Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential debates

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.31.178.164 (talk) at 07:16, 10 September 2024 (→Tense: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Splitting proposal for June 27th presidential debate

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]
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 It may have been one of the most consequential debates in American politics, so bundling it together with several other debates isn't giving it the importance it deserves, and is an outdated approach that ignores the significance it would go on to have. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Obviously the first debate is noteworthy on its own, much more noteworthy than the Trump-Harris debates will be. Not having it be a separate article will make this one be very lopsided.MarkiPoli (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Now that enough time has passed, it's clear that WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:LASTING apply. Though I do see merit in waiting until after the second debate to make any changes. Puhala,ny (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This one section alone is 103,673 bytes. The entire articles about the 2020, 2016, and 2012 debates are 149,559 bytes, 96,052 bytes, and 71,551 bytes respectively. I think it's not hyperbole to say this was one of the most consequential debates in decades, if not American political history more generally.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New poll

A recent nationwide poll dating after August 1 showed Harris with 48% and Trump with 44%, which means that it should be added as a qualifying poll to both of them for the debate. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFK Jr.'s chances to meet September 10 debate criteria

@David O. Johnson: Your reinstatement of the material I challenged per WP:CRYSTALBALL: the source for the reinstated material is outdated. It’s a JUNE 15 article saying that Kennedy has met the "polling threshold of 15%" in three of the minimum of four approved national polls. However, to take part in ABC’s September 10 debate, he must have received "at least 15% support in four separate national polls" conducted and "released between Aug. 1, 2024, and Sept. 3, 2024". So far, three entities recognized by ABC (NYT/Siena College, Quinnipiac, Fox News) have conducted national polls since August 1. The Fox News poll has Kennedy at 6%, the other two at 4%. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that part of the sentence. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

Change " Biden withdrew from the race in July, and Kamala Harris was elected to replace him, while Trump became the official Republican nominee that same month." to " Biden withdrew from the race in July, and Kamala Harris was selected to replace him, while Trump became the official Republican nominee that same month.", as there was no democratic process to Harris winning the nomination. Chaas13 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debates aren’t rules

Please do the following edit:

The debate rules will be the same as the first debate

->

The debate rules will be the same as those of the first debate 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
That's already mentioned in the Format subsection for the second debate. "The debate rules will be the same as the first debate, with no audience being present and muted microphones." David O. Johnson (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t understand my message, David. Debate rules being the same as a debate logically entails that debates ARE rules.
I fixed the grammar. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Muboshgu!

Please don’t use adolescent short forms in the article

prep -> preparation 86.31.178.164 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

September 4 will instead be -> September 4 would instead be 86.31.178.164 (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_debates&oldid=1244968716"