Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential debates

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


Splitting proposal for June 27th presidential debate

[edit]
Consensus to split. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:13, 5 October 2024 (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 propose, given light of the news of Joe Biden stepping aside from the presidential race, that the section on the June 2024 presidential debate be split into Joe Biden–Donald Trump 2024 presidential debate. This debate was the direct catalyst of Joe Biden's ultimate choice to step aside from the race, becoming such after more than a month of coverage and analysis of the debate, meeting WP:GNG, WP:EVENTCRIT, and WP:LASTING guidelines for a separate article. The need for a separate article is clear given that the analysis of this section is significantly longer than other analyses of previous debates, with most of the analysis dedicated to the cascading effects resulting from this debate. Baldemoto (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Both given the length of the section for the June debate, and the the clear impact and notability this specific debate has had. Gust Justice (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JFK and Richard Nixon beg to differ. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. The previous deletion discussion ended with merging, but that article was created in June, which was immediately after the debate took place. At the time, it was far too soon to know of any lasting impact that the debate would have. Now that a month later the debate has had consistent continuous coverage and has directly resulted in Biden dropping out, it meets WP:LASTING. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - the original deletion discussion closed as merge due to it being too recent to see if there were any WP:LASTING consequences of the debate. I think that the with drawl has giving credence into separating that into a new article, though I can sumpathize with the idea that it would be a little WP:FORKy. — Knightoftheswords 20:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The events of this debate were the main catalyst in calls for Biden to resign. Now that he has, I think the debate can be considered a major turning point because of both its influence and the sustained media coverage surrounding it. Tisnec (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - I felt after watching the debate that it would be the most important one in my lifetime. And for it being the catalyst that the President of the country dropped out of the race, I would say I was vindicated in the end. Give it its own article. It shouldn’t have been removed in the first place. Vinnylospo (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the beginning of the end of Joe Biden’s presidency. It’s pretty notable. Vinnylospo (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose . No need to split this article now. I would only support splitting it if got too unwieldy after the future debates occur. Right now it would be a clear WP:FORK of this article. Yeoutie (talk) Later update, there may not even be a second debate now, so why rush to split? Wait until after the debate season is over. Yeoutie (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. It's entirely possible that any future debates won't be noteworthy enough to warrant the 6/27 debate having its own article. We will see when/if any future debates happen Qqars (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this debate was a before and after point. I believe it will be shown to argue against future possible candidates of old age for many, many years. I'd imagine Americans will be fed up with 80-year-old candidates after this election. Super Ψ Dro 10:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with your reasoning, it is critical enough to warrant a standalone article. 2600:1700:F670:1490:3CC0:C0BC:327:973E (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak support after September 10th debate. The page is quite a bit bigger now, and is about 25% bigger than 2020, and almost twice as big as 2016 (which had two more debates to cover). Nojus R (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Oppose mostly because I'm not 100% confident there will be a Harris-Trump or VP debate. This page is like 90% about the first debate anyways, so let's just be patient. Nojus R (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Why would have we two articles when there's only been a single debate? Any consensus to split should only be implemented if there are further debates and size issues may become more justified. Reywas92Talk 02:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cause this particular debate is the catalyst that led to Biden withdrawal from the race. CViB (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The debate turned out to be very consequential, as we have seen due to Biden's decision. TheInevitables (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, maybe earlier this did not make sense, but now it does. The move adds needed clarity and specificity. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't report things more just because media report them more. Instead, we give things their own WP:DUE weight. A debate is just a debate, it hardly ever has a WP:LASTING notability that is a prerequisite for a standalone article. Since it fails WP:LASTING, it really can't stand according to our rules. — kashmīrī TALK 13:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:LASTING, “An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable”. The debate was a catalyst for Biden’s withdrawal. Future Chromatica (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's sufficient information and sourcing to make this a standalone article. Plus, quite frankly, having all the info from the first debate mashed over here makes the article extremely long and a bit slanted towards the first debate. It makes further sense now with Biden out of the race since it's the first and only debate between the two in the 2024 cycle. The aftermath effects that the debate had alone has its own article (calls for Biden to drop out). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, having all of the first debate content here does not make the article "extremely long"; the readable prose size right now is 4978 words, which is nowhere near the recommended size for even considering a split based on length. Yes, of course it's slanted to the first debate, because that's of course the only major one that has taken place this election cycle; if we did a split now, this page would be reduced to start class and would not provide the information a reader is realistically for — complete information on the first 2024 United States presidential debate. Just because a topic is notable and "had a big effect" doesn't mean it needs a separate article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I would rather see the June 27th debate section condensed, since it low-key reads like a newspaper. Prcc27 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Definite need for a split. 90.206.212.170 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, see how much room the section on the September debates takes up before deciding on whether to split. Splitting off the article on the only debate which has happened so far is premature. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for Splitting. Things are happening and shifting and rotating so fast that if we try to contain the next few weeks/months into one article, our "long into the future" reader will be as dizzy as a top trying to make sense out of a hectic time. I suggest multiple articles with prominent linking to each other to provide each with enough room for editors to work without fussing at each other. I always think and edit with future decades in mind. Keep the steam of facts clean and clear. Don't muddy up the Stream of information with unnecessary debris and litter. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the steam of facts slean and clear. Don't muddy up the Stream of information with unnecessary debris and litter. isn't this one reason why we don't need separate articles? If anything having three start-class separate articles for each debate would provoke editors to include any irrelevant or insignificant detail they can find about such a debate; there are absolutely no size concerns for this article right now, (as there's only been one debate; it would also be odd not to include the complete tale of the June debate in an article specifically about this year's debates) and I don't see any "dizziness-inducing and hectic time" occurring right now aside from there being (likely) two future debates, which is not anything special. While you may foresee that when November comes this article may develop into a 20,000 word hard-to-navigate cumbersome monolith if no content is split, a "finished" article covering all debates that have and will happen this election cycle will have the same amount of compactability as any other presidential debates article, which is enough that no separate articles are needed; these debates as a whole in 10 years, thinking and editing with future decades in mind, will almost certainly not be any more notable than any other set of presidential debates; this seems to be a heavy case of WP:RECENTISM. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your point for the majority of this comment, I still don't understand the reasoning behind the WP:RECENTISM accusations with regards to this split. Surely, if this debate is recentism, then articles such as "We begin bombing in five minutes", "George H. W. Bush vomiting incident", "Betty Ford's August 1975 60 Minutes interview", "Chicken Kiev speech", and "Bitburg controversy" should be deleted as well? The vast majority of Americans did not remember these events after 10 years, yet consensus has strongly opted towards keeping them due to their long-term effects, both historically and in the public consciousness (WP:EVENTCRIT). What makes an event such as this debate any different, given it was the direct cause of an unprecedented changing of the guard prior to a presidential election? Baldemoto (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because Harris & Walz have been certified as the ticket, Trump and Harris agreed to the September 10 debate with ABC, and the June 27 Trump-Biden debate was extremely notable and consequential for Biden's poor performance and withdrawal. Biden is no longer a candidate, and the June 27 debate would best be its own article.
JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, as the debate was the primary catalyst for the political firestorm that followed around Biden's ability to win the election and govern effectively. I also see that the general topic more than fulfills WP:GNG and WP:N guidelines.
--WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 22:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - we already have "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election" which covers the unique significance of the first debate adequately. I don't see a need to multiply articles when there has only been one debate, and it's unlikely the second (or further) debates will be as significant. We can always reevaluate if each debate turns out to merit its own article. TocMan (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This debate had massive ramifications, as it directly led to Joe Biden dropping from the race, somthing which hadn't happened in the same manner since Johnson. However I think this move should take place only after the second debate happens EarthDude (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : This is the 2024 election cycle, it wouldn't make sense to split up the debates into 2 articles. Besides for a majority of the race, (Sense 2023 really) everyone assumed Biden would be the nominee. It's also unlikely that there will be more than 1 presidential debate, and the VP shares very close political proximity to the President. If they would have nominated someone outside their circle, or if Trump was assassinated and Haley became the nominee, it would make more sense. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Historically, the Biden 2024 campaign will be singularly defined by this event. The incumbent President dropping out of the race 5 months before the election is completely unprecedented, and this debate was the catalyst for that decision. It will be regarded as one of the most impactful and pivotal events in modern American politics, if not the entire history of American politics. If any article deserved to have a section lead by a "Main article: " link, this is one of them. TomFitz77 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This debate has received widespread, long-lasting coverage, and it is widely cited as the catalyst for the President dropping out of the race. It seems like it meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. CipherSleuth (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support for splitting. Biden's debate is clearly notable in its own right, especially if the new article were to synthesize material from other articles discussing the background and fallout of the debate. My only hangup is that (as of the minute I'm writing this) it looks like we're only gonna get three debates (Biden/Trump, Harris/Trump, Walz/Vance) instead of four or five, meaning there would be plenty of room on this page to fully discuss the first debate. Still, I think it's fair to say that the first debate was the most notable and consequential single presidential debate in decades. HunterAlexBrown (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as it's probably the most obviously consequential presidential debate in history since it effectively ended Biden's campaign; and the Harris-Trump debate(s), along with the Walz-Vance debate, are basically a whole separate thing that deserve their own article. Relinus (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for two reasons. One, my computer can barely load it, and most importantly, two, Biden and Harris should be split into several articles as this debate clearly has a lasting impact. OhHaiMark (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2024 (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.

General consensus on who won the VP debate

[edit]

Just to be clear, I think it should be noted that columnists consider Vance to have won based mainly on optics and his performance style, not on policy or substance. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I think he should be called the winner, not that it was a draw. There was an option in CBS's poll to call it that, and it only received 14%. It was a narrow Vance victory. Pickle Mon (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree he should be considered the winner. Yes, I know plenty of left-leaning media outlets, social media accounts, and YouTube channels think Walz won, but the general public, and especially just general, reputable mainstream news outlets mostly think Vance won. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What we have in the article currently seems to be correct: Tie by public; Vance by columnists. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop saying the polling suggests a “narrow win” for Vance? When the numbers are a statistical tie, that is a draw. Prcc27 (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the polls gave an option for a draw and it got 17% (misremembered in my first reply). I don't see any reason to say otherwise unless people don't want to say he won. Pickle Mon (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to changing the wording to something like “based on polling, debate watchers were split on who won the debate”. I am not aware of any reliable source which declares Vance the “narrow winner” based on polling, so it would be original research to say so. Not to mention, it would be irresponsible to ignore margin of error. Prcc27 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no one won the debate. the winner of the debate is who wins the election 108.5.216.21 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heres your 'reliable sources' [1]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/vp-debate-winner-vance-walz-aca-climate-change-china-abortion.html#:~:text=J.D.%20Vance%20Won%20the%20Debate.%20But [2]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/01/who-won-vp-debate/75351338007/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20Republican%20JD%20Vance%20entered [3]https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-vp-debate-roundtable-00181905#:~:text=The%20debate,%20light%20on%20body%20blows 2603:6000:AB00:4E1F:A16C:E712:6527:1D5A (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VP Debate “debate” section

[edit]

When asked about whether he supports a ban on assault weapons, Walz mistakenly said “I’ve become friends with school shooters”. I think that should be added. 108.24.127.83 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do reliable sources make a big deal about him misspeaking? What is the point of mentioning it? Prcc27 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, it was supposed to show his nervousness during the debate (just one example of many), but it turns out that he might have actually meant what he said. When asked by reporters what he meant when he said he “befriended school shooters” he refused to respond. 108.24.127.83 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that he actually meant he "befriended school shooters" in the same argument where he said he felt sorrow when meeting with the Sandy Hook victims' families. I believe he meant to say he "befriended school shooter victims." Autochrome8 (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walz clarifies ‘friends with school shooters’ gaffe - Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) on Wednesday sought to clarify a comment from the vice presidential debate in which he said he’s “become friends with school shooters,” telling reporters he was speaking about people impacted by school shootings. “I was talking about meeting people where there are school shooters, and I need to be more specific on that,” Walz told an NBC News reporter during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania. “But I am passionate about this. This one, for my wife and I, is just, as teachers, as parents, is so personal.” --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another non-issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
💀 108.5.216.21 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? Autochrome8 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Tiananmen Square sentence?

[edit]

Why is any space at all devoted to Tim Walz not remembering when in 1989 he was in China? How is that anything but trivial? pbp 01:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that seems like trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That specific exchange is notable from the debate, and it was specifically covered in seperate articles from sources such as CNN, NPR, and The New York Times. BlueShirtz (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty minor in the scope of the debate. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a significant moment of the debate as it has been mentioned in post-debate discussions about how the candidates performed. Articles about that specific moment from the debate have been published by sources such as CBS, CNN, Associated Press, BBC, NBC, Axios, The Hill, Forbes, NPR, and Reuters. BlueShirtz (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said of almost everything said in the debate pbp 05:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I just don’t see how it is significant enough for inclusion. It isn’t a policy issue, and wasn’t a big highlight of the debate (at least IMO). Prcc27 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there's consensus to remove it. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn’t have been re-added in the first place per WP:ONUS. But yes, there is definitely consensus now to remove it. Prcc27 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The apparent significance of that question and the issue it raises is that (quoting The Hill article linked above) "is among other false or embellished claims that Walz, 60, has made through the years that have come back to confront him since he leapt onto the national stage and joined the Democratic presidential ticket in August." Walz's honesty is not a policy issue, but it is a candidate subject that has been widely discussed before and after the debate, which is why its relevant to include. BlueShirtz (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. If you try to search for full articles about the economic section of the debate, there are not dedicated articles to that part. That question to Walz received some of the most debate news coverage. BlueShirtz (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he said that? 108.5.216.21 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entire section, because there was nothing substantive remaining, just an unremarkable tit-for-tat that didn't get as much coverage as Walz's Tiannamen Square retraction. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm… Vance refusing to acknowledge Trump lost in 2020 was one of the most important parts of the debate, and it should not have been removed. Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that matter? Nearly all who support Trump refuse to acknowledge his loss. That's the party line, not important, and not newsworthy. Yes, it was given coverage, but so was Walz's comment. As you said above, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Omitting one while including the other seems like a violation of WP:UNDUE to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False equivalency. Democracy is an actual campaign issue, “where was Tim Walz when Tiananmen Square happened?” isn't. It would be WP:UNDUE to mention climate change, abortion, and immigration, while being silent on the issue of democracy. Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't false equivalency to omit one irrelevant admission of an error and retain a non-admission that merely parrots the Trump party line that has been promoted for years. Also, the section was titled "changing positions and admitting mistakes". Vance did neither (he just acknowledged the obvious about changing his position), so why should it be mentioned in such a section? The context was wrong. I have no objection to adding this back if done in the correct context, but I don't see including this section as an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already added it back to the article and removed several subsections. I never insinuated that I supported a section called “changing positions and admitting mistakes”. As I have said below, I oppose a laundry list of subsections. Nevertheless, democracy is an important campaign issue and was an important debate issue. If anything, I would add more about democracy to balance out the sentence in the article about Vance’s whataboutism on censorship. Prcc27 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good edits. That's an improvement over the prior format. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VP subsections

[edit]

Do we really need a whole bunch of subsections for the VP debate section on each policy issue? Seems WP:UNDUE, especially since we don’t do the same thing for the presidential debate sections. Prcc27 (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say just remove all of the headers (5.3.1 to 5.3.5 as of this edit, except the fact-checking one as that mirrors the other debates. Then we can go from there as the first and second debates handle the debate section differently. (Excluding the fact-checking sub-section: The first debate section is two long paragraphs, first paragraph is debate-only and second in analysis of the debate vs. The second debate section being ten short paragraphs, all debate-only.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_debates&oldid=1251631373"