Talk:1960 United States presidential election

message: There's a paragraph claiming that Nixon asked Eisenhower to stop campaigning for him because Mrs. Eisenhower thought that it would be fatal to her husband. Is there any source for this because this seems insane? 153.33.157.28 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that paragraph and two others for having no sources at all. Dingers5Days (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eisenhower campaign  

message: A few weeks back, a bold edit was made to adjust the infobox from the standard for US elections to also include unpledged electors as their own candidate. While this would make the page unique among US elections, there have been legitimate arguments made for the change. However, the last few weeks have been dominated by edit warring, largely by SPA accounts claiming there was consensus for the change.
Because of the edit war, the page has now been locked pending consensus. As there is very clearly not yet a consensus, I am starting a new discussion here, separate from the SPAs and separate topics, to determine if there is one.
Note: User:Ymblanter -- as the mod who closed the page to stop the edit war, if there is no clear consensus that emerges, once unlocked could the page please be reverted to the previous stable version of the infobox, rather than the new version for which there is not yet a consensus? Yaksar (let's chat) 05:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I've struck the !votes from a sockpuppet SPA account from the now-blocked user responsible for the edit war.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still commenting on the replies of those who voted "Remove." NewDealChief (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it is what it is, they'll presumably be blocked soon, and for now at the very least if they keep the edits to the talk page rather than edit warring it is less problematic (although of course not ideal for finding any actual consensus).--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Yes, normally it should be reverted to the pre-war version. Please ping me if this would happen to be the case. (Anybody can revert the article, but it is probably better if I do it, to avoid further edit-warring). Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ymblanter. It's now pretty clear that, with the lock on the page expiring in a few hours, there is not a consensus for the change. With most of the sock accounts responsible now banned, the discussion can hopefully continue here in a civil manner without an edit war on the page, but if you'd please be able to revert the addition and restore the consensus version in the interim once the lock expires. Thank you!--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

text: My point was that the official instruction of the voters was to vote for whichever candidate, much like a faithless elector, which vote for whichever candidate they wish, just without the instructions of voters V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't change any facts. They won a state. Nppfarcenter (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

text: My point remains that unpledged electors won a state. Mississippi. Therefore they should be displayed. Nppfarcenter (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus Needed: Unpledged Electors in Infobox