Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018Articles for deletionDeleted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 6, 2024.

biased

(non-admin closure) We are done here. Read the FAQ above. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 00:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lots of criticism of Trump's campaign, calling it authoritarian, fascist, etc... nothing on Harris falsely claiming that Trump would sign a national abortion ban. Mazerks (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

except, no, it does not. it lists reputable sources for many people saying this, it does not attempt to claim his campaign as authoritarian or facist, nor does it not, it was literally a major attack argument from opposing parties. this does not violate WP:NPOV in any way.
and if you believe that more should be said about harris, feel free to edit the article, as long as you adhere to WP:NPOV, and be sure that your changes are constructive and differ from your previous contributions. - avxktty (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's biased. Just because nobody puts some reference to Kamala's plagiarism or her adultery or any of her other liabilities does not mean they don't belong in the discussion if the article references Trump criticism as well. Lots of negative things said about Kamala by reputable sources that are closer to the unbiased center than the Washington Post. Media bias doesn't belong in encyclopedia articles. The article needs to be balanced. 2603:8000:1BF0:AAF0:5B57:30DB:3DC8:62F9 (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are free to create an account and edit wikipedia instead of roaming this comment section namecalling and accusing the article of being biased..? or provide sources indicating those are significant if you really feel this strongly. it's not really that constructive what you're doing right now. - avxktty (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harris made that prediction, yes, but we can't know it is false until his term ends. Trump has gone back and forth on abortion for years. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump definitively stated it's a matter for the states. There is no constitutional right to abortion and the constitution also does not confer on the federal government the right to legislate on it, therefore it is also constitutionally a matter for the states. Mazerks (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what he said last summer. Back in 1999 he was pro-choice. In between he has bounced all over the place about national vs states, exceptions or not, and whether to punish doctors (and even the women). And the ability to have an abortion falls under bodily autonomy, which is inherent in all rights. If a woman cannot make decisions about her own body, then she has no liberty and cannot pursue happiness.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A woman’s bodily rights do not give her the right to violate her baby’s bodily rights. Abortion is actually unconstitutional under the 14th amendment since it violates that amendment’s provisions for the right to life. JesusIsLord444 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not violate, even the most conservative federalist society judges agree that though the Constitution doesn't guarantee abortion according to their textualist and originalist interpretation, it can be codified through an act of congress. Theofunny (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop. The last three to five comments have been off-topic. Might be collapsed or deleted. See WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not biased if it’s objectively correct lol 24.94.18.96 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Extremely biased paragraph at the start. That belongs in the New York Times opinion section, not Wikipedia. 155.190.21.5 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The first paragraph is 100% factual. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretations are not facts.
“Her face has a crooked nose.” fact
”Her face is ugly.” interpretation of facts
”Her face is considered ugly in this society.” fact
Don’t need Fox News reporting in Wikipedia 73.77.85.118 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is extreme confirmation bias. The articles used for citation all come from extremely left leaning media outlets with no counter balance. It is not objective but extremely subjective material! Do better Wikipedia… 98.16.161.76 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. we need to be objective, not subjective. all of the sources for the anti-trump parts of the election come from left wing sources (such as the Washington post). WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP's fault that a significant number of "right wing" sources parrot blatant lies or misleading information. If there were more right wing sources that don't blatantly lie or mislead, then there would be no problem adding them or the information they contain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i feel like there are definetly unbiased sources WP can use. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to actually put some out. Please review the perennially discussed list of sources, and the discussions linked from that table, to determine why any specific source is not considered reliable. The general reasoning is that any source that has published misinformation/lies outside of breaking news without correcting them to be accurate does not have editorial policies that suggest it's a reliable source. Some of the most common "right wing" sources have repeatedly published misinformation/outright lies and have still, to this day, not issued retractions or corrections - including Breitbart, Fox News, Newsmax, etc. It doesn't matter why they published false information.. it matters that they did it and never corrected it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the list - how are MSNBC and Vox considered to be reliable sources? In what world? There needs to be a serious dicussion about the listed sources there, because Vox is just as biased as Fox News or even Newsmax. Just saying.
Also, I will dig through the full article and find some specific examples of left-wing/anti-Trump bias, and will add some reccomendations once this analysis is completed. Looking forward to further collaboration in order to improve this article. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bias and reliability are two separate things. Reliability is based on whether the source has a reputation for fact-checking and reporting accurate, truthful information. Again, you should read the discussions linked on the table to understand why sources are unreliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but i'm referring to the parts of the article that sound extremely opinionated and politically biased, such as the part where they call Trump a fascist and so on. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked. NO part of the article calls Trump a fascist. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im not saying the article calls Trump a fascist, it merely implies that he is. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it): Making wide, non-specific claims like "sound extremely opinionated" is not going to do anything. Please quote specific parts of the article that you think are "extremely opinionated" and/or "politically biased".
Please note that just because you don't like facts, or because most of the facts about Trump are negative, does not mean it is "politically biased" or "opinionated". It would, on the other hand, be politically biased (and equivalent to whitewashing) if we were to avoid reporting on notable negative information about Trump just to make him look better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im working on making a full list, but this part of the article really struck me as politically biased/opinionated:
"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." -while this is true, his chief of staff called him a fascist to the core, the way that it's written and the fact that it's put in such a major part of the article feels a bit biased, there definetly could be some rewriting done.
Let me know how you feel about this version of saying it:
Several former Trump administration officials described Trump and his campaign as fascist, and attacked him for allegedly using dehumanizing rhetoric toward opponents. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Also listing all these “falsehoods” stated by the Trump campaign but not mentioning all the falsehoods stated by Biden and Harris. 2601:584:101:B0D0:35B3:B1DF:14F4:FCB0 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that makes it sound like "disgruntled fired employees said these things", when it's not just former officials but independent historians from both sides of the aisle. You also removed one of the most important and relevant claims - that his style was (and is) authoritarian. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

anachronistic Trump portait

title 5.151.189.244 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we using a picture taken after the election to illustrate a candidate in the election? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to using the 2017 presidential portrait? Prcc27 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to a picture that actually shows him during the campaign. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Khajidha. It is standard in election articles to use a picture of the candidates during the campaign, if available. There was substantial turmoil on this talk which resulted in the 2017 portrait being used up until the election itself, but now that the dust has settled, one of the many pictures from during the campaign should be used instead. — Goszei (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the standard for presidential candidates that actually win their election.. We usually use the presidential portrait. Prcc27 (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the presidential election articles back to 1976. Most of them use a portrait of the winner that was taken after the election or even after the inauguration. There are a few exceptions, e.g. 1996 United States presidential election uses a 1993 portrait of Clinton. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't answer the question, though. "We do it" is not an answer to "why do we do this?" Why do we use a picture not from the election to illustrate the election?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might make more sense to show the candidates as they looked during the campaign. On the other hand, I like consistency, and if these other articles use photos taken after the election, we might as well do that here. A possible answer to "why?" might be "because that's what he looked like after he won, and winning is the most important part of the election". Either way, I don't really have a preference. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, our ibox images of the candidates should be portrait-quality images from dates as close to the election as possible. I think that for many articles on previous elections, as referenced by other editors above, there are no such images readily available (most likely from the campaign), in which case the next best choice is indeed the inaugural portrait after the election. — Goszei (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s also not forget that a few months ago we couldn’t get consensus on which campaign trail photo to use. Most/all of the public domain photos were not presidential portrait quality. Prcc27 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't presidential portraits, so I'm not sure why that matters. Were they good illustrations of the candidate during the election? That's what's needed.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They weren’t. All of the photographs were terrible, at least in my opinion. The only good photographs, unfortunately, were not public domain. Prcc27 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be extremely bad for me not to prefer it over the factually incorrect current photo. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which photo do you propose we use? Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I haven't seen the options. Can you tell me where to find them? But, as I said before, the fact that the current picture does not illustrate Trump during the election is utterly disqualifying for me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Donald Trump and Commons:Category:Donald Trump. If you just want to focus on last year, Commons:Category:Donald Trump in 2024. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw lots of pictures there that looked perfectly fine to me. For example, this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Donald_Trump_in_June_2024#/media/File:Donald_Trump_(53788147813)_(cropped).jpg --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a horrible pic. Look at the uncropped version; the background is a portrait of Trump. Prcc27 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the background of the uncropped picture has to do with using the cropped picture. And how is it a "horrible" picture? Looks like a perfectly fine headshot to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His nose is in the background in the cropped version. Even if you can’t exactly tell what the background is, I just think the photo does not meet the standard of a “presidential” photograph. Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The background in the cropped version is just a pink blur, doesn't matter that it's his nose. And I'd say the photo is much more "presidential" than the official portrait, which looks like a villain in a cheap 1960s Western movie. An unintentional Lee van Cleef caricature. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people keep talking about whether it looks presidential? It isn't a picture of a president. It's a picture of a candidate. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likely because there was an intent to update the Trump photo with his presidential portrait if he won. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes no sense. The presidential portrait belongs on the presidency page. This is the election page. I simply cannot understand the idea of using the presidential portrait to illustrate the candidate. It would be like using a picture of an NFL quarterback in an article or section of an article that dealt exclusively with his time playing college football. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point: the reason we use the official portrait is because it's professionally done: well lit, focused and framed. The current one looks like absolute garbage. But then again, he chose it! GreatCaesarsGhost 13:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, the current photo makes the most sense to me, as it is the closest photo to the election date that editors would actually agree upon (whether it was 2 months prior to the election or 2 months after I really don't see the big deal). That being said, in all honesty if I had my way I would eliminate all presidential portraits for a more 'candid' style as seen in primary election articles, with 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries as an example, but as we are using them now and for the foreseeable future, the current picture is the best option. Yeoutie (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see it as a big deal that it explicitly isn't from the election? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harris's photo is from 4 years ago so I would sooner change that one than Trump's from a strict length-of-time angle. Again, I would love if we changed to non-presidential portraits for these election articles like I stated above, but if we insist on using official portraits the current would be the best option. Yeoutie (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support changing that one, too. There is a difference between the two, though. The Harris picture actually existed during the time in question, the Trump one did not. There could have been Harris ads using the picture we use, there could not have been Trump ads using the picture we have of him. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we do so in other election articles and there was a consensus to use the official portrait for his second presidency when created. (Granted, it isn't clear that this is the official portrait, the copyright is murky, and this picture looks worse than the prior one...) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's hard to believe, but he really chose this weird photo as the official portrait. https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/ — Chrisahn (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fully sure if that is the official portrait. Just that it is in use on the website for The White House. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a high quality, freely-licensed photo of him from the campaign would be ideal. Such as this one. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The picture goes with the overall thrust of the article and Wikipedia in general, which is anti-Trump. It could have used the 2020 picture, which was the same as the 2016 photo. ABC used that photo in advertising his debate with Harris. The article could use any other photo with better lighting and Trump smiling. Instead it goes with the one that makes him look menacing. It's like using Time's darkened photo of OJ Simpson.
Trump released that photo for use. Is Trump trying to make himself look menacing? And, if so, couldn't that indicate that the left was right?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Maine have two district entries and Nebraska three plus a state overall in the table of results by state?

District data doesn't seem relevant in a comparison by state, but even if it were, why do only two states have entries by district, and why does Nebraska have districts and a state total? Am I missing something about how the Electoral College works? Okto8 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okto8, Maine and Nebraska are the only two states at this time that allocate their electoral college votes by congressional district as opposed to statewide winner-take-all. Cullen328 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. And that is noted by a legend at the top of the results-by-state table.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also, rather than starting a new topic, I'll just note this source from USCB in case it's of interest:
2024 | The American Presidency Project
The totals there differ slightly from those here. I have not dug into the small discrepancy. (The page was cited in a news article I just read.) NME Frigate (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Latino male vote

The article claims Latino males voted for Trump 54% to 44%. I know this is a claim made by much of the media also. However, according to data by Latino civil rights and advocacy UnidosUS, Latino/Hispanic men actually voted for Kamala Harris 56% to 43%, Latina/Hispanic women voted for Harris 66%-32% and overall Latino/Latina/Hispanic voters voted for Harris by 62% to 37%.

Here's the source: https://unidosus.org/press-releases/hispanic-voters-back-harris-over-trump-by-a-62-37-margin-cite-economic-concerns-as-top-priorities/

Stop slandering Mr. Donald John Trump he is a GreatPresident

2600:1011:B323:927F:0:26:35A6:CE01 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2025

Add this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYE20qmGIbg Chickenuggets25 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. See WP:RSPYT. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duval County, Florida

Duval County, FL needs to be shaded 50-60% R on the county map. Trump got just over 50% there. 132.170.55.127 (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide a source for this. The current source in the article shows he got 49.92%. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/florida-president-results
https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/florida/?r=0
https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/florida/
I'm a bit confused here. Did these media groups just pull these numbers out of their ass or did they just fail to report additional vote counts? All media election results suggest 50.1%, while Duval County records state 49.9%. 173.244.4.250 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're right you're right 132.170.46.9 (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word

In the section on the assassination attempts, the word "killed" is missing from this paragraph: (I have inserted it in bold). Not sure how to edit this.

On July 13, 2024, Trump survived an assassination attempt while addressing a campaign rally near Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump was shot and wounded on his right ear by Thomas Matthew Crooks, who fired eight rounds with an AR-15–style rifle from the roof of a building approximately 400 feet (120 metres) from the stage; the shots killed one audience member and critically injured two others. WikiDanW (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good catch! TheSavageNorwegian 17:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2025 - Virginia vote count is wrong.

Your state vote data is wrong for Virginia. Pease reference https://enr.elections.virginia.gov/results/public/Virginia/elections/2024NovemberGeneral and your own Wiki page on Virginia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia, which has the correct numbers.

Thanks 47.201.81.70 (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for noticing. Let me know if I missed a spot. TheSavageNorwegian 18:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

County results

It should be noted that Harris is the only candidate since Herbert Hoover and the only Democrat ever to fail to flip a county. 173.244.4.250 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citations to reliable sources that identify that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/major-disappointment-kamala-harris-fails-to-flip-a-single-county-in-presidential-election/ar-AA1vmSNW
https://econotimes.com/Kamala-Harris-Breaks-a-90-Year-Record-Not-a-Single-County-FlippedWhat-Went-Wrong-in-2024-1695747
Also, any election atlas will tell you so. 173.244.4.250 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literature / further reading

Michael Wolff: All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America. Random House, Februar 2025, ISBN 979-8-217-07071-8.

fellow wikipeans, please create a section Literature' or further reading. 178.203.113.60 (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Negative coverage of Trump in the lede

The disparaging coverage of Trump in the lede is problematic. First, this deviates the ledes of other US presidential election. Second, this is undue because it ignores the coverup of Biden's cognitive ability, in which the left-wing sources of the disparaging Trump coverage were complicit. See Jake Tapper's Original Sin book, previewed on CNN: www.cnn.com/2025/02/26/media/joe-biden-book-jake-tapper-alex-thompson/index.html. Either both or neither, and I suggest neither based on past elections. Closetside (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It deviates from the leads of other election articles because this is the first time that a candidate spent their entire time campaigning by literally lying to the public repeatedly. Further, you misrepresent what that source says - it says the following: Biden, “his family, and his senior aides were so convinced that only he could beat Trump again, they lied to themselves, allies, and the public about his condition and limitations,” the press release stated. So even if we take that source for what it says, it does not say that "the left-wing sources... coverage were complicit". Lastly, your claim that it ignores the coverup of Biden's cognitive ability is blatantly untrue - the lead covers Biden's health issues and decline in the second paragraph, even before the part you attempted to remove. Ultimately, your edit is an attempt to whitewash the article based on at best not reading through the entire lead and misunderstanding the sources - which is a violation of NPOV itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is CNN - a pro-Democrat source and the book was written by a Jake Tapper, a well-respected pro-Democrat journalist. There is no evidence Jake Tapper is shifting to the right.
Second, there is evidence that networks like NYT, WaPo, CNN, LaTimes, and AP went along with the Biden admin's claim that he was cognitively stable. This could be done by some analysis of those outlets, which would be lengthy and extensive. Furthermore, the Biden admin clearly covered it up - which is a major lie which should be covered equally.
Furthermore, Trump wasn't any more truthful in 2020 or 2016, yet it is not featured there. About fearmongering, Biden called Trump supporters "garbage," which should be mentioned if we want to mention Trump's fearmongering.
This is not whitewashing - this is just NPOV.
It is true the article mentions that Biden dropped out after a bad debate performance. But it doesn't mention the Democrat big lie - that Biden was cognitively stable - acknowledged by Jake Tapper. Closetside (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact quote
what was broadly considered a poor debate performance in June 2024 intensified concerns about his age and health, and led to calls within his party for him to leave the race.
This does not acknowledge the Democratic big lie or even that Biden was cognitively impaired, which Tapper acknowledged in his book. Closetside (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what's in the book when it hasn't come out yet? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't matter when you're trying to get it to say something that it didn't say. You say there's evidence - provide it. You have not done so. The onus is on you to provide reliable sources for your claims.
And actually, Trump was more truthful in 2020 and 2016. In fact, this is yet again something that's covered in this very article in the section: 2024 United States presidential election § Donald Trump's false claims of interference with a graph that itself comes from a reliable source's fact checking.
You seem to think that one instance of calling someone "garbage" by Biden is equivalent to Trump repeatedly dehumanizing, berating, and verbally assaulting his opponents. Not only did you not provide any sources for that (yet again), but in fact that would be undue weight.
Your goal here is now clear - you don't want NPOV - you want to whitewash Trump's history and use this article to right the great wrong you see in the support people have for Democrats. Wikipedia is not the place for you to attempt to right what you perceive as great wrongs. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is one lie out of many. That is not evidence Trump was significantly less truthful this election cycle. He also lied a lot in 2016, 2020 and throughout his first presidency. Heck, in the 2020 election he falsely claimed it was going to be rigged repeatedly, and claimed it was rigged when he lost.
There was a clear coverup: The deeply sourced reporters found what they call a “cover-up” of the former president’s “serious decline.” From the article. Remember Jake Tapper is a pro-Democrat well-respected journalist; there is no evidence he is lying.
The garbage comment was notable - its uproar got a reaction from the Biden campaign www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd09e4nl30o and it targeted all Trump supporters, similarly to Hillary's deplorables, which is mentioned in the 2016 election.
Also if the sources weren't complicit in the coverup, show me just one article from before the election that there was a coverup by the Biden admin - which should be trivial. If not, they were complicit, especially considering it was acknowledged afterward. Closetside (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see the graph that counts the number of lies Trump made in each election cycle? Ultimately if you clearly ignore the arguments I’m making, this will go nowhere. At this point you still haven’t listened to the arguments I’ve made. And you still have provided zero sources for there being a “cover up” in the media except for an as-yet unpublished book that doesn’t come out for another two plus months. Your view is that it’s only NPOV if both Trump and Biden have equal amounts of negative coverage. And that’s simply not what NPOV means. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump made lies in many categories - not just electoral fraud.
CNN reports that a respected pro-Democrat journalist will publish a book which outlines how Democrats covered up the Biden cognitive decline. This is good as fact and a reliable source. Are you alleging that Jake Tapper is lying or the book will be withdrawn? Otherwise, my point is concrete.
The Democrat big lie should be given airtime. And yes there is a source it was covered up before the debate torontosun.com/news/world/reporter-calls-bidens-obvious-cognitive-decline-most-underreported-story-of-2024. This is given by a CBS journalist - a pro-Democrat journalist on a pro-Democrat network.
Point is we cover both or cover none. Closetside (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re free to see if anyone else agrees with you. But given you’re attempting a WP:FALSEBALANCE I doubt anyone will. Do not make whitewashing edits in violation of NPOV again until you get consensus on the talk page here to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get a WP:3O. Closetside (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is just as obviously mentally diminished compared to previous years as well, and no one is talking much about that, either. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your unsourced POV. Age and health concerns about Donald Trump does not take a position in wikivoice and includes both sides. Closetside (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that metric, so does Age and health concerns about Joe Biden. Your personal belief in the conspiracy theory of a "massive cover up" by people other than Joe Biden and his advisors does not make it the truth. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Joe Biden coverup has been acknowledged by two well respected journalists, Jake Tapper and a CBS journalist- both pro-Biden and anti-Trump. This is not an unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy (i.e. conspiracy theory) Closetside (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They said there was a cover up from Biden. Not that the news organizations knew or had any way of knowing about it. That's the entire point of a cover up, after all. And the book isn't even out for two more months, so to make claims about the veracity of the claims inside the book is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for admitting the Biden admin covered up his cognitive decline unless you think a well-respected Democrat journalist is lying. The book will say that according to the RS pro-Democrat CNN article so I am not speculating. Media complicity is from the CBS journalist above. Closetside (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be undue to go into too many details about Biden in the lead, especially since he ended up not being the Democratic Party nominee. We should briefly explain why he stepped down. Prcc27 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree so let’s remove the Trump content as well because it is undue. Closetside (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the content to the body. Compromise? Closetside (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can draft the Biden coverup section another time in the future. Closetside (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, no compromise. And while you may WP:BEBOLD, making such a change without asking for input on the talkpage here first is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is the elected president, so clearly the lead should say a lot about him, right? There has been consensus to cover Trump’s controversies in the lead for a while. Prcc27 (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim and Arab-American votes

The above section of the article has a couple of problems. I have no idea what an Arab voter is. Muslim voter is clear. That's a voter who is Muslim, i.e. follows the Muslim faith. But what on earth is an Arab voter?

The section also seems to be based on an assumption that there is some sort of correlation between being Muslim and being Arab (whatever that means). The country in the world with the largest number of Muslims is Indonesia. Did Americans learn nothing from all the idiotic allegations that Obama is Muslim? HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the section is somewhat problematic, although my main concern is that it's too long and detailed. Regarding your questions: 1. In this context, an Arab voter is an Arab American who voted. Of course, terms like Arab American, Asian American, Irish American, ... are not perfectly well defined, but they are also not so vague as to be useless. They are used by opinion poll institutes etc. 2. Of course there is a correlation between being Muslim and being Arab, but that correlation may not be as strong as the content of the section suggests (or its authors assumed). Internationally, most Arabs are Muslims, bot most Muslims are not Arabs. According to Islam in the United States, only about 20% to 25% of Muslims in the US are of Arabic descent. And according to Arab Americans#Religious background, it's likely that only a minority of Arab Americans are Muslims. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked on Arab American. It seems to be telling me that they are are Americans who had ancestors who spoke Arabic. That's a terrible definition, not just not perfectly well defined. But I guess it's as good as much of American racial labelling, so I suppose we have to live with it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election