Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Sen. Sanders just dropped out.

Um, Bernie Sanders just ended his campaign (as of April 8th, 2020). Can somebody please change it to just Joe Biden?

Thanks, Nomnom121 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(Please correct me if I did anything wrong in this post).

Im seeing some defiance from people. Some people say that Bernie is still eligible for presidency, he just won't be going around making anymore campaigns. So is he a suspended or withdrawn candidate?ThunderBrine (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Candidates usually 'suspend' rather than end campaigns when they first announced, because then the campaign entity carries on and they can (for example) continue to accept donations to pay off campaign debt. So I don't think the use of the word 'suspend' has much meaning (and I suspect most of the other candidates who have dropped out also suspended their campaigns). Sanders has dropped out according to CNN and The New York Times and ended his campaign according to CBS. 94.175.136.90 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record: Suspending one's campaign means that the delegates accrued can still go to the Convention and have the "convention experience." it's like going to comicon or the Hardware show. Sanders suspended his campaign well before the Convention in '16, and the delegates did all sorts of stuff. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Polling chart

Is it a good idea to include a polling chart based on the aggregate polls found in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election? Something like 2019 United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning female VP in lead

It's too early to include the following in the lead: "The 2020 Democratic Party vice presidential nominee is set to be the third female major party vice presidential nominee in United States history..."

Yes Biden has said he will choose a woman as his running mate and there's no particular reason not to believe him, but it's kind of ridiculous to talk about the significance of the Democratic running mate before the running mate has even be chosen. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I skimmed through the lead yesterday and thought "What's this? Have I missed something? Who is this vice presidential nominee?" I looked closer and saw there was some caution in the language, but right now it doesn't really help the article to have so much speculative stuff in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Wait until we have a veep until we talk about the veep. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, as he could always change his mind between now & the convention. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

trump was not born in florida he was born in new york Johnforsh (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources that support this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The article does not claim that he was born in Florida. Keep in mind that home state and birth state are not the same thing. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden presumptive nominee

I think it's too soon to declare Biden the "presumptive nominee". I don't think Trump was considered the presumptive nominee until he clinched a majority of delegates, so we should hold off on giving Biden that title until then as well. Yes, he will probably win a majority of delegates, but it is WP:Crystal to assume that he will. First of all, the other candidates aren't technically out of the race, they just suspended their campaigns. Furthermore, minor candidates like Henry Hewes are still in the race with active campaigns AFAIK. Consequently, Biden should be removed from the infobox, at least for now.. Prcc27 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The world seems to disagree with you, even in my little backwater on the other side of the world - [1] HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Prcc27. Let's not jump the gun on this. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Trump was officially declared the presumptive nominee by the RNC in 2016 after Cruz dropped out (even before Kasich did). So I don't think clinching majority necessarily has to be the benchmark. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Surely we go by what reliable sources say, rather than the opinions of editors. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source stating the opposite : https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-vs-trump-us-general-election-battle-is-now-set/ David O. Johnson (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not stating the opposite at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is: "Biden likely won’t secure the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination until June."David O. Johnson (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not what this discussion is about. It's whether we can assume he will be the candidate, and that article certainly does that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Even though Biden doesn't (yet) have a majority of the pledge delegates, he's (as of now) the only candidate running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. The latter reason, is most likely why reliable sources are declaring him the presumptive prez nominee of the party. GoodDay (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump was declared the presumptive nominee by the RNC a year ago last January. If you go back in the archives, you will see some very long and heated discussions on the topic. If he is the only candidate running (Henry Hewes stopped trying to get on further ballots before Super Tuesday and hasn't made a peep in quite a while), he's the presumptive nominee. This means if Bernie had withdrawn instead of suspended, his delegates would have been disqualified and new ones pledged to Biden would be chosen. As to WP:Crystal, "Black Swan" events could change everything. The Convention, for example, could be canceled. That doesn't mean we should get rid of the article. Joe is the presumptive nominee. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump isnt the presumptive nominee he had clinch the gop nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.193.148 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Libertarian and Green parties in the infobox.

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.

---

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – Previous consensus on the 2012 and 2016 pages dictated that any parties with ballot access in enough states to have access to 270 electoral votes would be included in the infobox. I am of the opinion that it is time for another discussion to confirm or reject this past consensus, and I personally think that only parties who achieved over 5% of the vote in the previous election should be included in the infobox, A.K.A. just the Democrats and Republicans. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat, did I summarize your stance on this correctly, i.e. that you would prefer that the Libertarians and the Greens be removed? I just want to be sure. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That summarises my position perfectly, you did an excellent job here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the credit goes to Nice4What. I just tweaked their summary of your position as it didn't seem to be square with what you stated. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is this gonna be like 2016 where the Libertarians and Greens were on the infobox but then removed after the election? (The Libertarians had ballot access to all 50 states are are still not included in the infobox). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – Yes, remove them. There is no reason to assume they would do any better this year, else it's undue weight. The candidates with no media coverage need to be removed too, please stop moving the transclusion to include people without coverage. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Reywas92: so your position is to completely revert the consensuses listed at the talk of this very talk page "In order for a third party to be included, they need to have ballot acces in the 2020 election to at least 270 electoral votes" and "Some political parties that are qualified to appear in the infobox did not get any electoral votes in 2016. They will be ordered by the total amount of electoral votes in the states that have ballot access. Write-in access counts too." ? SecretName101 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely! Is position that consensus can't change and that was was decided four eight years ago must be used for every election going forward? Infobox inclusion should be based on media coverage and/or polls, not a spurious local standard of "theoretically" being able to win. Ballot access requirements vary by state, from a mere form a filing fee to thousands of signatures, but getting this access is not directly correlated to chances of doing well across the states or getting anyone to give them consideration. I'm not aware of any source that uses such a threshold, basing it instead on the common sense of who gets public attention and performance in polls, and at this point there is no reason to presume that the Libertarian/Green/other candidates will receive that. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not to mention they don't even have a candidate yet! Maybe once they have someone but at this point, come on! Reviewing the links at the top of Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election, I do not see very robust consensus at all that all must be included, only that it was tradition. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Let us keep in mind, that this would all require a VERY strong consensus. One that has enough support from editors to justifiably outweigh (and therefore give cause to overturn) past consensus. SecretName101 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – Libertarians and greens a extremely unlikely to gain enough ground to end up winning a state, so I dont believe they deserve to be considered candidates. Jasejudkins (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – They need to be removed, traditionally a candidate needs to be polling more than %5 to be included in the info-box before an election. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support past consensus – There's never been a popular vote requirement for the pre-election infobox, just for the post-election infobox. The Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties have always been included because they met the majority ballot access requirement. See the pre-election infobox in 2016 and in 2012. That being said, we actually need to show that the parties have the required ballot access this year before we add them. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding what I have said below, I support the Green and Libertarian parties remaining in the infobox until the race focuses a bit and there are reliable polls. Until candidates are chosen and the race is somewhat real, we should err on the side of being more inclusive in the infobox rather than less. Once candidates are chosen and reliable polling is available a candidate's and party's inclusion in the infobox should be decided based on their performance in polling and the >5% rule. Applying the 5% rule doesn't really make sense before we even know who is running for each party, or whether there are any notable independent candidates and polling is all based on loose hypotheticals.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Libertarian/Green Party – I support the past consensus and don't feel that this should be changed on a whim. The argument for removal seems to revolve around the chance at winning the election, but that is a poor argument. Third party candidates and their supporters aren't delusional about the odds of winning. The candidates run to affect the conversation and to provide a choice for supporters of alternate ideologies. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia shouldn't be based on the odds of winning but based on the impact the candidates have on the overall election. Libertarians and Greens certainly have such an impact. I would argue that the Constitution Party does as well. Dhalsim2 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Libertarian/Green Party – I support the past consensus. I agree with what Dhalsim2 said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Libertarian Party – My opinion is that we add the Libertarian candidate after the Libertarian National Convention and the green party candidate after there is a presumptive nominee. Now it just doesn't make sense to have lines of color that have nothing above them. Nojus R (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – I'm in favor of removing them from the infobox. The information regarding their candidacies is down below in the article. Leaving them in the infobox is just a waste of space. I'd be in favor of including them if, say, they had decent polling numbers, like in 2016. --yeah_93 (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – In favour of removing them, Libertarian nor Green candidates have never won an electoral vote, and all polling shows they won't this time around. I disagree that third party candidates have an impact on the election. Currently, having them there clutters the page. Kookamooka (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree that minor parties do not have an impact on elections. There were several states in 2016 that came down to razor thin margins. Such as, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. If we look at the tightest race, Michigan. Clinton lost by 11,000 votes. Minor parties in the state combined for 250,902 votes. It's very well plausible that Clinton could have edged out a victory had the additional options not have been present--ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 7:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – I've removed them. Even in 2016, when the Libertarian Party won ~3% of the popular vote, we didn't include their candidate in the infobox. The United States is a de facto two-party state; this is widely known/established. It's biased to include these minor candidates as equal to Trump and Biden. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, we did include Libertarian, Green, and even Constitution parties in the infobox BEFORE the election. So, your argument that we didn't include them in 2016 is false. Nojus R (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• My argument that the US is a two-party state still stands. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Libertarian/Green Party – Per Dhalsim2. Koopinator (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Libertarian/Green Party, incase it unclear from my non-!vote comment above I believe we should keep them in the infobox at least until ballot access and polling are available for us to set a ballot access or polling average criteria for inclusion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
• Comment– I know I already posted my opinion but the template above says "Consensuses reached for the 2012 and 2016 elections apply for the 2020 election as well, unless these consensuses are reversed. Regarding the infobox: A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox. In order for a third party to be included, they need to have ballot acces in the 2020 election to at least 270 electoral votes, per this consensus." Nojus R (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Libertarian/Green Party, Unless the Libertarian or Green party do not obtain ballot access to 270 electoral votes they should remain listed. Even if the probability of them winning is less than 0.00001%. They have earned the right to be listed due to being on enough ballots. The status quo should remain. Remove both only after they've failed to reach 5% in the general. This standard should apply as well to any Independent candidate that jumps into the race. If one jumps in out of the blue and obtains access to 270 electoral votes they should be listed as well.--ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 7:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Libertarian/Green Party - Per Reywas92. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Libertarian/Green Party undue weight, definitely, to have such minor parties listed in a completely two-party system. However, it is enlightening to see where the votes for other candidates that make it not add up to 100% go. If the information removed is still easily found in the article, removing this from the box is something I support. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party - include if they start featuring in major polls and earn more than 5% in them.-Shivertimbers433 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party - Common sense that they won't get any electoral votes. Restore one/both if they do. Cards84664 18:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party (for reasons listed by others above), unless they get a large or substantial amount of votes or receive some electoral votes. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Libertarian/Green Party Come on lets face it, once this election is over and all the results come in we're gonna see that these two parties hardly made a difference and they'll be removed then. For a period prior to the 2016 election they had Stein and Johnson on the infobox and later removed them after the 2016 results came in. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Libertarian/Green Party — Neither party candidates met the threshold to appear in the 2016 infobox. As such, they cannot appear in the 2020 infobox. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – It's a two horse race. Unless someone splits the vote with another Bull Moose Party, the infobox doesn't need the minor players who rarely get any electoral votes. SITH (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Libertarian/Green Party – Remove the third party infoboxes. A candidate must be polling more than %5 to be included in the infobox before an election. Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Display errors on mobile

Hi,

I've looked at this article using the Wikipedia app on Android and on a mobile browser and neither is displaying as they should.

Viewing the article on the Wikipedia app ends with Dennis Lambert as the last visible part of the article.

The mobile browser is a bit better; if the Nominations section is jumped to, all of the following sections are correctly shown but as subsections of that section. In other words, if the Nominations section is collapsed, none of the following sections are shown; the only possible option is "Categories." I'm not sure what the problem is. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I apparently fixed it with this edit. I have placed a notification on Template talk:Excerpt#Formatting issue when placing <section> tags in the middle of tables. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox picture proposal

2020 United States presidential election

Nominee Donald Trump Joe Biden Party Republican Democratic

Why can't we use that photo of Biden on the left? It looks well fit and it's not outdated photo and the way his clothing shows well how he's not officeholder anymore but an ordinary elder seeking to return to the White House. People keep saying how it's not his official office portrait, if so, then how come we have a recent picture of Hillary in the 2016 United States presidential election infobox and not her official portrait? ShadZ01 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

But Biden looks older than Trump in this photo. We should use the 18 years old image of Biden to make him looks younger than Trump.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I oppose it and prefer the current picture. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I oppose, and I'd hardly call the 2013 photo outdated, he looks exactly the same. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose, Biden isn't even looking at the camera and it doesn't make sense for Trump to have an official portrait while Joe Biden has a picture where he's looking off to the side. Nojus R (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, just keep the damn official portrait. Its not outdated and I wasn't even for changing Biden's lead image on his own page. It just looks weird to have Trump's official portrait next to a candid Biden pic --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: Biden looks perpetually the same between the two pictures. Plus, the new, (very) informal one depicts him as being some random schmoe who's challenging the President, when in fact, he was the Vice President for eight years and a Senator for thirty-six years prior. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 17:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oldest major party nominee line in lead

"Biden, Trump and Ronald Reagan are respectively the oldest, second-oldest and third-oldest major party presumptive nominees in U.S. history;"

This is poorly-written. For one, Ronald Reagan has no relevance to this election and his inclusion in the lead beyond formally being the oldest president elected is meaningless. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and changed it back to how it was two days ago. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox images

2020 United States presidential election

Nominee Donald Trump Joe Biden Party Republican Democratic

We shouldn't have one candidate with an American flag, and the other without one; it creates a visual bias. Also, Joe Biden's portrait is almost a decade old. My proposed images on the right. Both candidates are featured in similar lighting, making the exact same facial expression, and were both taken within the last 12 months. TrailBlzr (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Both these photos are bad, their heads are taking up a majority of the portrait, unlike previous elections. The photos that are currently being used at least show up to their torso. Biden's also not looking at the camera, which would make these photos seem biased against Biden. The VP portrait is near ubiquitously used in foreign reviews of this election. 2013 isn't that old and it was his most relevant office47.32.189.99 (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Election infoboxes isn't the place for full body portraits like this. We only need their face. TrailBlzr (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support the photos proposed here. We don't need official portraits, especially since one is outdated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - Every single presidential election in modern U.S. history uses their official portraits. That's not even taking into account Trump's photo being of absolutely dreadful quality with no higher resolution even available. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken. Cards84664 02:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. We traditionally use photos of the candidates speaking or campaigning, rather than formal portraits prior to the election. See the infobox just prior to the election in 2016 and in 2012. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That's cause neither Hillary Clinton nor Mitt Romney had portraits we were either a) able to use or b) from a recent period. Hillary's most recent portrait was from 2009 and between then and 2016 she'd significantly aged to the point she did not resemble herself in the photo anymore, and Mitt Romney had no portrait available to use whatsoever. There is no rule that we have to use campaigning photos, and quite frankly, they often times prove far inferior because of it. Mitt Romney's 2012 infobox photo is horrifically bad. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just evaluating what they look like today - Trump's pic could be updated, but he'd look no different. Obvious things like his use of colored makeup are objectively not an issue with either he nor his supporters. Conversely - using a 2013 image of Biden misrepresents his current appearance. Merit to the discussion about the background and use of official photos is a bit beside the point of what does this person look like today. men in suits is the point of providing the photo in this context. What they look like today is the issue. 2013 Biden is missing the point. People-ObjectivityPlease (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up on removal of Libertarian and Green Parties

• I am immensely disappointed that the previous established consensus has been steamrolled over, in favor of a biased approach that should have no bearing on their presentation in the header. Given the nature of ballot access and the extreme difficulty in achieving even majority access, it was in and of itself a fair measure by which we could already measure significant Third Party candidacies whilst also fulfilling the minimum requirements for potentially winning the presidency. We cannot work to predict off polling data nor should we, and that is even assuming that recognized pollsters will even be taking into account Third Party candidates when running their numbers as opposed to shuffling them into the "Others" column. Until the election is actually held those who meet the threshold should be considered contender parties of equal standing, regardless of prior electoral history, lest we appear impartial and biased. --Ariostos (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ariostos, I understand why you feel the way you do on this amtter, and I agree to a certain degree. But at the same time, any third-party candidates that have a real shot of winning any state in a primary would be listed on the state-specific page for an election. When it comes to the general election, the last time a third-party candidate was elected by popular vote and/or the Electoral College was, well, let me think...never. If it hasn't happened up to now, I doubt we will ever see any third-party candidate achieve such a victory. The Democratic and Republican parties have always had the laat candidates standing. So at some point, I fully believe that a limit must be placed on who is included in the infobox. And confining it to the two major parties is hardly impartial and biased, but rather is common-sense and in accordance with Wikipedia's regulations on articles about political elections. If we don't thin out the herd on a presidential election pae, then by extension, for individual senate or house elections, we'd have to list every viable candidate that has even the shadow of a long-shot to successfully secure those positions. There has to be a line somewhere. The discussion at the top of this page makes it pretty clear that those who weighed in all feel there needs to be a limit of some kind, so unless a new consensus under this topic reverses that decision, it should stand as-is. Just my own thoughts, FWIW. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I find it odd that someone took an unstructured discussion and refactored it into !votes without early commenters' consent, especially since it mischaracterized my own comments. If people wish to demonstrate support for polls to be used to determine infobox inclusion, there needs to be an RfC explicitly on that point. A one-off discussion on whether two specific parties should be included at this specific time does not demonstrate that consensus has changed. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Crystal violation

Three times within the last few hours, SquidHomme has changed the lead from saying "if he [Biden] gets elected" to "after he gets elected" or "at the time he gets elected". This is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and should be reverted again. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It was reverted as I made the comments above. Thank you. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry Can you point out which one of your edits got 'reverted'? As far as I know, I've never revert your edit! You're the one who reverted mine! So watch your word.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 06:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Spiffy is saying that your edit was reverted as soon as Spiffy had commented, thus rendering their comment moot. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the explanation.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 07:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss the article content, not other users. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've noticed several of this user's edits have been harmful to the article's neutrality, such as deliberately calling a briefing held by Trump "propaganda" and attempting to excuse it cause the source apparently said it was. SquidHomme, please refrain from such attempts to contort the article again in the future. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC) MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken I have a question: Have you READ the source before commenting? You can read, can't you? Or should I read it for you? —SquidHomme (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Since you seem adept at reading, may I suggest taking a gander at this WP:Neutral point of view. When you're done with that, follow it up with this WP:Passive aggression. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Why don't you read it yourself? Since your edits are the one violates those policies. Again, you haven't answered my question: have you read the sources???. I believe you're an educated person and please behave like one.—SquidHomme (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC) You're dangerously becoming a WP:Disruptive user. You've already been reprimanded by not just me but another user, and you've shown a certain level of stubbornness whilst editing, adding generic images despite you clearly being aware you're not supposed to, and adding unreliable sources. You seemingly have nothing to add to this discussion, nor nothing to disprove your prior edits were not violating neutrality, so I suggest you drop this. May I also add that making what you say in bolded letters, doesn't make what you say in anyway correct. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC) MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken Oh? How so?? What makes you think you have the right to threaten me? Please don't evade my question just to point out something that's not the case. Just answer it. Is that so hard for you to do? Are you afraid getting exposed that you're the one who's WRONG and disruptive, pedro? And you're accusing me of violating neutrality? Do you have proof, pedro? And also, what did you mean by this: "doesn't make what you say in anyway correct". I don't get it. Is that supposed to be a joke or something? It is indeed makes you WRONG! Now you're accusing me of being stubborn? Isn't that a personal attack? Accusing me of being a disruptive user while violating WP:NPA? Cut the hypocrisy, I don't need this.—SquidHomme (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Great!! Just Great!! Attacking me personally for your inability to read the sources?? Huh MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken?? You clearly haven't read the sources. If you read the sources, you'll find that the sources indeed state the phrase "turning the coronavirus briefing into campaign-style propaganda." Clearly your intent here is to attack me personally. You're wasting my time here. —SquidHomme (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC) To respond to the SquidHomme, one of the cited sources (The Guardian) indeed uses the word "propaganda", but does so in the context of claims made by two of the subjects of the video (CNN and MSNBC). The cited source does not itself claim the video is propaganda; neither should we. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC) SquidHomme, you might want to tone it down a little. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Yes, thank you David O. Johnson. —SquidHomme (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we mention the current Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

In the last few weeks, the scandal concerning allegations of sexual assault involving Joe Biden has become a hot button issue. The question is should we mention the incident or is it too soon? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I am stuck between the two, as it has had a relatively long-enough time to percolate, yet most sources I know with it are not reliable. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment, there's a good amount of reliable sources documenting this. Especially in light of recent events, here's just some samples.

• Viser, Matt; Linskey, Annie; Sullivan, Sean (May 1, 2020). "Joe Biden denies he sexually assaulted a former Senate aide, calls on National Archives to release complaint if one exists". The Washington Post.
• Behrmann, Savannah (May 1, 2020). "Biden's comments on Kavanaugh resurface as he faces his own sexual assault allegations". USA Today.
• Graham, David (May 1, 2020). "Biden Offers a New Standard for Assessing Claims of Sexual Misconduct". The Atlantic.
• Concha, Joe (May 1, 2020). "Mika Brzezinski lauded for pressing Biden on sexual assault allegations: 'Those weren't softballs'". The Hill.
• Jaffe, Alexandra; Barrow, Bill (May 1, 2020). "Biden declares sexual assault 'never, never happened'". Associated Press.

Of course, this should probably take up a short mention to keep consistency with the references made to the Access Hollywood tapes of Trump in the 2016 article, and we'll link to the allegation page itself if people want further reading on it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I support the move, as long as it's kept WP:NPOV (it is easy to slant it to one of two sides). Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Where do you think we should include it? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose adding here at this time. It has as of yet not had any direct impact on this election. I expect that it will, as I'm sure you do, but that violates WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. It has not yet become a campaign issue. For that matter, the campaign has not actually started; we are still in the pre-nomination stage. There are all kinds of things that may become campaign issues but we don't yet know what will be important and what won't. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

We have a background section where we refer to Trump's impeachment, and it seems apparent this has hardly been referenced within the race yet, so I don't believe the fact we haven't entered the race itself yet constitutes a legitimate cause to exclude it besides other reasons that I do happen to agree with such as those presented by Muboshgu above. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I don’t think we should include this unless it is shown to have a major effect on the race. At the moment, this is little more than an allegation powered solely by the efforts of the right-wing to accuse Biden of hypocrisy. There is no indication that it has had any actual impact on the race, it is certainly not the massive event that impeachment was given historical context. It also, as far as I know, has not had a demonstrated effect on polling numbers the way something like the Access Hollywood tape did. Therefore, I do not think it should be included on this page, as there will definitely be dozens of other events like this during the campaign. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep your political biases out of the talk page please. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagreement around the nature of coverage on this event does not equate to political bias. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"an allegation powered solely by the efforts of the right-wing to accuse Biden of hypocrisy" MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as the organisations which have been covering this event have mostly been right-wing organisations with a history of exaggerating accusations against liberal politicians we should be extra mindful of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Even though unbiased media has given it some coverage, there is no indication that that coverage has affected the election in any way. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is simply untrue and you don't have any proof to back up your claims here. Just because a sample of conservative-leaning publications cover it doesn't mean its entirely them reporting it, for one The Intercept was the one who broke this story and they are well-known for their tilt towards left-wing fundamentals. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a good point, and on further analysis I believe my comment towards the coverage of this event may have been rather inaccurate, (although the Intercept might well have a similar "grudge", so to speak, against Biden from the left) but my opinion about it not being worthy of inclusion in this article in comparison to something like the very historically notable event that was impeachment still stands. In any case, if we do end up mentioning it, in the interest of neutrality we should definitely also mention the 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, since that is a topic that has been brought up to counter the Reade allegations. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, with all due respect, it appears from your comments that you have already determined in your own mind what you want the outcome of this discussion to be, and that you may be failing to assume good faith on the part of others who weigh in on this topic. In 15 years of experience as a Wikipedia editor, I have learned that it takes a wide variety of editors with a wide scope of perspectives to strike the proper tone that preserves reliably-sourced information while not leaning towards any bias or predetermined outcomes. The beauty of these talk page discussions is that they allow all of us to weigh in on such questions.

For the record, I am a registered Republican who has had definite qualms regarding just about everything that my party's currently-serving president has done, both outside of office, and since taking the oath thereof. When it comes to the allegations against Joe Biden, I find it helpful to remember that he has denied the allegations, saying that such behavior is contrary to his very nature. And until there is an investigation for which the outcome justifies the allegations, we are still talking about the United States of America, where a man is innocent until proven guilty. It's not as if a major news outlet has released a tape showing Biden openly bragging about assaulting women and getting away with it because he's famous.

If these allegations are included, that should only happen if/when an investigation pertaining to them is launched, and only then with a tone that complies with Wikipedia's reliable sourcing and unbiased policies. All of us are free to feel however we want to feel and to voice whatever opinion we may have on these allegations. But with a lack of hard, physical evidence and reliable sources proving that the allegations have merit, to drag anyone's name through the mud would, IMHO, be disingenuous and contrary to every Wikipedia policy as I understand it. I see no harm in waiting to see if/howw this plays out going forward, and playing things by ear in the interim.

That, of course, is no more and no less than my own opinion, as one who is trying to support neutrality and lack of bias, along with reliable sourcing that adequately accompanies the addition of any content here. I also realize that my weighing in here may lead to others weighing in to express how wrong I am in the opinion I have offered here, but they are just as entitlted to their opinions as I am to mine, and I am willing to do whatever it takes to ensure Wikipedia policies are followed when it comes to approaching this matter. Thanks for wading through this comment, which I hope may be helfpul to all who read it. I still believe we can disagree on this issue without allowing ourselves to become disagreeable, and I hope that can be the case in the continued discussion of this matter --Jgstokes (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the original poster has not assumed good faith. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken took issue, rightly so, with the claim that this is "powered solely by the efforts of the right-wing." At this point, given that a separate article exists on the issue, I feel there is plenty of reliably-sourced information to include at least a brief mention in this article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what I get for trying to contribute to Wikipedia. No matter if I say how I agree with someone such as Muboshgu who is openly against what I am proposing, I get slandered by people like you who want to announce for all to see in a multi-layered post that I am a politically biased bad faith editor cause I dare to suggest the opponent of a guy you don't like have information you'd rather not blow up be included after it gets large media attention. No, I'm the bad guy wanting to push his right-wing agenda and you're the veteran hero hailing neutrality. Thanks a lot. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, please don't overreact, it would be a shame to lose you from the project given all the good work you've done on these pages. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Former Vice Presidents

The paragraph "Biden is the first former vice president to become the presumptive nominee of any major political parties in the United States since 1984, in which the Democratic Party nominated former Vice President Walter Mondale" is obviously incorrect. What about Bush Snr in 88 and Gore in 2000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.191.244 (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Bush Snr. and Gore were incumbents, as in currently Vice Presidents, when they ran for president. Biden and Mondale ran for president years after they left office. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Vice president

Im not gonna edit it but the article says biden is the first former vice president to be the candidate for a mayor party since 1984. But Bush senior was reagans vice president. He ran in 1988. Beerk (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind just saw the other reply. Consider this topic closed Beerk (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Libertarian Party candidates

In the Libertarian Party section, there are a number of major candidates missing, including Judge Jim Gray. Gray is a major candidate and was endorsed by Mark Whitney, who dropped out. I am not proposing bringing in the laundry list of candidates from the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries page, but there should be more in both current and withdrawn.

However, I do not wish to make this change if there is a reason it has not already been done. Please discuss here! PickleG13 (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason Jim Gray is not in the main list of candidates is because since we are not listing every Libertarian candidate here, there has to be some sort of criteria that excludes a lot of them. Currently, that criteria is set at 5% of the vote in the primary, or having held significant elected office (State House, State Senate, Congress etc). Since Gray only has about 0.1% of the vote as he entered so late, and his highest office is Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County, he does not meet the criteria for inclusion. However, I would support widening the criteria to include him, since he is clearly being treated like a major candidate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Unlike for the other parties that have primaries (Green Party, Democratic Party, Republican Party), the Libertarian primaries are absolutely meaningless and have no impact on the convention. For example convention delegates are not awarded based on results of the primaries. I believe a reasonable solution would be to make an addition to the 5% test and add any candidate that was a libertarian party nominee for statewide or national office (President or VP). This would be a reasonable and fair solution that would somewhat mimic how candidates for the major parties were listed on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Two Constitution Party candidates this year

The Candidates table probably has to be expanded because of what happened in New Mexico. Ballot Access News reported on May 19, 2020 at http://ballot-access.org/2020/05/19/constitution-parties-of-new-mexico-and-virginia-nominate-sheila-samm-tittle-for-president/ that 'Even though the national convention of the Constitution Party chose Don Blankenship for president at its national convention earlier this month, the New Mexico Constitution Party and the Virginia Constitution Party have nominated Sheila “Samm” Tittle for president. [...] The New Mexico Constitution Party is ballot-qualified. [...] The Virginia Constitution Party is not ballot-qualified.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.195.187 (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, unless there is any chance that either will actually win the nomination for that party, the information may not qualify under Wikipedia's regulations about significant coverage. And the inclusion of anyone on this page would have to be confirmed by appropriate sourcing. Just my own thoughts on the matter, for whatever my two cents may be worth. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Since neither Tittle or the Constitution Party of New Mexico is notable, they don’t actually meet what is as far as a I know the criteria for being included in the results section, which is either being notable yourself or being the nominee of a notable party. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

We probably should still make a mention of it, like was done for the 2000 Presidential Election article where the Arizona Libertarian State Party nominated Neil Smith instead of Harry Browne; they wouldn't get their own section but it would be made clear that at the present another candidate has been nominated by those State affiliates. --Ariostos (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If Blankenship's campaign is mentioned on the page, it should be noted that the New Mexico CP chose to endorse tittle instead of him in the manner user:Ariostos stated. Blankenship has a decent amount of money and will likely make a decent push for ballot access, so there is a small chance he might get on the ballot there anyway.XavierGreen (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are we using Biden's picture from 2013?

Seriously, this is 7 YEARS OLD. People keep having argument because this is his well-known position as VP. If that's the case, THEN WHY DO WE HAVE HILLARY'S PICTURE FROM 2016 IN THE LAST ELECTION AND NOT HER OFFICIAL SECRETARY OF STATE PORTRAIT? --ShadZ01 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have a more recent one to propose, have at it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cause Hillary aged like trash and Biden looks the same. There's only so many times I can beat around the bush before I have to say what everyone's thinking. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The assertion that the editor who made the previous comment knows what the rest of us are thinking may not be accurate, so I'll weigh in with my own thoughts here. I'd personally have no objection to including more recent images of either or both Clinton and Biden, if they were found to be usable per Wikipedia policies. If no such images can be found, the question of whether they even need to be changed at this point could be more thoroughly discussed. But that's just my personal opinion, and I personally prefer to not presume that I speak for anyone else on this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before and the majority opinion was against changing Biden's photograph, not just here but Biden's own talk page. Don't be so squeamish at mentioning my name next time. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

change "Biden is the first former vice president to become the..." to "Biden is the first non-incumbent vice president to become the..." 2604:6000:F501:F200:3478:3B1A:CEF4:6B10 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. On second thought, I think it's clear enough that "former" implies not currently in the office at the time of nomination. There's a footnote that explains it more thoroughly already. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, "first non-incumbent" would be a better fix. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm with Deacon Vorbis on this, per this policy, among others. Suggesting that the usage of "non-incumbent" is better than the more concise "former" is akin to this previous proposal. Above and beyond that, any reader coming to this article who knows Joe Biden is running would obviously also know that he used to be vice president, and is no longer serving as such. Wording that unneccessarily gives the reader information they likely already know should never be a reasonable suggestion. Such information truly goes without saying, unless we are supposed to assume that those who read this article are not smart enough to recognize that information without it being spelled out. I'm not in any way comfortable with that. Of courze se, that's no more and no less than my own opinion, and anyone reading it can take or leave it as they will. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Russian Interference

Should it not have its own section? One, it is ongoing. Two, seems pretty significant, given 2016.Casprings (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 is also ongoing and pretty significant. Makes sense to treat them similarly in this context. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding table headers?

Would it be possible to add headers for each of the wikitables for the withdrawn candidates? I mean something like this article: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Candidates, so the reader knows what they're looking at. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

I am asking to expand the infobox to include the major third party nominated candidates. KAMYSHINSKAYA Aleksandra Anastasevna (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, please see this discussion where it was decided that third party candidates would not be included in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC on page creation for Obamagate

Discussion can be found here.Casprings (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Third-party candidates in the lead?

Is there a prior consensus on mentioning third-party candidates in the lead of the article? If I remember right, 2016 had sentences on the Libertarian and Green party campaigns in the lead up until the election. The Libertarian Party has an official candidate now so just curious if it's appropriate to add. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and following the procedure adopted in the 2016 and 2012 elections, any party with ballot access to more than 270 electoral votes should be added to the infobox as well.XavierGreen (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not the consensus; read the relevant sections above the table of contents.David O. Johnson (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

To list only the Republican and Democratic candidates is a major NPOV violation.XavierGreen (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Including the Libertarians aand the Greens would be WP:Undue. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the lead, and have their own sections in the body of the article, how could it possibly be undue to include them in the infobox?XavierGreen (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

They should be included, but they shouldn't be on the top line of the infobox. The major parties should be on the first line, with major minor parties following, similar to other election infoboxes. Catiline52 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that while they should be mentioned, we should only include a couple of short sentences, not a full paragraph of description, and we should only mention Jorgensen for the Libertarians and Hunter and Hawkins for the Greens. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Al Gore was the previous presumptive nominee of a major political party in the 2000 election 2601:1C1:8A02:1860:ED5E:5F71:F46F:184 (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include the tidbit that Biden is the first former vice president to be nominated since 1984?

While Joe Biden is the first vice president since Walter Mondale to have then gone on to not be vice president before winning the nomination from his party, I don't think this is an especially interesting fact to include in the article. It's pretty contrived and the implication is that vice presidents going on to be presidential nominees is uncommon. It's really not that uncommon, having happened in 2000, 1988, 1984, 1976, 1968, etc. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing those prior election results I'm pretty sure the tidbit is flat-out wrong. In the 1992 United States presidential election George H.W. Bush, a former vice president, was nominated by a major political party to become president of the United States. I think I'm going to remove the fact since it's obviously incorrect. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 16:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters at all. The only relevant things are his long political experience and his old age.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

How funny - I was just coming here to post the same thing. GMTA. It's trivial, unsourced, and wrong. Go ahead and delete it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

How would you feel about also removing the equally trivial bit about their being the first president from their state? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

For a lot of people in their home state having a president from their home state is rather important. But in all honesty if the claim can't be sourced it's not that important and should be removed. However it might be precedent to include these trivial facts and the fact that Trump would be the first Floridian elected president is interesting at least in my opinion. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 18:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about being the first president from each state is trivial and should be removed. We should take care to ensure that the ends of leads on election articles don't just become a list of random "what if" trivia. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed Status of Withdrawn Democratic Candidates

I have seen minor discussion over if the withdrawn Democratic candidates table should be collapsed or uncollapsed. I personally think that the size of the table when uncollapsed is unweildly beyond belief, and as such would prefer it collapsed, so I would like to gain concensus for or against a collapsed table. WittyRecluse (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be collapsed. It's massive, even on large screens. 153.246.131.172 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it should be collapsed, the Democratic primary candidates are important, and collapsing the table does not give them due weight. The size of the table is perfectly acceptable, it is not that large. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• In Favor of collapse; if not right away, then at least once the Democratic national convention is over. As there are no challengers to Biden, I do think a collapse right away is preferred. --Dhalsim2 (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Presumptive

Is there a reason that "presumptive" was removed from both Trump and Biden(in the infobox). Technically they are not the nominees until they actually accept the nomination once formally offered by their parties. I realize both have clinched it(though Biden's article still refers to him as 'presumptive'). 331dot (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

While most of the removals of the presumptive label throughout the article were restored, that one was missed. I have now restored them. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Jgstokes, Biden isn't the nominee until the convention; see discussion here: [2] or here: [3]. You said it yourself in your edit on this article: "Biden has secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. He will be the Democratic candidate on the ballot." In other words, he isn't yet the nominee. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for my overreach in this matter. At the time I made the edits in question, I didn't take my own previously-offered assessment into account, nor was it something I thought to double-check on. Above and beyond that, as a relative novice in terms of articles about political subjects, races, or candidate, it was something I likely should have left alone anyways. I'll watch myself in that respect going forward. Thanks for drawing my attention to my error in this case. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding Jo Jorgenson to the infobox

Please edit this to add a photo of Jo Jorgensen next to photos of Trump and Biden and informations about her below 83.28.44.152 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That would be WP:UNDUE and quite potentially WP:PROMO. US elections are, sadly, a very "black and white" (or, in this case "blue and red") affair... See also for eg. 2016 United States presidential election and very nearly every other US election article (the few exceptions are indeed exceptional cases where 3rd parties actually had a significant portion of votes...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, it is probably best to keep one of these requests up to hopefully lessen the amount of them made. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: That is what I have quite deliberately done. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry

First of all, I've found this, which pretty much speaks for itself. Check the talk page history: in total, I've counted 17 edit requests referring to the exact same request, made by 14 IP editors and one newly-created user account (several of the requests were in itself duplicates made from the same IPs). Of the IP accounts, 10 are first-time editors and 4 have only a few past edits, in some cases from several years ago.

The user account in question was created just today, and its only edit so far has been another similarly-themed edit request within the first 5 minutes from creation. Recently, another user account has attempted to add the proposed content directly into the article; such an account has been dormant for several months and is a relatively inactive one, having re-activated just today in order to make that specific edit. The activity of that account more or less coincides with the timeframe of publication of the tweet I linked in the first sentence.

Clearly there's something going on here. Impru20^talk 23:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Christ. I think we should make a request for Extended Confirmed Protection, because I have a feeling we will be getting a bunch of newly autoconfirmed accounts attempting to add Jorgensen to the infobox in a couple of days. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added a request for page protection at RFPP: [4]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like we have some news on the issue:

• Here and here, two Libertarian Party members/candidates acknowledging having taken part in the coordinated effort.
• Here another account commenting on current Wiki consensus and on ways to circumvent it. Textually: "We gotta find a way to get her in more polls before the Wiki consensus will be to add her", and then a small discussion ensues about how to try to do that (though it ends in a call to get Jorgensen more campaign financing to push up her notability).

Plus, as of this comment, there have been 24 edit requests to add Jorgensen into the infobox. Impru20^talk 09:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought there was something like that going on. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected for two days: [5]. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)