by saying a now deleted YouTube video did that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I was replying to the other user and what they posted. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Election irregularities or conspiracy theory?

Looks like the idea that there was election fraud is gaining traction. How should we handle it? Add a subsection to this article or start a new one?

https://www.economictimes.com/news/international/us/kamala-harris-won-u-s-elections-2024-u-s-attorney-general-pam-bondi-asked-to-investigate-results/

https://www.latintimes.com/lawsuit-challenging-2024-election-results-moves-forward-after-kamala-harris-received-zero-votes-584787 TurboSuperA+_(connect) 22:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+, the first link you posted is a dead link. I found the article at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/kamala-harris-won-u-s-elections-2024-u-s-attorney-general-pam-bondi-asked-to-investigate-results/articleshow/121938903.cms?from=mdr. It states that a congressman wrote to Pam Bondi claiming, without evidence, that there were ballot irregularities in Arizona. The second one is a link to an article indicating that a lawsuit has been filed challenging the election results in Rockland County, New York, and a judge has ruled that the lawsuit can proceed. In other words, we're a ways away from anything being proven. I don't think any of this rises to the level of being encyclopedic. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There are also other articles about that, reporting irregularities during the elections (but for now there are investigations and reports, we still don't have definitive proof):

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/kamala-harris-election-result-trump-s-victory-under-scrutiny-as-lawsuit-filed-here-s-what-could-happen-next/ar-AA1Gsogb

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/kamala-harris-won-the-us-elections-bombshell-report-claims-voting-machines-were-tampered-with-before-2024/ar-AA1GnteW ToxinDemon (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

If enough RSs cover the accusations, we can write about the allegations, similarly to how it is done for the 2020 election in the Aftermath section: 2020 United States presidential election#False claims of fraud. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

See also:

• Thom Hartmann (7 February 2025). "The Voting Trickery That Elected Trump". Greg Palast Investigative Journalism. Wikidata Q132197019.
• Greg Palast (24 January 2025). "Trump Lost. Vote Suppression Won". Greg Palast Investigative Journalism. Wikidata Q132194420.
• Martin Sheen (Exec. Prod.), Greg Palast (text), and Rosario Dawson (narration) (2025), Vigilantes Inc., America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen, Wikidata Q132199026{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

“a junior U.S. senator”

I cannot edit this page, but it is my recommendation that this be updated to say “the” instead of “a” in the lead. There can only be one junior senator from a state at a time. Saying “a junior senator” implies that he was one of many junior senators. Unless you’re talking about it from the perspective of there have been many junior senators from the state in history? In my many years of politics, I’ve never heard someone say “a” in this context. Usually you’d only say “a” if you are talking about senior senators in the case that two senators were elected at the same time (they both take the senior title). 2600:100C:B085:D129:7D16:EB09:1DD0:B331 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I have just made the realization that perhaps this was written with the intent of saying he was one of the many junior senators in the country and he was a senator from Ohio rather than that he was one of the junior senators from Ohio. I got lost in the sauce. Regardless, adjusting this to “the” would sound better and make more sense in my opinion, so my recommendation stands. 2600:100C:B085:D129:7D16:EB09:1DD0:B331 (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

No, the indefinite article is appropriate in the context. JD Vance was a junior senator at the time, he wasn't the junior senator because the US has more than one. I know that the definite article is used when referring to someone in their official capacity as in "The junior senator from Ohio has the floor." but the sentence in question is describing Vance. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If you used “the junior U.S. senator,” it would also be grammatically correct and perhaps slightly more precise. I think it would be advisable to either change it to “the” or omit the junior designation entirely, as “junior” is a relational term within the Senate. Peter Welch is designated as junior despite having served in the Senate for nearly two decades. The modifier is inappropriate to include unless you are referencing a specific state delegation where the adjective functions meaningfully. Without the definite article, it becomes extraneous information, as establishing a category of “junior senators” distinct from the broader class of “senators” serves no constructive purpose. I think this is a better argument for it than anything. I do admit that I had not appreciated the argument for why it should be “a,” I have personally never encountered it written in such a way and I don’t think many involved in the goings of the Senate would write it as such. 2600:100C:B085:D129:7D16:EB09:1DD0:B331 (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Good point. The Wikipedia article on senators has this to say: Unless in the context of elections, they are rarely identified by which one of the three classes of senators they are in. (emphasis mine) I don't know if that is referring to all elections or just the one for the senate. If it is referring to all elections then how it is now is appropriate. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe “class” there is referring to the cycle of Senate elections for a specific seat. As in, Class I is elected one year, Class II two years later, then Class III, etc. It is a distinction to determine which year a Senate seat is up for election. For example, the 2024 Senate elections were for Class I seats if I recall correctly. This is to prevent all 100 senators from campaigning at the same time. This is why they’d only be referred to within the context of their election, because it is an inherent value of the seat a senator sits in and only matters in the context of their election to the Senate and the timeframe in which that takes place. 2603:8080:E00:10AB:FCCF:958E:A916:9734 (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right (at least I think so). I have removed "junior". I trust we're in agreement that it should be a senator and not the senator, since the US has more than one senator. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I’ve never really dabbled in Wikipedia editing so forgive me for my ignorance, but do you close this or delete this forum in some way? 2600:100C:B085:D129:7D16:EB09:1DD0:B331 (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

In theory anyone could do it (even you), by placing {{archive top}} above the discussion and then {{archive bottom}} below the discussion. However, some editors may object to the change, in which case they could join this discussion, rather than create a new one where you'd have to repeat yourself. It does no harm to leave the discussion up for a few days, and then if there are no further comments an editor will close it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm from Australia, were we have Senators, and they represent states, but that's about where the similarities end. Reading this thread, I am confused about what Class I, II or III senators are in the US, and even what junior and senior senators are. Are they defined somewhere in Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk)

HiLo48, for your reference, please see Classes of United States senators and Seniority in the United States Senate. Hope that helps. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Too-Rye-Ay. Those articles explain it well. Australia has a parallel to the classes of Senators. We just don't label them that way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)