Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

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

[edit]
NOT SPLIT
Clear consensus against splitting the article, looks like WP:TOOBIG isn't a problem anymore. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:30, 6 July 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.

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)[reply]

: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I thought about doing this awhile ago, and even created this draft. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, i agree, it should be consistent to all other Presidential elections. James4pk (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
E 103.152.101.236 (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think some elements of the election process need to split. Cbls1911 (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[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.

Trump's infobox picture

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm closing this per a request at WP:CR. There is no consensus about which image to use. I note that nowhere in this discussion do I find links to the specific images under discussion, which I assume has made it more difficult for users to understand and contribute to this discussion. I suggest starting a well-formed WP:RFC if the question is still relevant. Sandstein 17:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not to mention the new one is lit....dimly. Looks bad downsized to election infobox size SecretName101 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@TJD02: perhaps you're right and the latest photo should be used on official pages. I don't work for the US government so I don't really know or care what should be done on official pages. It has no relevance to what we do on Wikipedia articles since no Wikipedia article is an official page or otherwise part of the US government. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds like we need to change those pictures.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wow. That's a lot of examples of us doing something dumb. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That was unnecessarily provocative and unhelpful. TheBritinator (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would you suggest a mass-editing of all those pages to use pre-presidency pictures? Pickle Mon (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would require a separate (and much larger) discussion. TheBritinator (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HistorianL interesting list of examples of how portraits used in various other US presidential elections have been taken at varying times in relation to the election. I commend you for the effort and time you dedicated to looking at those other articles and compiling that list.
But I am also noticing that you didn't specify for what reason you would acually prefer a shift in the portrait used in this article over the status quo (as indicated by your declaration of "support"). You provided a case for why we can, but did not share your reasons on why we should use the June portrait.
I personally see the list you shared as further illustrating/affirming my assertion throughout this discussion that we are at liberty to use either of these two portraits without falling astray of significant norms that can be extrapolated from what photos are used in articles for earlier presidential elections. That neither are impermissible by existing norms, standards, and rules, so we are completely free to keep the status quo or make a change to the other portrait.
I agree with you that we are more than free to use the new portrait without falling astray of norms, even if I disagree with you on the question of if we should use it.
So I am curious what aspects motivated/motivates your preference for the somewhat-newer portrait over the somewhat-older one, if you had/have any you'd want to offer? SecretName101 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep January Whether the image is "official" or "inaugural" is irrelevant. The only standard is the image should be as contemporaneous as possible, and of sufficient quality. We may compromise on the timing to get a better quality image, which is what you are seeing with the other presidents. The January image is preferable because it is more contemporaneous. It is a lousy image, so if the new image was better, there would be an argument. But it isn't; it's worse. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am posting notice on related projects and task forces. Since discussion has died down, will give last opportunity for additional editors to comment. After that, will go to admin notice board to ask that an uninvolved admin close this discussion. SecretName101 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, the places I posted notices:
SecretName101 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a good quality photo closest to the election date. Doesn't make sense to show him as he no longer looks. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the notice: an article about the 2024 United States presidential election should ideally use photos of the 2024 United States presidential election, or as near as possible if there are quality concerns about directly contemporaneous ones. This should apply to all candidates, and to other elections. CMD (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on the basis that the January portrait is closer to when the election happened compared to the June portrait. As for the reason as to why my oppose is only a "weak" one. Because I also understand that the June portrait is his official 2nd term portrait, so I will not object if the reasoning is to be consistent with using the official portrait from the winner's term. But I still think the January one is probably a better fit for this topic imo. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also not be opposed to using freely licensed non-official portraits like his December 2024 Turning Point appearance picture (as an example). Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:12, 18 July 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.

“a junior U.S. senator”

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@TurboSuperA+ "junior" and "senior" is not determined by class (years in which regularly-timed elections for a seat occur). It is determined by seniority. A junior or senior senator can hold a seat in any of those three classes.
The "junior" senator is the shorter-tenured senator from a state, the "senior" senator is the longer-tenured one. When both senators were sworn in on the same day (and one of them was sworn-in for a full term, the other a partial term) then they typically name the senator elected to a full term "senior" and the one elected or appointed to a partial-term "junior" (as they did when two senators from Illinois were sworn in in 1913; two from California in 1993, two from Arizona in 2019, and two Georgia in 2021, two from Nebraska in 2023).
I think "junior senator" is a useless descriptor to refer to Vance as, and should not be used. It indicates nothing other than some other senator from his state outranking him in tenure. Says nothing much of anything about Vance's senate experience. He could have only been a senator for a few seconds and already have been his state's "senior senator" so long as the other seat wasn't occupied by someone who out-tenured him. Or (ignoring that his age would make it a constitutional and physical impossibility) Vance could have been a multi-termer and the second-longest-tenured incumbent member of the Senate, and still have been his state's "junior senator" so long as the other Ohio Senator was the longest-tenured senator.
I would propose changing it to freshman senator, which actually tells us something about the length of his senate tenure (less than 6 years). SecretName101 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each state has two senators. The junior Senator from a state is the person most recently elected to the US Senate. They are a "junior" because the other Senator from that state has seniority. I think "a junior Senator" is problematic. It should be "the junior Senator from Ohio." The state needs to be included. Anyone in Congress for their first term is "a freshman", but "junior" and "senior" are specific to the Senate and each state. I could be off one this one, but I don't think so. Dsa605 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And to explain what "senior" and "junior" mean: it's about seniority. A state's "senior" senator is the one who is more senior in the length of their senate tenure (has served longer), while a state's "junior" senator is one shorter-tenured one.
Sometimes a state has two new senators who are sworn-in at the same time, which almost always has happened because one senator won a regularly-scheduled election while the other was elected in a coinciding special election (or was newly-appointed to an un-filled vacancy). In those instances, I have seen it always handled so that the senator who is starting a full term (having won a regular election) is granted seniority over the one filling an unexpired partial term. SecretName101 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48 (realizing I didn't tag you in my response earlier) SecretName101 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Data from Pew showing most minority voters swung toward Trump in 2024

[edit]

This is from Pew just last week. Reading through this Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention how Black voters, Hispanic voters, and Asian voters all surprisingly swung toward Trump in the 2024 election. Not saying that's a good thing or bad thing but it should probably be included in the article.


https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patterns-in-the-2024-election Yodabyte (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick look at that article suggests that "most" is inaccurate. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't downplay the shifts. Put them in the article. 69.118.244.151 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

County flips

[edit]

It should be added that Harris was the first nominee in nearly 100 years to not flip a county. I believe the last was 1932. There are sources that clearly state this, as well as election results atlases. 2600:1012:A124:E537:842A:F991:ED0A:E713 (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a global encyclopaedia. This non-American has no idea what a county flip is, or why it matters. Care to elaborate? HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A county is an administrative subdivision of a state (plus DC). Anyway, the fact Harris flipped no counties shows that the national swing was so uniform that not even any subdivision of any state flipped from red to blue, from 2020 to 2024.
Counties are used when voting, as most states count total votes reported by each county. Flipping a county usually shows that a candidate was able to appeal to the voters of that county. For example, Trump flipped many majority-Hispanic counties. 2600:1008:B0CE:6A35:79D1:FBDE:89E5:2943 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still left guessing what flipping means. If your request leads to anything being added to the article, it MUST avoid such jargon. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically when a county votes for x party in an election and then votes for a different one in the next election. It's needless trivia imo, unless reliable sources mention it as significant. Wowzers122 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A county's the next level of subdivision after state (country, 50 states, 3 to 254 counties per state (average 62.88 (New York's closest to average@62)), 1 to 4,535 individual voting places (precincts) per county for voting (average tens), one or more levels of local government if any for general subdivision (though New York City is a sui generis city limits containing all of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens & Richmond counties)). The federal district (Austalian Capital Territory analog) isn't divided into counties or cities, towns, villages, hamlets or townships (one county-equivalent for statistical purposes) cause it's only 177km² including water. These may have not been clear to all non-Americans so far. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping is not really jargon in American politics. By this logic, we would have to avoid actual jargon like "swing states," which would make the article long and needlessly complicated (as we are seeing in the defining of the terms above). We could always hyperlink these terms so people can explore them if necessary Catboy69 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can categorically say that the word "flipping" is not used in election coverage here in Australia, where I live. Where else but America IS it used? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about an American election, so it uses terms popular in America. It’s not a confusing word either. Americans understand when other countries use terms like “seats changing hands” or “taking seats.” It is far less confusing than jargon such as swing states, preferential voting, or below-the-line voting. Catboy69 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree. I was just responding to "Flipping is not really jargon in American politics." HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What they are saying is that Harris failed to convert any counties that voted Republican in 2020 to Democratic in 2024. (Or, a bit shorter, none of the counties that Trump won in 2020 were won by Harris in 2024.) Personally, I think it is a bit too close to being trivia. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know every single detail in the world as discussed by Wikipedia articles. That is a weak arguement. 75.161.214.89 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed citation error

[edit]

Why is the table showing voter splits from the 2024 presidential vote, presumably retrieved just after Donald Trump was re-elected, on November 10, 2024, referred to as: ‘"National Results 2020 President exit polls". CNN. Retrieved November 10, 2024.’? (It’s currently ref. no. 465.)

The link is https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results, which gets amended to https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results, and shows the Trump—Biden election data. Nick Barnett (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The table shows comparisons between 2024 and 2020 exit polls, so there are two CNN citations, one to 2024 and one to 2020. There doesn't appear to be a citation error. However, I'm not sure what the "9%" in the table title refers to. ("2024 presidential election exit poll[464] compared to 9% in 2020.[465]") --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1305057424"