Talk:2020 United States presidential election

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lshane23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SumayyahGhori, Mberk11, Crazy326459, Wiki811pedia, Mvmarsha.

Bias in wording of information

This article states that Trump is making false claims of fraud. Maybe the claims are false or maybe they aren’t, but either way, it is not the job of Wikipedia to determine whether the claims are false or not. This page should objectively state information about a candidate, not determine whether a candidates claims are true or false, and another thing, since when did Trump refuse to commit to a peaceful transfer of power? That is blatantly false and that claim should be removed from this article. Jay72091(2) (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Many sources they say Trump claims are false. Do you have any sources that support Trump's claims? GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No reliable sources seem to have been present at nor covered legislative hearings where evidence has been presented. The reliable sources may not be at all reliable on this novel problem. The only truly reliable sources are the witnesses. That search for truth is still underway. 67.6.79.176 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Until the claims have been vetted in court, I don't think there is grounds for either side to say they are true or that they are false. We should just report that critics are saying the claims are false, not agreeing with them or speaking in their words. WakandaQT (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are outright calling these "false", not the usual "alleged". We apply due WP:WEIGHT based on what sources say. —Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I came to this article trying to find out more info but this article seems incredibly biased to me. We shouldn't really call the accusations true or false because they haven't been proven true or false, and that "just because every major media outlet is differing from the accusations" is still not justifiable. This is a really important matter and we should not be declaring accusations as true or false. I am an anonymous viewer of the page without a Wikipedia account. 12:45, 4 December 2020.

Trump is making claims that differ from what every major media outlet is reporting, the outlets we depend on as reliable sources. He is providing no new, independent evidence for those claims. He has made statements suggesting he will not accept the result of the election. He has made no statements saying he will. I see nothing wrong with the wording we are using. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"US President Donald Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses November's election. "Well, we'll have to see what happens," the president told a news conference at the White House. "You know that." If you think we need different examples, just searching "Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power" gives examples from CNN, New York Times, Business Insider, CNBC, USA Today, etc. The BBC is a more Worldwide source, so I believe that is why it was picked. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jay72091(2): We even have this today from CBS News' Twitter that says CBS News has learned that President Trump does not plan to concede even if Joe Biden declares victory in the coming days. I know that per WP:TWITTER it is difficult to use a source on Twitter, but we can do so using {{Twitter}} or {{Cite tweet}} if we must and if we follow all of the instruction to do so. (Though I would imagine that CBS News will make an article within 24 hours.) Jay72091(2), I ask that you provide a source for the changes that you want to make. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User HiLo48 the determination of whether a claim of fraud is true or false in the public sphere does not belong to media outlets which are owned by investors and whose purpose is to make money and may have ulterior motives for their determination of true or false. This determination is usually left up to the courts who as they say 'do not have a dog in the race'. As I believe there are court cases in process in regards to several irregularities that occurred during the vote and during the count and the courts have yet to complete their deliberation so effectively the word 'false' is premature and should probably be removed until the cases are complete and the courts have made their findings.

As to the peaceful transfer of power argument again the issue is premature for Wikipedia to have an opinion on the matter for while trump is refusing to concede the election at this point in time, there is sufficient possibility that he may still win if the courts find in his favour sufficiently to cancel enough votes for biden that things flip (this was one very close race after all) that only trump conceding at this point is a guarantee of biden winning. that said and conceding the point that at this time if nothing changes sufficiently biden does win. There is still both the court cases and the certification of the votes to occur before a winner is final and power would be expected to be handed over. At this point trump has refused to concede, he hasn't refused to hand over power, there is a difference. Anyway here is a reference and if you read it properly you may note the important word "commit" in the phrase 'refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.14.36 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an opinion on the matter; it summarizes what independent reliable sources are saying. Reliable sources do not need to wait for a court determination in order to report something. If you disagree with what reliable sources say, you should take that up with them. Note that you are free to believe as you wish- Wikipedia is, again, just summarizing sources. Wikipedia does not make claims about truthfulness. The court cases have been getting almost literally laughed out of court, so they are unlikely to change anything. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Building on what has been said, there are also reliable sources saying that the Trump administration is interfering in the transition to the point that there have been calls from Trump's party to give Biden's transitional administration access to intelligence briefings. (Vox, CNN, Politico, The Hill) If something changes with regards to a court case, the certification, the Electoral College, or another matter, then we will deal with it when reliable sources report on it. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Might I ask you to name these so called "reliable sources" of yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I already linked to them last week. See the (Vox, CNN, Politico, The Hill) portion above. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that WIkipedia, which claims to be an online encyclopedia (aka a neutral arbiter of information), is now effectively admitting that it does nothing but repeat verbatim what media outlets say and gives said outlets ultimate priority over what is said on its articles. Media outlets, no matter how objective they claim to be, will always have some biases and agenda, whatever those may be, largely depending on who owns them. Declaring any media outlet %100 reliable and never to be questioned, let alone giving their word priority over other sources like professionals/experts in particular fields, agencies, and/or officials is dangerous and outright stupid. If certain agencies and/or officials are generally considered by most people and/or experts to be extremely unreliable or have a provable history of lying/deliberately spreading false information, then don't trust a thing they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

EPicmAx4 Wikipedia is in essence a content aggregator; it is not a "neutral arbiter of information". Any bias in reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as everyone and everything has biases. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to any bias. You are free to visit(or start) any other encyclopedia project that fits with your worldview and media bubble. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Super Goku V all of those are known left-wing anti-trump outlets. EPicmAx4 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As already mentioned, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Per WP:REPUTABLE, reliable sources should be reliable, independent, published, accurate, and have fact-checking. Sources that users do not believe to meet these requirements can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. If a number of discussion have occurred on a specific source, they are listed at WP:RSP. Per WP:RSP, the four sources listed above have been in a combined 30 discussions with all four have a rating of "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise", reflecting that the four are considered generally reliable. I will mention that consensus can change as there have been sources downgraded from No consensus after four discussion to Deprecated after a Request for Comment discussion.

Given that none of these have a "No consensus" or below rating, I believe that extensive proof would be needed that WP:REPUTABLE has not been met to downgrade any of the four sources. If you have a serious complaint on any or all of the sources, I would recommend reviewing WP:RSPIMPROVE. Given the perceived reliability of the four sources listed in this thread, which included myself believing all four are reliable, I would recommend at a minimum to considered the issue of if WP:REPUTABLE has not been met or a different issue that you believe warrants consideration for a number of days. Then, I would recommend checking the other discussion at WP:RSPSOURCES to see how a source was marked as unreliable or blacklisted, before gathering any supposed sources, articles, or other evidence that you believe proves that they are unreliable. After that, I would recommend thinking about the situation once more for a few days, before deciding to post a thread as noted in the instructions at WP:RSPIMPROVE or to withdraw consideration. Regardless, I hope that this helps you understand why these sources are considered generally reliable. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I came to this article trying to find out more info but this article seems incredibly biased to me. We shouldn't really call the accusations true or false because they haven't been proven true or false, and that "just because every major media outlet is differing from the accusations" is still not justifiable. This is a really important matter and we should not be declaring accusations as true or false. I am an anonymous viewer of the page without a Wikipedia account. 12:45, 4 December 2020.

Merger proposal

It was suggested above that a "2020 United States presidential election riots" page be created – assuming that things play out like they did last time. As an apparent compromise, 2020 United States election protests was created to list a few broken windows. The basic premise of this page's existence is flawed. There cannot be true "protests" against/in response to the election until votes are counted and a winner is announced. Until then, this page clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. It should be merged to the aftermath section of this page. KidAd talk 08:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is missing a few templates. One sec. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that for merging, only two templates and a talk page discussion is needed so we are fine.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Protests are minimal right now, likely because there isn't a result to protest yet, as KidAd pointed out. The assumption that these will expand—which seems a central premise of the article—is unverifiable speculation. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 09:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed - Based on what I have read, there is 600+ people cited, at least 33 arrested with 8 for Seattle and 25 for New York (using the NPR citation), and the Oregon National Guard had to be called in. I would say that it sounds notable enough to have a standalone article for now. If anything, the only thing I currently would support is spinning some content from this article into an "Aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election" and merge the "election protests" article. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the precedent set by the existence of the Brooks Brothers riot page. There is no way that this this article can cover the election protests in a manner that would both satisfy the sourcing that currently exists and that satisfies WP:UNDUE, so it should be split off. I believe that these protests are almost certain to pass WP:10YT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "There is no way that this this article can cover the election protests" that's pure speculation on your part and even if there were a lot of protests that did happen, it doesn't necessarily mean that they need to be included. At this point it's best to adopt a wait and see approach. Merge the article for now, but reinstate it if something big happens. Flickotown (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Uhhh no, I’m saying that if we take coverage that already exists I do not see a way for this article to cover it properly, no speculation there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. There is nothing that is on that page that can't go (with proper citation and citations of course) into the "election protests" section of this one, which makes a lot of sense as the protests are confined to a handful of places and have by and large been peaceful, especially when compared to the George Floyd protests. But if anything serious happens comes of the protests (e.g. a killing) then we can reinstate it. Flickotown (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • User:KidAd Be bold and just merge it. Flickotown (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

    Perhaps being bold was okay before starting this discussion. But when it has been started with 2 opposes and 3 supports (counting the OP), clearly being bold was no longer on the table. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now Until/unless widespread protests develop, having a separate page for them is unnecessary. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion is probably going to be moot within a day or two when the results are finalized and it becomes more obvious that either (a) there are significant protests warranting an individual page or (b) there aren't significant protests and the pages should be merged. In other words, we will likely know more concretely whether the pages should be merged before this discussion will even be finished; and when that information comes out in a day or two, everything said here up to that point will be rendered useless by the new information. For me, this raises the question of whether discussion right now is productive, since the discussion may become meaningless quite soon. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Back in 2012, we had a situation like this regarding the NFL Referee strike. The 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game was put up for an AfD the day after the game for a claim of lack of notability. Initially, the arguments were over if it deserved a spot because of it being such a bad call and there were other bad calls that had been deemed notable enough to have articles. Then there was the politician threatening to ban replacement officials for sporting events a few hours prior being brought up, the NFL resuming talks with the NFL Referees Association that evening, and an agreement to end the lockout being reached the next day. The AfD was closed hours later with a note that merging discussion could be brought up later. (I already stated above my opposition to merging.) --Super Goku V (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• In order for my answer to not be too WP:CRYSTALBALL-y, I'll say this: if there's a lot more protests that will go on beyond this election, Oppose the merge, and if the article content remains this small with no expansion, Support the merge. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems like a sensible approach to me. As mentioned above, there's enough notability and sources that I'm inclined to say Oppose for now and see if the article expands in the near future. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Same here. If the relative size of this page to the main page stays as about now, support, otherwise oppose. BACbKA (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZE. Either keep the article where it is or place it up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The decision of whether or not to initiate the AfD process is contingent upon the results of this discussion. If the page was nominated for deletion, a winner was declared, and people actually started throwing bricks through Walmart windows and lighting things on fire, the page would likely be kept. Right now it seems a bit premature. No need to predict turmoil when little has occurred. KidAd talk 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge and draftify per WP:CRYSTALBALL Nojus R (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nojus R, How does CRYSTALBALL apply? The protests are ongoing, not planned. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Read the proposal:

  It was suggested above that a "2020 United States presidential election riots" page be created – assuming that things play out like they did last time. As an apparent compromise, 2020 United States election protests was created to list a few broken windows.

WP:CRYSTALBALL states the following:

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate.

The entire point of the article is a prediction.

Orcaguy (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Still disagree. Protests have already happened, so not understanding the speculation or future argument. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, this article is already huge, and there's plainly enough sources there to support a separate article. Additionally, while the protests are plainly being treated as significant based on the coverage (and therefore deserve an article), they are not a major part of the broader and much larger 2020 presidential election topic, which makes them more appropriate to cover separately. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. As mentioned, a handful relatively peaceful. Doesn't seem to warrant separate article. | MK17b | (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. Let's see what happens after a winner is called. If that results in massive nationwide protests, OK, we may need an article. Or maybe not. Recall that there actually were huge, days-long protests against the election of Trump in 2016, and all that activity is summarized in a few paragraphs at the 2016 election article. I favor the same thing happening here. Right now this amounts to small protests in a few cities, and so far only Portland (lucky Portland) seems to have had serious activities like damage to property. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge. There is presently little evidence that this is a distant event from the election. I would also recommend that we give more distinction to what is happening. There is a large group of pro-Trump protests, a minor group of pro-Biden protests, and a few riots in cities like Portland that seem to oppose anyone being elected president. These should be subdivided or described in detail, and a bullet point list is far less effective than what the article could be. Rioting has been damaging, but it does not affiliate so much with a side; the Trump protests are intending to stop vote counts and many groups are armed. Both of these are stories, but (a) they have different levels of importance, and (b) they are from different sides. Nevertheless, it is probably best to merge unless these protests start doing anything other than building upon the election info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PickleG13 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now it's best to not have to argue over inclusion of every thrown brick here; if there are substantial notable protests in the future the article will surely be kept separately, otherwise it can be selectively merged or deleted later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Appears you made a mistake with your vote. it's best to not have to argue over inclusion of every thrown brick here did you mean to say you support the merger? BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now can always delete later per Aquillion. First wait for announcement of actual winner, and if no significant protests post-announce, can merge. Albertaont (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support we have had a couple of days of these protests now and they've turned out to be....your run of the mill ones. The normal kind of stuff that, you know, goes with every election. Is there a reason why we acting like this article will be gone forever if it gets taken off? BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BCEVERYWHERE's point. I'll note that most of the votes above are prior to today's changes that trimmed the article to a bullet-pointed list. Reywas92^Talk 08:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Any protests are part of the larger overall election event. We have precedent to merge based off 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Protests.   Knowledgeable Raven Comments?  08:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. WP:CRYSTALBALL; the protests are currently not noteworthy enough to have their own article, and predicting them to be is pointless. If they do become noteworthy, the article can always be recreated again at some later point. Orcaguy (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any reason this wouldn't be included in the main article instead. Turning on the TV, I see much, much bigger crowds celebrating Biden's victory than those protesting - and I don't think that deserves an article either. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. These protests are merely part of the res gestae of the election, to borrow a legal expression. Frankly the only reason there are so many sources about them is that the media have been looking for things to talk about while the votes are being counted. Now that the election has been called, there's a real story to talk about.Lordrosemount (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now WP:HASTE and WP:NOTE. If the protests are as large and widespread as they were last time, it would be appropriate to make it its own page. But right now, they are small and localized. Additionally, the current article is mainly documenting arrests and groups with very few details. In my opinion, not enough detail is present to warrant a seperate article. Please call me Blue (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now I see that section vastly growing within the next few days. But currently it's too small. Neovu79 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The protests are clearly of a different scale than in 2016, and may yet rise to being comparable to 1968. It's not merely a difference of degree, it's a difference of type, especially given that they're being centrally pushed by right-wing leaders when the reverse was not the case in 2016 and prior. We can always merge later, but right now they're notable all on their own and seem likely to remain so. Denzera (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an unprecedented historical reaction (both protesting and celebrating) that warrants more attention rather than being merged into the main article. Scott218 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now Until the article meets it's criteria, it should be merged for now. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The reaction to Biden's victory has been unprecedented in an election where more Americans voted than ever before. Meets notability. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support – 2016 also saw protests, but those are included in other articles, not on their own page. Moreover, beyond simply listing every known instance of protests, the article offers no insights; it does not offer any explanation for the protests or background on the topic, so it fails to stand on its own. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - both articles are large, and merge would make reading and understanding more difficult to the casual reader. The protests are notable by themselves to justify the current stand-alone article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - 2020 article is already quite long without including coverage of protests - if included I'd probably argue to split the articles. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now Ytpks896 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - seems like the wisest option for now. Feudonym (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed - They seem to be growing by the day i would say keep the page. WoodLay (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The protests have had minimal to no impact, especially after the election was called. Unless something significant occurs, there's no reason to have separate pages. Darrenr72 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because the 2020 United States presidential election article is already huge and the 2020 United States election protests article is only going to continue growing in size. As per WP:SIZE, this is a merger I will not support. Quahog (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support — The article is too small to have its own page. Moving it to the main page would also make things more consistent and less confusing. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed There is too many separate sources and protests in the other article. Adding them to this article makes it unwieldy. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are enough sources on the protests to establish notability. There is no reason for them to become a footnote in the election article. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZE, for reasons already stated. AlexKitfox (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per now I agree with the prior sentiment that we can not predict whether these protests will be notable per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ HAL333 00:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Many of the so-called "protests" are actually just rallies by Trump supporters. There is always some degree of opposition to any election result, but these are not on the scale seen in 2016 and per WP:NOTABILITY therefore do not merit their own article. Vrrajkum (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. A reasonable sub-topic to be split out given the length of this article. --Jayron32 12:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose lower important topic to merge it. Even, There is no reason for them to become a footnote in the election article. As per WP:SIZE. 37.111.196.226 (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the great points mentioned above Leotext (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge or AfD Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. The riots that some feared did not happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge per WP:RECENTISM. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support If the protests get bigger and/or violent as the time goes on, I would say make a separate article. Right now, it just seems like a bunch of whiney Trump supporters. CaffeinAddict (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now but it depends on how big the merging article might get. There's a risk it could get quite sizeable if the protests/failure to acknowledge the result go on for weeks, in which case it would probably have to be spun out into a separate article. gbrading (ταlκ) 15:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now until Dec 14 wait at least until Dec 14 and the Electors vote, since that might spark even more protests. The article might get substantial, and it's easier to merge than to unmerge. It can be merged then if it's still small.Eccekevin (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per above. Protests will likely increase in the coming days due to recounts or suspected fraud or conspiracy theories. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Destroyeraa. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is already stupidly long. WP:LENGTH NateNate60 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I don't have any evidence of how elections are the same thing as protests. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support. This page needs a "Post-election events and controversies" section like in 2016 United States presidential election. Merging this article can be the start of that section. On the other hand, this article is already quite big, and I'm not sure if every protest is worth mentioning here. – Anne drew 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Considering that the worst of the protests probably hasn't hit yet, and that the protests are enough of an article themselves, I think that the articles should not be merged. - DG745 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I literally have heard no mention of protests for days now, User:DG745, let alone that they will increase. I'm sure there's some local something somewhere (there's always a protest singer, singing a protest song, near the parliament here ... along with the guy in the Spiderman costume) ... but do you have a reliable source for the anticipated increase in protests? Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a reason sub pages exist, sub pages make the entirety of articles better. I am always in favor of keeping sub pages if they provide more information. This subject is so important it needs it's own article, it's so long that if it gets merged all the juicy information will get removed. Stop the war on sub articles. Vallee01 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per DG475. SMB99thx my edits 05:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZE. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 08:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - These protests really seem to hit a different tone compared to the ones after the 2016 election. Love of Corey (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose The protests are happening on a large scale across the US. The media coverage is also significant. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral - It's 2016 all over again. Will there be a petition to convince Biden pledged electors to vote for another Democrat, on December 14? Will Republican House members attempt to stop certification of the electoral votes in the joint session of Congress, on January 6, ya know, the way Democrats attempted to do so against Trump, 4 years ago? Me thinks I smell payback for Russiagate. Not sure whether we should merge or not. How was it done in 2016? GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The page is little more than a timeline that could easily be reduced to a paragraph as part of the main article. Zerbey (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There will be too much information here. Bretwa (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge - I saw that the 2016 protests were merged into the 2016 elections article, so this should be a good idea. I'm with it. 2604:6000:130F:4FB6:9C15:CBFB:2A3A:AADA (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now - These protests were influenced by the election, so therefore they should be included into the article. I realise both articles are long and this is why I'm supporting the proposal for now. Balacachini (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
• Support - I get that there is a lot of information in the protest article, but it doesn't seem independently significant like the 2016 protests were. 68.100.41.71 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment there's already two articles which covers the material in this one (Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump) and there is no reason why a merger (of the material in the 2020 United States election protests article into the other two) can't happen. Flickotown (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think it makes sense to merge the two articles. At the very least, even if the protests are addressed within the election article, I think it still warrants having its own article. I've seen plenty of articles on Wikipedia where a subtopic is discussed within an article and then there's a hyperlink to the "main article" at the top of the subsection. I think that's what should happen here. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Clear WP:SIZE implications here. We need sections of this article split into new articles, not articles merging into this. The smaller article either needs to remain its own article, merge into some other article, or be deleted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree. 162.245.178.141 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge I don't see why they would be separate; there have been a distinct set of protests in the aftermath of the election, either in support of Joe Biden or Donald Trump. I don't see why these would be separate from the election page, considering these protests represent a microcosm of a lot of issues that have defined this election and the Trump Administration. (talk) 3:41 PM, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed--Dr. Pizza (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Vehemently oppose Not only would the merged article be HUGE (The election article alone is already the 30th longest article in the entire encyclopedia, merging would easily move it into the top 10), but this was proposed nearly three weeks ago, before any major protests had developed. Now, though, both side have held rallies outside the White House. It's pretty clear that this is very worthy of its own article. Perhaps, however, the article should be renamed to something like "Reactions to the 2020 United States Presidential Election". {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 07:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing would be merged, the article would just be deleted. Enough references from reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose There is enough WP:NOTE for the second article about protests and it can stand on its own. Avindratalk / contribs 04:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Unless and until something happens that requires a separate article. At the moment I am not really seeing it. I think the other article could safely be summarized here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main article is long enough as it is, and clearly there have been major protests, mostly by Trump supporters, protesting against the election outcome and process. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 05:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose + merge Stop the Steal into this article - The article needs to be expanded, but there's definitely been enough unrest to warrant its own article. For the sake of expansion, I think that it would be best to merge Stop the Steal into this article since they're heavily related. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 10:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main article is already ridiculously long. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is already way too long and that article already has enough information to stand on its own. Maybe compromise and put a link? Hollywood43ar (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support this article is too long, yes, but that entire article doesn't need to be copy+pasted into here. Much of that article is just nitpicking. "Oh look, 100 people made a protest somewhere, let's mention it" -- even if a RS covers it (feeding the viewers is their job in this cycle) it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Reality is, that article can be sumrised in a few paragraphs, and those few paragraphs would not add much bulk to this article. So I agree with the 10YEARTEST/NOTNEWS concerns above. Perhaps other stuff in this article needs splitting out, but this obviously isn't one of those things, and that shouldn't be a bar against this merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

KidAd is there a way to rename the International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election to Reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election and then merge the material from the 2020 United States election protests into the renamed article? I just simply don't get how an article that documents the international reactions to the Presidential election exist, but an article that should be about the domestic reactions to it doesn't. If anything it should be the other way around because the US Presidential election affects first and foremost the affairs of the United States. Flickotown (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Note this was discussed twice on Talk:2020_United_States_election_protests where it was strongly opposed.
  • Unsurprising you would say that since you are the creator of that article. Flickotown (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Flickotown, you created the last move attempt and only one other user supported a move out of twelve users. First, I believe that you should have waited until your last move request ended. Secondly, since it has now done so, I believe you should hold off on suggesting another move for at least two weeks so that some times passes to re-evaluate if a move is needed or not. Also, it does not matter if they created the article or not. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - Article is now over 400 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Jax 0677: FWIW, readable prose is 77KB (and you would want your !vote in the above section, outside of this "Discussion" session).—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

State certified election results.

I think we should have a separate map for state certified election results. The current map shows the opinions of various media outlets. These outlets have disagreed with each other, and some media outlets have changed their opinions over time, giving the impression that the election results are uncertain and arbitrary. If we now place state certified election results on this same map, it will give the American public the impression that state certified results are uncertain and arbitrary. The Trump campaign has been actively de-legitimizing the validity of this election, and this Wikipedia election map is helping to de-legitimize the results by placing state certified results on the same footing as media opinions. Here is my first draft (very rough) attempt at what I have in mind.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:State_certified_2020_election.svg#mw-jump-to-license Unitfreak (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We've got enough maps (one) in this article. Best not to make things more confusing. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"Best not to make things more confusing." Right. From the perspective of the Trump campaign, this election was decided before anyone went to the polls to vote. The fact that this election outcome map existed and was populated long before the votes were counted seems to support that simple explanation. Do you really want to keep things simple?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitfreak (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear totally anonymous visitor: "From the perspective of the Trump campaign, this election was decided before anyone went to the polls to vote." - On Wikipedia we require evidence from reliable sources. Do you have any? "The fact that this election outcome map existed and was populated long before the votes were counted ..." - Wrong. We actually have been more cautious to indicate that a candidate won a particular state than almost all other sources. If you took the time to learn how Wikipedia works and how we developed this article, you would know that. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

“If you took the time to learn how Wikipedia works”? The caption in the article says the following: “The electoral map for the 2020 presidential election, based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets at mid-November 2020.” The caption in the article says that the media is determining the outcome of this election, as shown in the map. What part of this do you think I have misunderstood? When the Trump campaign claims that it is the media, not the American people, who have decided the outcome of this election, how can you argue otherwise when the caption in the Wikipedia article says that it is based on media consensus?

The media reports on what will happen, it doesn’t determine what happens itself. It is standard practice, and has been for centuries now, that the outcome of elections can be acknowledged even before they’ve been officially certified when they are already clear. This has been done for every election in US history.

“It is standard practice, and has been for centuries now, that the outcome of elections can be acknowledged even before they’ve been officially certified when they are already clear“. Well, as I wrote above: “These outlets have disagreed with each other, and some media outlets have changed their opinions over time, giving the impression that the election results are uncertain and arbitrary. If we now place state certified election results on this same map, it will give the American public the impression that state certified results are uncertain and arbitrary.” Unitfreak (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Which mainstream reliable sources currently disagree on the results of which states? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

“mainstream reliable sources”? Are you familiar with the “no true Scotsman“ logical fallacy? If not you can read about it right here in Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman. Unitfreak (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No one will take you seriously if your response is purely a link to the definition of a logical fallacy, just FYI. The distinction between reliable and unreliable sources is a critically important concept on Wikipedia, and there are no reliable sources currently in any disagreement that I'm aware of. Nor do I think they've ever truly in been in disagreement - some just waited longer than others to call certain states. And no reliable outlets that I'm aware of "changed their opinions over time." Can you give examples of what you're referring to? Lazer-kitty (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

“It is standard practice, and has been for centuries now, that the outcome of elections can be acknowledged even before they’ve been officially certified”. Really? If the editors and contributors of Wikipedia are interested in business as usual, then by all means give yourself a pat on the back and pass the Kool-Aid. However, for those more responsible members of the community, who are interested in doing your civic duty, can I recommend watching this video clip from former President Obama. Maybe it is time to think seriously about the role Wikipedia is playing in promoting a conspiracy culture. Maybe it is time to report “actual” election results, rather than reporting the opinions of media outlets. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-us-2020-54910344?__twitter_impression=true Unitfreak (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Sources are deemed reliable for their editorial integrity practices, as you are probably aware, so they tend to not want to sacrifice their reputations. To call states, and elections as a whole, they base their decisions on mathematic probability and trends in the vote count and also total remaining votes as reported by election officials. So the reliability shouldn't generally be in dispute. Also wiki primarily goes by Reliable secondary sources and not firsthand sources, therefore any certification would STILL be reported through mainstream RSes. That's my two-cents, not going to argue about it, personally.Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

”not going to argue about it, personally”. I agree. Don’t make this about yourself. The issue at hand here isn’t about any specific individual, nor is this an attack on the previous decisions of Wikipedia contributors and editors. This is a discussion about facts and reality, not a discussion about opinions and personalities, so don’t make this about yourself. The fact is, we have a pervasive conspiracy culture in the USA that is threatening our democracy. It is easy to point the finger at the Trump campaign and accuse them of stoking the flames of distrust, but as Obama explained in the above video link, this conspiracy culture existed before the 2020 election, and will exist after the election. The other pertinent fact here is that Wikipedia has a long entrenched tradition of reporting mainstream media opinions and conflating those opinions with actual state certified election results. Right now, the Wikipedia article on this election is showing an election map where media opinions are conflated with actual state certified results, making it impossible for the reader to know where opinion ends and reality begins. This is a wake up call for those within the Wikipedia organization who want to do a better job of informing the American public. It is time to stop the gaslighting. It is time to repot the facts, not media opinions. It is time to put ego and personality aside, and to do the right thing for the future of our democracy. Please, take the time to listen to the above linked video by Obama and think about the role that Wikipedia is playing in supporting the culture of conspiracy! Unitfreak (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "Mak[ing] this about [my]self". This is about wikipedia's community standards, wiki is WP:NOTNEWS, it isn't into doing its own reporting, as that would be WP:OR, original research. It, instead, refers to WP:RS Reliable Sources that have editorial accountability. The type of thing former President Obama is referring to is propaganda and conspiracy theories perpetrated by media that have suspect integrity. He is NOT referring to Reliable Sources reporting their projections of the awarding of states to either candidate. RS report their findings based on voting trends and what election officials on the ground report to them, then wiki present what was reported.Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be using the term "gaslighting" as a strawman argument. Gas lighting is where someone witnessed something and the other person tells them that it didn't happen or act like the opposite happened. That, or someone says something happened that didn't happen. This is not what's going on with RS declaring states have been won. Votes were cast, votes were being counted, precincts were communicating with RS and those RS making calls on states once a tipping point was reached and wiki used those sources. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent Corvid and Unitfreak, these are just some thoughts on the term "gaslighting" and what other terms we should use. Frankly, I'm not sure. PersistentCorvid (love the name about the very smart birds) is right. That is the proper definition, but in these trumpian times, the term has gotten legs for lack of a better term. Trump clearly uses Hitler's "Big Lie" propaganda technique all the time (he has provably studied Hitler), and people sometimes just call it "gaslighting" as the effect is similar. The constant repetition of an obvious lie causes people "to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears." Classic Nineteen Eighty-Four stuff. The double whammy of Orwellian and Hitlerian propaganda is very effective, as the election results clearly tell us. (Trump didn't get a tiny minority of the votes.) "The [GOP] party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

Trump, and the GOP has followed him down this rabbit hole, has a habit of doing what no normal person, even habitual liars, do, and that is to continually repeat lies he has told, even after they have been soundly and constantly debunked. Normal liars won't make the mistake of repeating that lie, but, as Obama has said, Trump has a "flimsy relationship to the truth." The phenomenon is so new and unusual that Glenn Kessler, the lead fact-checker for The Washington Post's team, has been forced to create a new category for lies. He calls it the "Bottomless Pinocchio". Veracity of statements by Donald Trump has this paragraph:

The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods in December 2018, the "Bottomless Pinocchio," for falsehoods repeated at least twenty times (so often "that there can be no question the politician is aware his or her facts are wrong"). Trump was the only politician who met the standard of the category, with 14 statements that immediately qualified. According to the Washington Post, Trump has repeated some falsehoods so many times he has effectively engaged in disinformation.

So, taking my cue from Kessler, maybe we should use the term "disinformation" and save "gaslighting" for its proper, and limited, use. -- Valjean (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Valjean I agree. Thanks for the info. Do you have anything to add about RS calling states and wiki reflecting that on its electoral map? I've tried to adequately explain it but am I missing anything? Persistent Corvid (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Most major RS, including Fox News (!), have called all states and concluded that Biden has won the election. His lead is now over six million votes and growing, with no states where there is any chance of legitimately overturning the results. We should do what RS do. If something changes, we can always change it here. We should generally mirror what's happening in RS, including when they get it wrong. We cannot know they are getting it wrong until after the fact. To do otherwise, because we think they are wrong, would be substituting OR, wishful thinking, crystal ball thinking for dependence on RS, a phenomenon we see all the time with editors who depend on unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

“Gas lighting is where someone witnessed something and the other person tells them that it didn't happen or act like the opposite happened.” - Exactly! In this case, state certified election results for a dozen states has “happened”, and yet the editors and contributors to this article continue to report media opinions as if the state certified results hadn’t happened. The net effect is to confuse the public and make it appear that the media opinions reported in the article are somehow on a par with state certified election results. As I wrote above: “the Wikipedia article on this election is showing an election map where media opinions are conflated with actual state certified results, making it impossible for the reader to know where opinion ends and reality begins.” I do agree with you that “gas lighting” likely implies that the person doing the gas lighting is intentionally trying to deceive people, whereas in this case I suspect the contributors and editors of Wikipedia are doing this unwittingly. Unitfreak (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Unitfreak, where is anyone saying of the states that have certified, they did not certify? No one has claimed they haven't. Of those that HAVE certified, literally none of them have presented an outcome different from the RS calls. Likely, NONE of the remaining states will present a different outcome either. Nothing is being conflated because we show sources, no one is claiming or inferring that the RS supersede official state certified vote results. Votes were counted and were reported to RS by Election Officials (The ones literally overseeing the actual counting of votes). That happened, it is a fact. The map is not deceiving. If something changed, it would be shown. Once certified results come in, those SAME reliable sources will report them and wiki will reflect that by using said RS's reporting. That may not match up to YOUR opinion, but this is wiki policy and this is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Persistent Corvid (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

“Once certified results come in, those SAME reliable sources will report them and wiki will reflect that” - Really? - Is that what will happen? - Actually, those state certified results have already come in for many states, and yet the wiki continues to report “projected” results based on a “consensus” of media outlets. Go read it yourself.

Here is the exact wording as it currently appears: “The electoral map for the 2020 presidential election, based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets. Blue denotes states projected for Biden/Harris, and red denotes those projected for Trump/Pence. Numbers indicate allotted electoral votes.”

For anyone interested in truth and reality, here is a website showing which states have actual election results: https://usafacts.org/visualizations/when-will-each-state-have-official-election-count/

Unitfreak (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was already aware of what it says, DIRECTLY UNDER the electoral map at the TOP of this wiki page. Don't patronizingly give orders to "Go read it yourself." There is literally nothing wrong with how it is now, considering what is said under the map provides complete transparency as to the sourcing of the information. Editors are waiting for all of the states to certify first and for RS to report complete certification. Also, patience should be observed, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't meant to convey breaking news. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

“Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't meant to convey breaking news.” - Exactly my point - This isn’t breaking news. These are state officials completing their constitutional responsibilities to count and certify election results. These state certified election results can be obtained directly from state governments, where the votes were counted, or they can be obtained from federal government sites. There is no reason to involve unofficial media sources. Go directly to the source and get the actual official results. Why is Wikipedia reporting “projected” results based on a “consensus” of media outlets when the official results are available from state governments?

Unitfreak (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You have been told before, wikipedia policy is to use secondary reliable sources and not direct sources. Also, all states haven't completed certification, once that happens, then it can be stated by RS that the WHOLE election has been certified. Now step away from the WP:DEADHORSE. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Unitfreak, the map as seen here is the state results as reported by reliable sources, which has occurred in one form or another on the past four election articles. (Aka, all related Wikipedia articles since its founding.) Said map has a second purpose; after the Electoral College votes, the map is updated with their results and the caption below will be updated to say Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia and include a mention of faithless electors, if any. (The 2000, 2004, and 2016 articles handle faithless electors a bit differently to each other, but does include a mention somewhere in the caption.) Meanwhile, the Results by state section handles the certification process; vote totals cannot be added until they are certified. This allows us to show readers what reliable sources are saying without misleading them and both sections mention how their are handled in case of confusion. (Additionally, if we waited for the official results from the state governments, we would need to change the map and turn 22 states back to the color grey, which would go against the current consensus. We only have the "projected" results from these states as they lack certification.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I found the following in the edit history: “edited by Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 24 November 2020 (→‎Results by state: we should state these are certified numbers, not just running totals).” - Kudos to Kwamikagami. You appear to be the first Wikipedia editor/contributor who is interested in reporting facts and reality rather than reporting media projections. It is important for the readers to know that the election is determined by state certified election results, not by media opinions. Your edit is a big step away from gaslighting. Thank you. Unitfreak (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll say it again. It is not gaslighting. It says right there that the current map is based off media projections. Nothing is being hidden and there is absolutely no attempt to fool anyone. When all states certify it will be stated. Also, nothing is currently different between maps, no matter what is used. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

”It is not gaslighting”. How is it not gaslighting? The article has been reporting election results since the beginning of November, apparently including some state certified data. The article didn’t identify the state certified data until Kwamikagami edited it to identify the “state certified” data. If the article is using state certified data, and mislabeling it, or being ambiguous about the data, then how is that not gaslighting? If the article exclusively reports media projections, even after the states have certified results, then how is that not gaslighting? If the article is giving the reader the false impression that the election was decided by media outlets, and that state certified results are not important, then how is that not gaslighting? Unitfreak (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained this to you, as have others, numerous times. It will placed in the article when ALL OF THE STATES HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED, and once it is reported by Reliable Sources (NOT primary sources) that ALL OF THE STATES HAVE CERTIFIED. This article is NOT "giving the reader a false impression." The certified results ARE important, literally, no one here has been saying otherwise. Again, the policy regarding WP:RS is the same for all pages on Wikipedia. It is not gaslighting for the simple reason there is basically a disclaimer stating "The electoral map for the 2020 presidential election, based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets." That is directly in map key, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE READER to read. Once every single state has been certified, then, and only then, will it be replaced. By going out of my way to explain this to you, I am Assuming Good Faith. Now you should WP:AGF as well. If you continue, don't be surprised if you are accused of tendentious editing, just saying. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

We will probably have to agree to disagree on some points. Perhaps the one point we can agree upon is that Kwamikagami did the right thing (by correctly identifying state certified data rather than obscuring the source of that data). I believe I am also Assuming Good Faith. To be clear, I never accused anyone of intentionally misbehaving. As I wrote above: “I do agree with you that gas lighting likely implies that the person doing the gas lighting is intentionally trying to deceive people, whereas in this case, I suspect the contributors and editors of Wikipedia are doing this unwittingly.”

Unitfreak (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No one is deceiving anyone knowingly or unknowingly. It says exactly what is being used, there is transparency. This is not opinion, the RS policy is wiki policy, whether you agree or not. @Muboshgu I have said what needs to be said, will you handle this? Maybe I lack technical proficiency with this. Persistent Corvid (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

“It says exactly what is being used” - Well, it does now. Let me put it this way: prior to 24 November 2020, the article was using state certified data, but the article was not identifying the data as “state certified”. Kwamikagami was the one who fixed that problem. I think we can all agree that Kwamikagami was the one who correctly identified the state certified data. Go look at the history yourself if you disagree. Unitfreak (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

“No one is deceiving anyone knowingly or unknowingly.” - That really is an incredible claim. How can you be certain that everyone who reads this article will come away with an accurate understanding of all of the information in the article? You can not! Human communication is imperfect. All languages, including English, are imperfect. Clear communication is as much an art as it is a science. Prior to 24 November 2020, this article was ambiguous about the significance of state certified election results in determining USA election outcomes. A reader could easily come away from this article with the false impression that the election was decided by media projections. Fortunately, Kwamikagami took the time to carefully review the article and identified a place where state certified data was being used but not correctly labeled. I, for one, am appreciative of thoughtful and careful editors like Kwamikagami who will identify and fix problems, rather than just argue about them.

Unitfreak (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the electoral map key again, it says based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets. You are talking about the table of results down the page, which DOES have certified results. You are conflating the two. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the one arguing against policy and a consensus to wait for every state to certify before updating the electoral map (not the table), is you Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

“You are talking about the table of results down the page, which DOES have certified results. You are conflating the two“. - You are correct that I have been unclear in my explanation. When I first looked through this article back in early November, I felt that the entire article was unclear about the role that state certification plays in determining election outcomes. Even worse, the article gives the false impression that elections are determined by media consensus shortly after the vote is taken. As a possible remedy, I suggested changing one specific map in the article to indicate which states had certified results, and which states were still counting votes. I had viewed my suggestion as one possible solution to the problem, but looking back through the discussion, I see now that from your point of view, you probably thought that my concern was exclusively about that one specific map. At any rate, I do believe that Kwamikagami’s edit was a big step away from gaslighting. As I wrote above: “It is important for the readers to know that the election is determined by state certified election results, not by media opinions”. Unitfreak (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, anyone who considers the Washington Post "reliable" should be in a straightjacket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bolding of "states carried" in infobox

Once Wikipedia recognizes the election result in Georgia, what should be done about the bolding of the "states carried" section?

Option 1) Bold Biden's 25 + DC + NE-02: Biden won 25 states, a congressional district, and DC, whereas Trump won 25 states and a congressional district but not DC, therefore Biden won more.

Option 2) No bolding- as both candidates carried 25 states each. Ignoring DC and congressional districts, and focusing solely on states.

I'm tentatively in favour of Option 1 (bold it), but am open to hearing arguments otherwise. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on the following articles, we bold only the text which shows the candidate that won more states and do not bold either when they tie: 1976, 1960, 1880, 1848. Given the intent of that section, I would say Option 1 is acceptable as Biden did win 27 locations and Trump won 26. (Additionally, I would also believe that Option 1 should occur in the future when the candidates tie, but the losing candidate wins more location.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're being technical, Biden won two congressional districts (ME-01 and NE-01) and Trump got 3 (NE-1, NE-3, ME-2) and Biden won DC, so they both got the same number of locations. Nojus R (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what we consider a "state". I don't think the congressional districts should be a factor, since they obviously are not states. But one could argue that D.C. is practically the same as a state with regards to the electoral college. If we consider D.C. a "state", we would bold Biden (once Georgia is called). Prcc27 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

DC is a totally different juristiction though not part of any other state... the congressional districts are parts of states therefore already "counted" once... I think you could do 25 + DC for biden and just 25 for trump, that would make the most sense. Its "states carried" not "Voting Districts carried" 94.18.243.163 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a technical question given that we highlight the candidate who won the popular vote and the states carried, but yes I was incorrect. {{Infobox election}} doesn't say much, except that the parameter should not appear until the election is finished. (Whoops.) Maybe we should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums for their thoughts? (If we do, we might want to inform them on the RfC being held above since their page is only showing this talk page with one. If we don't, I would now say Option 2 is the most correct.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: Congressional districts only exist within states that have already been won at-large by a candidate and counted in their tally. We should not elevate congressional districts or DC to the level of states. The above comment by Nojus R illustrates how that approach is flawed. The label in the infobox says "States carried", and they will have both carried the same number of states if Biden carries GA, so there should be no bolding. If Trump carries Georgia, we should bold his state count. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

DC isnt part of any state, its a seperate juristiction but the congressional districts are. thats the difference that matters imo 152.115.83.242 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: - as DC is the tie-breaker. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: - Please read the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution: "... they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State". We don't need to elevate DC to the level of a state when DC, for all intents and purposes, is considered a state when it comes to presidential elections. Nihlus 01:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus, although I stand by my initial position, I agree that the case for DC being a tie-breaker is stronger than for the congressional districts. And Trump got 3 congressional districts to Biden's two, anyway. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Tartan357, I don't think the congressional districts should be considered. The two electoral votes that are given based on the state-wide vote are really all the should matter when considering who won the state. Nihlus 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus, that's what I'm saying. And I know you didn't argue for them to count, but I expect others will. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: The electoral college allocates electoral votes to 51 territories. The territories decide how the vote is split. That's how NE and ME split their votes. But DC is allocated electoral votes on a federal level. That's more than enough to qualify as a tiebreaker. Admanny (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - this really should be an RfC. Consider? Admanny (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Admanny, yes, it should. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Admanny: I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums should be involved a bit more, but I do support an RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. Prcc27 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Biden won more contests. 25 + 1 CD vs 25 + 1 CD + DC... DC breaks the tie. --CoryJosh (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @CoryJosh: Actually, Biden won 2 CDs (ME-1 & NE-2) and Trump won 3 CDs (ME-2, NE-1, and NE-3). I definitely don't think a congressional district should count as a "state" though, whereas I think D.C. should count as a "state". Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that you didn't already know that, but just want to make sure we're clear on who won what. Prcc27 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That is a technicality. If DC counted as a state, we would write 26 states under the states carried category. But we don't and never have. Counting DC as a state now would completely defeat the purpose of writing +DC. Thematrix92498 (talk 19:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Biden won 26 of the 51 entities represented in the Electoral College. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Super Goku V and Tartan357. Since the parameter is about states, we should consider only the states; as much as I wish D.C. was one, it is not. Unless there is consensus from reliable sources that Biden won more states, which I do not think will happen since congressional districts are not states and D.C. is the capital city and not a U.S. state but they may consider it as a tie-breaker, we should not bold it, as the parameter is referring only to U.S. states. I suppose we can still bold it as Biden technically won more locations, but my understanding is that the parameter is referring only to U.S. states and we should bold it only for the candidate that won more U.S. states, not for the candidate who won most locations. Davide King (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think it should be clarified what it is meant by States carried in the infobox and parameter. Does it mean U.S. states only? Or does it mean all states contributing to the Electoral College? If it is the latter, then I agree option 1 is actually correct because D.C. is considered a state in that sense while congressional districts are not states in either definition. Either way, it would be helpful to see what reliable sources say. Davide King (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I imagine states carried means U.S. states only, otherwise we'd write 26 and not 25+DC. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 20:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per the 23rd Amendment, DC is on par with the states in the Electoral College. That Maine and Nebraska split their EC votes is a different issue; maybe note that with an end note, but the core number to consider is 51. Carter (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per the above, the count we care about is 51. Biden won 26 of the "state equivalences" in the Electoral College. The "Maine/Nebraska splitting the vote" thing is a quirk, but does not affect the count of states won.--Jayron32 13:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: The number of contests won is of no significance, but Biden's side should be bolded because he won the electoral college. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Well we're there, Georgia is now unanimously called and it's time to bold Biden's side. He won more contests than Trump, no way around it. — Red XIV ^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - this parameter shouldn't be in the infobox. The reality is too complex for the "at a glance" nature of infoboxes. If we take the label literally, the data will be simplified to the point of uselessness while if we try to force the details in it becomes unweildy. --Khajidha (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Insofar as the number of contests won is of any significance, it seems clear that DC is relevant to the count and the number of congressional districts won is not. ⁠— Stuart98 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - summary so far is 12 editors in favour of bolding versus 2 opposed to it. I think this seems like a strong enough consensus to go ahead and do it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Technically, they won an even number of jurisdictions, as Biden won 25 states, NE-02, ME-01, and DC, while Trump won 25 states, NE-01, NE-03, and ME-02, which is 28 jurisdictions each. That leads to an exact tie, so no bolding.Herbfur (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - The 23rd Amendment provisions are irrelevant, the category is states carried. We write 25 + DC or 25 + NE-02. We do not write 26 states and leave it at that, counting DC as a state. As such, neither should be bolded. This is blatantly breaking precedent established by the articles on the 1848 and 1880 elections.Thematrix92498 (talk 19:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The District of Columbia didn't participate in the 1848 and 1880 elections. So I don't think any "precedent" is being broken. The reason why it says "25+D.C.", and not "26" is because D.C. is usually not considered a "state", especially for non-electoral college purposes. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thematrix92498, they are not irrelevant. The category of "states carried" means "how many jurisdictions, established by the constitution, were carried by the candidate". There are 51 jurisdictions; however, we simplify the meaning of it by separating out DC since it is not considered a state in anything but the election. However, since it is considered a state in the election, it should be included when considering how many "states" were won. Nihlus 20:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The bolding in every info box on United States elections is based on a majority, yes? The same rule would apply to states carried. In terms of states (not territories or jurisdictions), Trump and Biden both won 25. The bolding is lost on me for this reason. Unless DC is now considered a state, something those advocating for DC statehood would be excited to hear, both tallies should be left unbolded.Thematrix92498 (talk 15:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus That is a rather liberal reading of a category that is literally called states carried. If what you say is true, that the category references the total jurisdictions carried by each candidate, I propose we change the name to jurisdictions carried or territories carried.Thematrix92498 (talk 15:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Nihlus. But I also think Naddruf makes a good point that Biden's should likely be bolded anyway, although if Biden didn't win the majority of states (including DC) that is likely a bit confusing. We have included this "states won" parameter before, but Khajidha is correct that it is a bit misleading as electoral college votes (not states) decide the election.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for stand-alone article titled “2020 American coup d’etat attempt”

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.

---

There has long been precedent for giving even unsuccesful coup d’etat attempts a stand-alone article, as the attempt to seize power through non-democratic means is inherently noteworthy. Now, there can be no serious debate that this is what Trump is doing. Since we have articles for other failed coup d’etats, we ought to follow that policy here. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per nom.108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per nom also - there seems to be numerous "WP:RS" references (for example, see some noted refs "listed above") supporting such an article I would think atm - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the following 1) this wasn't an attempt to seize power, it was an attempt to avoid losing power, 2) Trump hasn't stopped all of his machinations, and 3) this is manipulating the election and its results and rightfully belongs in the article about the election. --Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) (or the article Muboshgu mentioned)
• Oppose - per Muboshgu below, seems like Disputes_surrounding_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_results#"Coup"_verbiage is a better place for any such information, at least for now. ~EdGl talk 18:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is certainly an effort to subvert the election and undermine democracy, but it is not, by definition, a “coup.” soibangla (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We have an article at Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results. That's where this topic is covered. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. A coup is an illegal effort to seize power. Trump may be filing frivolous lawsuits that lack merit, but it is not illegal to file lawsuits. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Trump is still following legal procedures such as requesting recounts and filing lawsuits, similar to the 2000 election. He's only obligated to leave office on January 20. Calling it a coup is controversial and opposed by several reliable sources.[1][2][3][4][5] The article about the election dispute is enough. Heitordp (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Heitordp There is no legal or other obligation to concede at all; as long as Biden is allowed to take office. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: You're right. I changed my sentence above. Heitordp (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. This was not a coup or an attempted coup. See Coup d'état for definition of a coup. This was an unsuccessful attempt by a person in power to stay in power; that is not a coup. (Didn't we already discuss this at another article recently?) The "disputes" article is properly titled and covers the subject adequately. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, articles about a coup (if this was one) is better written after the event has taken place. At the moment, we can’t say if this really should be described as an attempted coup or not. It is better to wait til after January 20th and then, perhaps, write an article like that, if political scientists by then seem to think the present events can be deemed a coup or attempted coup. Until then, I agree with Muboshgu on where to write about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.20.147 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Muboshgu and 85. Disagree with 331dot that this was just filing lawsuits as Trump is permitted to do. He also applied pressure to State Legislators to override/ignore the vote and seat their own electors. He invited some of them to the WH to apply said pressure. That was/would have been an attempted coup, but this material can be dealt with in the related article about post-election disputes for now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not actually sure if that counts as a coup. Legislatures are technically allowed to appoint whatever electors they want in accordance to state law. However, even then that would probably be thrown out because of the Due Process Clause, so I guess you have a point. Herbfur (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Read WP:POVFORK. If a section of this article becomes too long, it can be spun out as a sub-article. That's not needed yet. Jehochman ^Talk 01:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because Biden has been successful.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose though Harris seems the successor. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Ridiculous to label this a coup d'etat attempt. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's more of temper tantrum, really. Persistent Corvid (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not quite a coup, Trump has started the transition of power (reluctantly) and hasn't seriously made any substantial efforts to illegally retain power. He has tried through legal (although dubious) means, but has found no success. Plus, it's already covered, so I think this would be redundant. Herbfur (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Trump's actions do exceed just filing lawsuits as noted by Soibangla, Darryl Kerrigan, and others. However, those actions do not current rise to the level of creating a new one, given the "Disputes surrounding the election" article mentioned above. We can decide later on if those actions escalate and actually cause Trump to be in power after January 21st. Regarding the discussion on if the words "coup d’etat" would be appropriate or not, there is the case of the Third Nigerian Republic which never occurred due to the presidential election results being nullified. While I would not mind the use of a coup to describe what happened, it isn't necessarily an accurate term. (Soft coup does mention in the lede that they sometimes occur to keep the current institutional order, but I would trust the original definition of coup d’etat for now.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: Well, it doesn't seem to be coup by the way. As we know, Trump just didn't accept the result of election and didn't give his power to Biden. If we started to use 'coup' in any situation like this, there will be so many coup attempts in the world, I think.-- Wendylove (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - WOW - most "opposes" above seem to be wishful thinking (and/or unrealistic thinking) re the current very non-traditional WH administration - and seem to be presenting an attempted coup (or attempted "legislative coup" or "self-coup" or "power grab" or "refusal to give up power" or "democratic backsliding") as a moot (or irrevelant) point (since the GSA is now permitting the newly elected administration to proceed) - seems an attempted coup ("testing-the-waters", so-to-speak), based on numerous WP:RS references (see listing above for some), that's seemingly failed (so far), is still an attempted coup (or the like) that may still be ongoing (and/or underway) in the WH - and, at least, may need special noting in Wikipedia - via of its own article - after all - there has been - to date => no actual concession from top WH leaders; an unexplained shuffling of top leadership at agencies, including the Pentagon; no official acknowledgement of the newly elected administration from top leaders of the opposing party; numerous WH tweets broadcasting an alternative narrative to millions - and there's a lot of days to go before January 20th, 2021 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ADD => FWIW - This apparent attempt (so far) all seems remarkedly consistent (imo) with my own published (somewhat prescient?) NYTimes Comments some years ago, in 2013. - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

@Drbogdan: you should not be sarcastic about "oppose". Yes, there are 43,300,000 search in Google, but could we say they are all neutral? No, I don't think so. Because US presidential election become political issue, and opinions from Conservatives and Democrats must be different, and news is also divided by their own opinion. You know the neutral policy of Wikipedia, and you know that if we choose "2020 American coup d’etat attempt" as a new article, it is not quite neutral, because whether it is coup or not is now the debate to all American society. -- Wendylove (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@웬디러비: Thank you for your excellent comments - yes - *entirely* agree - I'm flexible re the new article title - but an article covering the attempted efforts by the current WH administration to subvert the 2020 presidential election should be considered imo - also - please understand, for my part, using "opposes", in my own comments above, was intended to be factual - and not at all otherwise - hope this helps - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Note that the suggested title is a bit in the wrong--Trump's actions are, beyond dispute, an attempted self-coup. He and his supporters have engaged in the following activities clearly designed to support the self-coup:
  • Sowing doubt as to the legitimacy of mail-in ballots many months in advance (though Trump has voted by mail for years), to encourage his voters to vote in person
  • ... followed by hobbling the U.S. Postal Service, including disabling mail-sorting machines, to prevent timely delivery of mailed ballots
  • Actively discussing with partisan supporters in key state governments, including the head of the RNC in Pennsylvania, using faithless electors to "throw" the contest against voters' will in key states
  • Tweeting and speaking so as to encourage violent uprisings if he loses, with results such as the plot in Minnesota to kidnap and execute the governor

Shall we start a separate poll for the creation of the needed self-coup page? This is without any doubt a perfect example of one, and it will enrich Wikipedia. --Cugel the Cleaver (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Since this is already the focus of Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results, it might make more sense to request a name change on that Talk Page (or join the existing "Title brainstorming" discussion), rather than propose another essentially redundant new article. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Total nonsense. Dream Focus 00:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump’s lawsuits are certainly invalid given their constant dismissals, though the term “coup” is far from neutral. — Haimaunten (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Just as Al Gore was allowed to dispute the 2000 US Election, Trump is allowed to dispute this one. If however he continues to try and hold onto power past 20th Jan, then I change my position to supporting that this is an attempt at a coup d'etat against the democratically elected new government. Xander11012 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support: If this was any country other than the United States, we wouldn't be having this debate. --CoryJosh (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support: While the lawsuits on their own (irrespective of their legal merit) may not constitute a coup attempt, the onslaught of baseless fraud allegations has been accompanied by numerous threats of violence or civil unrest, death threats against officials conducting the election and various extralegal attempts to influence their behavior -- notably Lindsay Graham's phone call to Brad Raffensperger and various implicit and explicit calls on Republican-led state legislatures to illegally appoint their own electors regardless of court decisions. The fact that it's, this far, a pitifully unsuccessful coup attempt doesn't make it any less an attempt. TKSnaevarr (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this utter nonsense. The election hasn't even been certified yet, the electors haven't even voted yet, Jan 20th hasn't happened yet. Constitutionally yours, GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:58, 3 December 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.

Trump 2020 election

Hello, please add that Trump has said he will concede if the election is certified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8103:5DB0:7036:FB15:8FFA:9EB3 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not exactly right: he said he will leave the White House (but not concede) if the Electoral College votes for Biden. I guess that's kind-of news; at least he won't have to be evicted from the White House as sounded possible for a while. I don't think we should add it yet, let's at least wait and see what he says tomorrow. He has a habit of changing his tune. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

He further clarified, while twirling his mustache, "If they do, they've made a mistake." One might assume "they" means the EC, but from a man reported to have vaguely threatened aliens before, aye, who knows. The truth is slowly coming out there, wait for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIARY is applicable.—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The information is currently included at current week of the presidential timeline. I will say my belief that could be important to note due to how unusual the situation is. (An in: We have one of the candidates taking actions not to leave office through claims disproven by reliable sources.) I would suggest using it in a short sentence, "Trump stated he would leave on Thanksgiving[Source]..." once we have the conclusion to that sentence. (As in: Did he leave, stay, or some other option.) Until we have the conclusion, I would recommend waiting and asking again at that time. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

But we don't have one of the candidates taking actions not to leave office, we have one of the candidates indicating he "certainly" will leave office, if and when he's declared a loser by the Electoral College ("And you know that.") Seems like he's saying the transition will proceed normally, depending on which way the college votes. In any case, "On Thanksgiving, Trump stated he would leave..." is less ambiguous. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

("And you know that."): Given that the actions the current president is taking have us discussing how to phrase them, no, we do not know that. That is also why were discussing how to handle the suggestion above. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I quoted Trump, responding to the reporter who asked him if he'd leave, not about us (that's his "certainly", too, I don't know). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, then I seem to have misunderstood your reply to me. I am still not fully following it, but I believe your suggestion in the last sentence is the better suggestion upon re-reading. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

He has changed the conditions for him to concede: "Biden can only enter the White House as President if he can prove that his ridiculous '80,000,000 votes' were not fraudulently or illegally obtained." https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1332352538855747584 There is no benefit from including information on what he says about when/how/why he will concede. A) he has changed his mind and likely will do so again, making keeping the information current a pain, B) any promise he makes about conceding has no legal weight, and C) his concession is not necessary for the process to continue as normal. Best to wait until it is all over and then sum up his general attitude without listing specific statements made. Wikkiwonkk (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Like I said above: "He has a habit of changing his tune." I also favor not mentioning Trump's ever-shifting response to this question. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It has been pointed out on cable networks that it is against the law to attempt to influence an official (or perhaps they said election official) to change the election result. Not clear about the law or the facts but such things are continually being reported. Not sure where that should appear, but since it’s being talked about and referenced, I would think there needs to be some discussion in the article. Some think the current administration would never start such an investigation, but if these allegations have any credence, the allegations and facts should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Results by state -- arithmetic

The table in section 2020 United States presidential election#Results by state displays both number of votes and shares of vote (as % rounding to the nearest .01%) in each of five columns representing four candidates and "Other", and in a sixth column for the two-party margin (as Biden minus Trump).

For Pennsylvania, where the Biden vote is closest to one half or 50.00%, I see at a glance and you can too, that we show a number of Biden votes that is less than half the total number of votes and a share that is greater than half, namely 50.02%. Because I don't know the convention that we intend to follow (should the table have arithmetic integrity? if so, how?), I leave it to you all how to correct the cell entries or to explain the convention.

• Pennsylvania. Our shares of vote for Biden, Trump, and the Libertarian (first three columns) sum to 100%, which presume a base that does not include Others (column five). Yet we report a number of votes for Others, and that is included in our total vote (last column).

(Perhaps our shares are derived* from the state-certified numbers of votes, following our first-listed source, where Pennsylvania does not certify any votes for Others --*but with a rounding error, as the Biden share would thus be 50.0085% which does not round to 50.02%). Meanwhile our numbers of votes match our second-listed source, which does report numbers for Others as well as for Biden, Trump, Jorg. Shares correctly derived from our numbers of votes, including the Others votes, are 49.97 47.79 1.15 and 0.09 with rounding.)

• Nevada. Our shares of vote sum to 100% for all columns including Others --and they match our numbers of votes without any rounding errors.

--P64 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I had added an unofficial reference for write-in votes in Pennsylvania. The problem was that the numbers for ballot candidates in that reference were slightly different from the official results, so it seems that later other users mixed up the numbers from the two references, making the percentages slightly inconsistent. I suppose that I shouldn't have added the unofficial write-in numbers or that reference anyway, so I just removed them and restored the percentages based only on the official results. I added a note explaining that the percentages don't reflect write-in votes. Heitordp (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Incumbent running

It says, correctly, that every previous incumbent since 1992 was re elected, and a total of 11 incumbents ran unseccessfully. Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that: Since 1992 there were 3 incumbents who were re elected There were a total (if I am correct) of 20 incumbents who were re elected. Yes, incumbents tend to be reelected, but it is not rare to lose. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That depends on how you define rare; 11 out of 46 seems rare. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't argue about "rare". I leave it to the reader. But it is not 11 out of 46. Not every incumbent ran for reelection. I'm just suggesting that we give the numbers to let the reader get some idea of the rarity. My own opinion is that the recent incumbents who lost left under a cloud, but I wouldn't say that in Wikipedia. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's the complete list of all incumbent presidents who sought, but did not win, re-election as president:

1) John Adams (lost to Jefferson in 1800 election)

2) John Quincy Adams (lost to Andrew Jackson in the 1828 election)

3) Martin Van Buren (Lost to William Henry Harrison in 1840 election, ran again in 1844, failed to get his party's nomination. Ran again in 1848 on a third party ticket, lost that election too)

4) Grover Cleveland (lost to Benjamin Harrison in 1892 election)

5) Benjamin Harrison (lost to Cleveland in 1896 election)

6) William Howard Taft (lost to Wilson in 1912 election)

7) Herbert Hoover (lost to FDR in 1932 election)

8) Gerald Ford (lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976 election)

9) Jimmy Carter (lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980 election)

10) George H. W. Bush (lost to Bill Clinton in 1992 election)

11) Donald Trump (lost to Joe Biden in 2020 election)

There are a few "asterisks" in here, however, such as Presidents who initially campaigned for re-election, but either lost at their party's convention to get nominated, or voluntarily stood down after early primary results didn't go their way, such as:

• Franklin Pierce (sought re-election in 1856, but failed to get his party's nomination, did not stand in general election in November)
• Andrew Johnson (sought re-election in 1868, but failed to get his party's nomination, did not stand in general election in November)
• Harry S Truman (initially sought re-election in 1952, dropped out after losing badly in first few primaries)
• Lyndon Baines Johnson (initially sought re-election in 1968, but after facing stiff opposition from Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy for the party nomination, dropped out of the race)

Also, there are a few Presidents who sought election after a period out of office; they did not win. This includes:

• Millard Fillmore (served as president until 1853, did not run in 1852, ran again in 1856 and lost)
• Theodore Roosevelt (served as president until 1909, did not run in 1908, ran again in 1912 and lost)

As far as I know, that's the complete list of every person who, after having served as president, tried (even briefly) and failed to win again. --Jayron32 17:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren. --Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So corrected. --Jayron32 12:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vote threshold for candidate table

(ping Reywas92, XavierGreen, Devonian Wombat)

The threshold for inclusion in the candidate table in 2016 was 0.05% of the votes, but the threshold has been different in every election year's article so I see no reason to use the same number in 2020. Instead, I find it better to select a threshold that reflects a natural separation between groups of candidates, based on the ratio of votes between one candidate and the next most voted. In 2020, among the candidates after the four prominently mentioned in the article, the highest ratio by far is between Brian Carroll and Alyson Kennedy (>5), all other ratios are <2.[6] So I suggest either listing only 4 candidates down to Howie Hawkins (threshold of 0.1%), or listing 10 candidates down to Brian Carroll (0.01%). A threshold of 0.05% in this case is inappropriate, as it lies between two candidates with a ratio of <1.3. What do you think? Heitordp (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree fully with this reasoning and advocate for inclusion down to Brian Carroll for the ratio that you cite. Dhalsim2 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

0.01% is far too low, it should be 0.05% or 0.1%. Perhaps be consistent with the Results by state table for top 4 only, but I don't think using the ratios between candidates makes much sense. Including three people who got literally zero coverage is undue. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Let me try to explain with a logarithmic chart, each candidate represented by a dot:

As you can see, there isn't a big difference between candidates 5 to 10, so I find it inappropriate to set the threshold in the middle of them. We should list either the top 4 or top 10. And if we consider media coverage as you mentioned, we definitely need to include Kanye West, who got less than 0.05%. And candidates 8 to 10 did get some coverage as they participated in the minor candidate debates. Would you accept 0.02%? It has the same effect as 0.01% in this case. Heitordp (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I knew exactly what you meant, I just don't like including the nobodies – or even West – in the main article when they couldn't get a single vote in a thousand. For 2016 we have Third_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Summary so the details beyond the top four or six can go at the similar Third_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Summary. Reywas92^Talk 01:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I agree to use 0.1% and list only the top 4 in the main article, and leave the others for the third-party article. If no one else comments in a few days I'll make the change. Heitordp (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that if we list only the top 4, this candidate table wouldn't have any information that is not already in the table of results by state. Can we just remove the candidate table? Heitordp (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump's lawyers claim that a dump of 600,000 votes in Pennsylvania votes went 99.5% for Biden

In this video, Trump's lawyers claim that in Pennsylvania, there was a dump of 600,000 votes that went 99.5% for Biden.

I have not seen this claim addressed, confirmed, or debunked by the mainstream media. I don't know why reliable sources have ignored this. At the minimum, they should at least report on the claim. And at best, they should either debunk it or confirm it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGGlnHe3Rgc

Reliable source fan (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not every claim is a valid claim; people can make any claim they want to. Unless and until there is an investigation that gives such claim validity, it doesn't need to be specifically mentioned. --Jayron32 17:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Pennsylvania vote has been counted and recounted. If there is a problem with 600,000 votes it would certainly have turned up. Trump's lawyers claim all kind of things, particularly in public videos where they can say anything they want because they are not under oath. If they take this claim to a court, and present their evidence, then we could mention it. But this is just PR talk. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Its not only Pennsylvania, it's other states as well. Have you heard the hours of testimony on the topic of Voter Fraud? They main stream media doesn't want to cover this because they want to keep the people who's only source of information that is, from the Nightly News for example, in the blue. There is more going on then people realize. I follow PT News Network ( https://www.ptnewsnetwork.com/ ) and sometimes the Epoch Times. PT News has been streaming the testimonies and there's Republicans and Democrats coming forward to say it was fraudulent. Now if you search you will find ABC and CBS and CNN all saying this is leading nowhere. The reason is because thats what they want you to think. Believe me or not, there is more going on that the Left doesn't want to have the rest of the world hear. I personally believe the election was fraudulent and every single day there is more evidence backing it up. I'm honestly excited to see what happens when Trump gets the next 4 years he won. No doubt there will be some angry people. (talk) 10:51, 5 December, 2020 (PST)

Baseplate RBLX, the sources you follow are unreliable. They are lying to you, or at best they are giving you only the details of stories that you want to hear for your own confirmation bias. There is no evidence of fraud. The Trump campaign has won one lawsuit and lost 46 as of this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, they need to lose those cases. The courts where they are being taken are controlled by the Democrats who will push it away. For it to go to the supreme court these lower courts need to turn them away. These sources might as well be as unreliable as ABC and CBS, the "non-bias new". (Talk) 1908, 5 December, 2020 (UTC)

It is so ridiculous that you believe this. You usually go to court to win cases, not lose. When cases are thrown out "with prejudice" because it lacks "factual proof", it's not getting to SCOTUS, no matter how conservative SCOTUS is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It's called the Appeals Process. This article will explain it. https://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/appeals-process-trial-court-supreme-court/ (Talk) 1927, 5 December, 2020 (UTC)

Not all of the courts are controlled by Democratic-leaning justices. More than a few were Republican appointees - including by Trump himself. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-philadelphia-d9c96c4593ec278f3b1d4bc564068df6 24.184.25.101 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source fan, if you're such a fan of reliable sources, then why are you pushing nonsense that has no reliable sources? If the reliable sources "have ignored this", then it is WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A lawsuit claims that out of the 900 military ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, 100% went for Biden

A lawsuit claims that out of the 900 military ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, 100% went for Biden.

It's on page 79 of this PDF:

https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf

I can't find any mainstream sources that reported on this. But the claim certainly deserves attention. It seems to me that it should be very easy for the mainstream media to check this out to see if the claim is true or false. The lawsuit itself is a public record.

Reliable source fan (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone makes a claim in a lawsuit does not mean the claim is true. People can make any claim they want to, unless and until it has been investigated, it has no truth value assigned to it; and as such, is not relevant to be included in the article. --Jayron32 16:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source fan So if I make a "claim" that Trump is a space alien from Mars in a lawsuit, should that be in the article as well? 331dot (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

900 from a heavily Democratic county doesn't seem unreasonable to me, assuming it is true. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It would certainly be unreasonable if all of the ballots went to Biden. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem odd to me. 900 people overseas voting against their current commander on chief seems eminently reasonable.--Khajidha (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a real lawsuit, it would belong in Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, how would they know that they were "military ballots"? Don't they have secret voting in that county? Probably that kind of absurdity is why no mainstream sources have chosen to report this claim. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Military forces overseas vote by mail. Those ballots would be clearly marked as to their point of origin. --Khajidha (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Other citizens reside outside of the country besides military personnel. Also, once a ballot is separated from its envelope to be counted, the ability to discern which ballots belong to whom, is gone. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Other people's mail isn't routed through APOs and FPOs. Mail from military bases would likely be kept separate until counting. Look at records from previous elections. There are always counts for in person, early voting, ordinary mail voting, general overseas voting, and military mail in votes. --Khajidha (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What Corvid said. Yes, the ballots from overseas military personnel and overseas American citizens arrive in distinctive envelopes and are accepted much later than domestic ballots.[7] But they are not segregated and counted separately in such a way that the vote can be traced back to the sender. They are counted like any other "secret ballot". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it, notice that the Trump lawyers' claim said "supposedly:" the election boards were asked to invalidate "all 900 military ballots in Fulton county that supposedly were 100% for Joe Biden." That's the actual wording in the lawsuit: "supposedly". [8] I think we are done here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

See https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2020/11/05/military-absentee-ballots-are-still-coming-in-to-battleground-states/ Obviously overseas ballots are kept in separate batches from general mail in vote. This may be because of stricter verification or longer periods of acceptance or several other reasons. However, this does not affect anonymity to an unreasonable degree. It is still impossible to tell which vote came from which particular voter, only that it came from a particular country (for civilian overseas voters) or military unit (for military voters). This is no more of a violation of anonymity than knowing which votes came from which precinct. --Khajidha (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

a neutral viewpoint requires you change "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" to "conspiracy theories allege fraud"

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 thought the lead paragraphs were all right, except when discussing Trump's position.

In my opinion, Wikipedia's policy of a neutral viewpoint requires that you change "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" to "conspiracy theories allege fraud" (i.e. remove the word falsely). This is because Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth.

As it stands now, the judgment that it is false in that sentence is attributable to wikipedia rather than any group of people, so you should change the sentence to attribute the view to someone or some group.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Marvinmarsupial (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marvinmarsupial: Q3/A3 in the above FAQ likely answers your request, —PaleoNeonate – 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marvinmarsupial: Many independent reliable sources state the claims are false, which is why we do. It is not Wikipedia making the judgement. If you disagree with what the sources state, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Q3/A3 is incorrect, shown with an example of a false claim

Paleo and 331dot, thank you for your responses. In my opinion, the Q3/A3 misinterprets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

If you are willing to think about something that is the opposite of your political point of view (a basic requirement of "neutrality") you can see how to write with a neutral point of view. A May 15th fact check about Trump's claims of a covid vaccine being available before the end of the year found:

“ "Experts say that the development, testing and production of a vaccine for the public is still at least 12 to 18 months off, and that anything less would be a medical miracle," NBC News wrote May 15 in a "fact check". ”

If a vaccine becomes available in December, which of these sentences would be appropriate to appear in Wikipedia after that date:

• [A] An NBC News fact check falsely claimed that a vaccine by the end of 2020 would take a medical miracle.
• [B] The vaccine became available in December 2020, which was a medical miracle.
• [C] In May 2020, Trump announced that the vaccine would be available by the end of the year, about which the media reported that experts said it would take "a medical miracle"; the vaccine became available in December of 2020.

The answer is that only C is correct. A and B are opposites, (A says that it's a false claim to call it a medical miracle, B calls it a medical miracle, so A and B are opposites). But although they are opposite statements, neither A nor B is a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is C. Wikipedia shouldn't report it either as a false claim nor as a miraculous fact. Neither expression reflects a neutral point of view. Instead, the view should be attributed rather than made by Wikipedia. I hope this example helps you understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and the difference between Wikipedia making a statement and attributing a statement. The article should be amended to follow Wikipedia's policy. Q3/A3 misinterprets this policy, in my opinion. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have a source saying that NBC was false with its fact check, it is not a violation of policy to state that a source says NBC was false. Many sources, including the ones in this article, state that Trump's claims are false. That's all we are saying. If you have reliable sources stating that Trump's claims are true or that a court has determined that they are true, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You could say that a source says NBC was false, but you still wouldn't write the words "NBC falsely claimed". So you got it. That's neutrality. You don't write the words "falsely claimed" you write that a source says it was false. Otherwise it's Wikipedia saying it. For neutrality, just apply what you just said to the article. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead does state that various sources call the claims false(officials in 50 states, Attorney General Barr). So I don't see the issue here. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For me the issue is in the sentence "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud", since that is not attributed. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Six sources are presented at the end of that sentence. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

the sentence should be rewritten to attribute the finding to those sources. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are saying that the sources do not call the claims false, then yes. If they call the claims false, then we do, too. This is not hard. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"If they call the claims false, then we do, too." - if they call the claims false, then we say they call the claims false. okay? Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's what we are doing. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Which version does it better: "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" or "conspiracy theories which all news sources report as false allege fraud"? Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The former. If all news sources call the statements false, then there is no need to qualify the statement. If the sources do not say that that the claims are false, then that line should be removed outright. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT is a helpful guideline on when and how to provide attribution.—Bagumba (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, thanks for the link. Based on the link, what is the best form for the phrase I asked about? ("conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" or "conspiracy theories which all news sources report as false allege fraud" or some other form.)Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot, the "all sources" is not needed. It is implied. If you take the INTEXT example, "The sun sets in the west each evening" doesn't need to say "all source say" or "everyone agrees that".—Bagumba (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There's an important difference between "all news sources" and "everyone". According to reuters 79% of republicans and 30% of democrats say they believe the vote was fraudulent. (I was pretty surprised by the latter figure). You don't think the view should be attributed even in such a case? Marvinmarsupial (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we're in asked and answered territory at this point, and it's time to move on. You can't keep making the same point over and over, expecting a different result. ValarianB (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)}}

Except for one minor case involving the distance of poll watchers from poll workers, Trump has lost every legal case with many judges saying the cases lack legal merit and even any evidence at all. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to inclusion of these facts as you've presented them (assuming they're cited, which shouldn't be hard). I just object to the word "falsely" in "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" since that is not attributed. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We present the WP:WEIGHT of viewpoints of reliable sources. In the case of the vaccine, as sources change, Wikipedia can reflect those changes. For the election, it's not a matter of being bland and neutral to never be proven wrong in the future. If the majority of reliable sources turn out to be wrong, Wikipedia, relying on them, will be "wrong" in that sense, but "correct" in that it reflected the sources at the time.—Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, which is why I made this whole thread. If you present Trump's view, rather than stick the word "falsely" in front of it so that it's Wikipedia making the claim, instead, as you write, you reflect the sources at the time. In other words, "falsely claimed" is incorrect but "which reputable sources consider false" is correct, according to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I don't think we're in disagreement about anything. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia making the claim, it is Wikipedia summarizing the sources. That's what all articles do. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I ask an uninvolved party to restore the closure of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Marvin is absolutely correct in asserting that there is a clear bias here. "Falsely claimed" is the incorrect wording and has an opinionated feel. Rather "reputable sources consider false" is much better. --2603:9000:7B02:D510:D020:F439:2C6F:B19A (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, we do not WP:CENSOR the truth in order to satisfy someone's built-up fantasy. If someone is dissatisfied with reality, that is their problem. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:59, 3 December 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.

I notice a couple of different editors started censoring these talk pages. This is inappropriate Wikipedia conduct.

I noticed that a couple of different editors have started censoring these talk pages. I've reverted the censorship.

These talk pages are the places to discuss things freely. There is no length limit, and the talk pages are not particularly long. Please cease attempting to censor them and allow people to discuss them freely. If I see further attempts at censorship I will escalate the process. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstand what talk pages are for. They are not for unlimited, unrestrained discussion about any topic. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I would ask that you restore the closure of the discussion and move on from this topic. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So you are doing what you are arguing against. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing a section isn't censorship. I've done it as a compromise. I would ask that you also move on. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither is a closure. The discussion remained for all to see. I ask you to reverse the concealment of my comments. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:FREESPEECH. It is not "censorship" to remove, collapse ("hat"), or archive off-topic discussions or ones that raise questions that have already been discussed ad nauseum. From the relevant guideline, Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. However, it is disruptive to partially collapse discussions as you've done here, so I've undone that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of hatting the entire thing, as the continuous complaining about an established FAQ entry is not going to go anywhere productive. If someone other than "Marvinmarsupial" wishes to undo that, feel free, but it feels like a timesink at this point. ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

More Results are in but haven't been added

Idaho: https://www.livevoterturnout.com/Idaho/LiveResults/1/en/Index_113.html Colorado: https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/105975/web.264614/#/summary Tennessee: https://sos-tn-gov-files.tnsosfiles.com/Nov%202020%20General%20Totals.pdf Nebraska: https://electionresults.nebraska.gov/resultsSW.aspx?text=Race&type=PC&map=CTY Kansas: https://electionresults.nebraska.gov/resultsSW.aspx?text=Race&type=PC&map=CTY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.44.113.182 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Kansas, Nebraska and Tennessee have been added. Idaho still says unofficial, and one county in Colorado is not yet complete. Heitordp (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I added Idaho based on the certificate of ascertainment and the write-in report. After the state's website says "official" we can replace the references. Heitordp (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Electoral Votes

Do they change as in 2008 Texas was 34 now its 38? florida was 27 now its 29? According to the election maps on wiki!--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cynthia BrownSmyth, Yes, they are allocated based on population, so as population grows or declines, the amount of EV goes up or down.Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

They are reapportioned after each census. As this year was a census, the congressional districts will be redone for 2022. Remember, electoral votes are equal to the number of Representatives and Senators per state. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional Maps

Once every state certifies their results, do we plan on adding some cartograms? The 2016 United States Presidential Election article also includes a table detailing the vote breakdown by various demographic subgroups, which would be useful here. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

Remove the word "False" from "claims of voter fraud".

The inclusion of "False" in this context is an opinion and a characterization which, while perhaps supported by many sources, is far from factual. It adds nothing to the article and leads the reader to believe this is an editorial rather than an encyclopedic article. Gregausman (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)— Gregausman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I support this request. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the allegations of voter fraud are false. Trump's lawyers are not alleging fraud in court. Calling them "false" is the only way to be neutral. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

the word "unproven" could be used to reflect the legal status you mention. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

They aren't "unproven", though. They are false. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) See the FAQ at the top of this page; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and they state that the claims are false. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. If you have reliable sources with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking that say the claims are true, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI. This user seems very committed to asking people to "take it up with" the sources he prefers. For example he wrote 11 times in my thread, including also suggesting I "take it up with" the sources he prefers, and also tried to censor my thread. In another thread in which I complained about censorship on these talk pages, he responded 3 times in a row. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not about sources that I prefer. What I prefer is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Marvinmarsupial, it has already been mentioned (both to you and on this talk page) that Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Per WP:REPUTABLE, reliable sources should be reliable, independent, published, accurate, and have fact-checking. Sources that users do not believe to meet these requirements can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. If a number of discussion have occurred on a specific source, they are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WP:RSP). Generally, sources that are repeatedly discussed end up being listed on WP:RSP. I do not see any specific complains against a specific source, with the except NBC News in a different section which was last confirmed to be a reliable source in May. However, all the sources we are using in the article have a rating of "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" to my current knowledge.

If you have a serious complaint on any source, then you should review WP:RSPIMPROVE and considered the issue of if WP:REPUTABLE has not been met or a different issue that you believe warrants consideration. Then, I would recommend that you review the numerous discussions listed at WP:RSPSOURCES, before gathering any supposed sources, articles, or other evidence that you believe proves that they are unreliable. After that, if you believe that you have a source that does not meet the requirements of WP:REPUTABLE, then you can post a thread as noted in the instructions at WP:RSPIMPROVE, preferably after giving it some time to reflect on. If you do not post a thread, then I personally request that you reduce the number of complaints that you have regarding sources and "censorship" on the talk page. All editors are recommended to list reliable sources when suggesting edits and I do not see that here. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

can we link to primary sources?

There are some interesting primary sources that are becoming available. May these be linked when they are short and clear? For example there is a video recording of suitcases full of ballots which were hidden under desks at polling stations and removed and counted after poll watchers had left. https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1334569329334083586 I am wondering if it can be linked in the relevant sections, or only secondary sources can be linked? Marvinmarsupial (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not primary sources. Those can only be used in limited circumstances, see WP:PRIMARY. You don't have the full context of the video. 331dot (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The linked policy says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" and where it is not used to synthesize an opinion. ("Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.") Marvinmarsupial (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said, you don't have the full context of the video to be able to judge facts as to what occurred. 331dot (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile... "A video Donald Trump’s campaign alleged was “smoking gun” evidence that secret “suitcases” of ballots went counted without observers, has been dismissed by Republican election officials...Georgia's voting system implementation manager, Gabriel Sterling, said afterwards that the surveillance video provided no evidence that was suspicious, and that there was no wrongdoing." [9] IHateAccounts (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020 (2)

"Polls showed that 58% to 68% of Asian American and Pacific Island voters (AAPI voters) supported Biden-Harris while 28% to 40% supported Trump-Pence."

I suspect this section was written to create an impression of stronger Asian/AAPI support for Trump than actually existed. I believe the 58-40 number is specifically for Asian voters in Nevada (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-americans-are-growing-fastest-nevada-here-s-how-they-n1247323), while the 68-28 numbers are from one of the various exit polls that attempted to break down the voting patterns for different Asian subgroups. For comparison, the national AP exit poll had Asian voters at 70-28 Biden, while the NBC/Edison exit poll had the overall Asian vote at 63-31. I find it noteworthy that the exit polls that claimed to provide representative breakdowns of the nationwide Asian American electorate all had Biden winning 65-70% of Asian voters.

Either 1) change the quoted line to "61 to 70% of Asian American and Pacific Island voters (AAPI voters) supported Biden-Harris", or 2) cite a source/exit poll showing that Biden-Harris won 58% of the nationwide AAPI vote. Psyche da mike24 (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Per the source, In the critical swing state of Nevada, AAPI voters supported Biden 58 percent to 40 percent. And in a national election poll fielded by Asian American Decisions, Latino Decisions, and the African American Research Collaborative in the two weeks leading up to the election, 68 percent of AAPI voters said they were supporting Biden while 28 percent backed Trump. Personally, it seems like the text is incorrectly citing the source, though I don't think it was intentionally cherrypicked and believe that the editor misunderstood what the source said. For the moment, I will remove the Nevada percentages, but I think the section does need more citations and support. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

State maps

Here is the dilemma: for some state maps of county results the state is displayed with the northernmost point of said state being at the top of the image (Arizona, D.C., and Florida, among others,) while other states such as Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have been rotated, no longer having the top of the image being directly north of the bottom of the image. Clearly, this is an inconsistency with how we map these county results and we need to build a consensus. For me, it seems that the most logical thing to do is to have the top of the image represent true north since that seems to be the only consistent thing among all the other images of state results to do. Having each state arbitrarily rotated is arbitrary, and readers already assume that the top of the image represents the northernmost part of the map even though that is not true. Thoughts? ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it is based on a full map of the US, like File:United States presidential election results by county, 2020.svg. This is the cause for the rotation. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: I understand that but what I want us to establish is a proper guideline on how to display these maps since some are rotated while others are not. I just want to make it consistant. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I was initially responding to the following portion: ... for some state maps of county results the state is displayed with the northernmost point of said state being at the top of the image ... while other states ... have been rotated, no longer having the top of the image being directly north of the bottom of the image. Clearly, this is an inconsistency with how we map these county results and we need to build a consensus. That is why my reply was just explaining why the rotation exists. Given your clarification, I would like to point out that we do not link to any of those maps on this article, so this might not be the best talk page to discuss it. Even so, there is also the issue that there would be a number of state maps to adjust to a new standard. You might want to consider the pros and cons of the situation first. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what others have said about your suggestion itself, but you seem confused about what is "north" on a U.S. map. For example, the northernmost "point" of Arizona is the whole Utah border and that of Washington state is the whole Canada border. BlueSwede92 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

Remove the word "False" from "False claims of voter fraud".

The inclusion of "False" in this context is an opinion and a characterization which, while perhaps supported by many sources, is far from factual. It adds nothing to the article and leads the reader to believe this is an editorial rather than an encyclopedic article. Gregausman (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)— Gregausman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Repeating the same request over and over will not change the result. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just as repeatedly stating that an election was rigged doesn't make it true. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    • FWIW - Seems the "Big Lie" article (esp the related "CIA profile analysis") may apply here - iac - hope this helps - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

im just going to add a label showing that pennsylvania is the tipping point state in close states 76.168.202.227 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion above called #tipping point state. Perhaps responding there would be better. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

California certified

Just FYI, California certified today, officially securing enough electors to win the Electoral College vote. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

California has been added to the table of results. Heitordp (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

From where are we getting the exit poll data?

It is hard to believe Trump won 19% of black men when predominately black counties were (within a couple points) just as Democratic as last time. Exit polls can be wrong, and are usually weighted to match with actual county/statewide results. (The reweighting has taken longer this year because of the delay in counting the vote.) Have the exit polls we are citing been re-waited yet? CozyandDozy (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Broken ref in the infobox

The references regarding the turnout in the infobox (refs 3 and 4), simply say Cite error: The named reference turnout2020 was invoked but never defined, could someone please fix this? Nojus R (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just done so. Looks like the reference definitions fell victim to a recent spate of reversions. From the edit summaries, looks like the main problem is that newer numbers might be one day available ... but for now, these seem reliable enough. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Voter turnout

The FEC calculated the voter turnout for 2016 as about 55.7%, and the US Elections Project calculates it for 2020 as about 66.6%, but the increase in turnout was not about 11 percentage points. The two sources use different definitions for the turnout, mainly that the FEC uses the whole adult US population in the denominator while the US Elections Project uses only US citizens. I find the US Elections Project more accurate, but if we want to use it we also have to change it in previous articles for consistency. The actual increase in turnout, using the same definition in both years, was about 6.5 percentage points.

For now, I left the estimate of 66.6% in the infobox noting that it's preliminary and not comparable to the FEC figure, and not calculating the percentage point increase. After the FEC publishes its figure, expected several months from now, we can change the number in the infobox and calculate the increase. Heitordp (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, we could also just cite both and leave a note that the sources uses different calculations. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A test on a Dominion machine that was used in Georgia showed that it changed 13% of Trump's votes to Biden

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.

---

https://generaldispatch.whatfinger.com/a-test-holy-cow-ware-county-ga-ran-same-number-of-trump-and-biden-voters-to-test-dominion-system-biden-came-out-ahead-by-26-what/

Reliable source fan (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not a RS, so why the oxymoronic username? -- Valjean (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Reliable source fan:  Not done: please follow your own advice and use reliable sources. The source you've provided is not. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:30, 7 December 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.

Official Certified New Jersey Results are published.

https://nj.gov/state/elections/election-information-2020.shtml

https://nj.gov/state/elections/assets/pdf/election-results/2020/2020-official-general-results-president.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I added New Jersey to the table of results. Heitordp (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Undemocratic System

This highly important fact should be stated in the article as one persons vote in California is worth less than 1/3 than a vote (55 votes for 40 million, 1.375 votes per million), Than in states with 3 votes , Al 730K, Del 1M, Col 690K, Mon 1.07M etc! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#:~:text=Each%20state%20appoints%20electors%20according,the%20president%20and%20vice%20president.--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This is somewhat irrelevant to the 2020 election, as we would need to put it in each election page if we wanted to be consistent. Nojus R (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to this specific election. There's no reason for its inclusion in this particular article. Builder018 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey Official Results Published

New Jersey certified its results in the 2020 Presidential election, and they can be included in the results by state section.

Currently, the line for N.J. is blank. Biden got 2,608,335 votes. Trump got 1,883,274. Jorgensen got 31,677. Hawkins got 14,202. Others got 11,865. Margin between Biden and Trump is 725,061. Total votes are 4,549,353. Source is: https://nj.gov/state/elections/assets/pdf/election-results/2020/2020-official-general-results-president.pdf BrianHealey (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Heitordp (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

GSA

@Jehochman: The GSA chief was unwilling to start the transition. And in the open letter, she stated that she received threats in an effort to coerce her into making this determination prematurely, and that the GSA does not certify the winner. Anyone can clearly see that she does not want to acknowledge Biden as the winner and was coerced to start the transition due to the threats. Therefore, I think the lede has gone too far by saying the GSA "officially acknowledged" Biden as the winner. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What "anyone can see" does not matter; what matters is what independent reliable sources say. Her own letter says that she received threats but not that they motivated her decision to proceed with the transition. If sources do say the threats affected her decision, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the lede was not neutral before. Rather than flipper flopping it to a non-neutral formulation for the political right, I have changed it to say that GSA has ascertained the apparent winner. This aligns with the wording on GSA.gov. As for the issue of threats and pressure, that's a detail that doesn't belong in the lede. It could be addressed in the section of the article about Trump's behavior after the election. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Colorado vote totals

The vote totals for Colorado do not match the results shown on the website cited as the reference. The "total votes" is corrected but the rest of the values are not. https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/105975/web.264614/#/summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.142.113.231 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

California Vote Totals are incorrect

The California Secretary of State had not certified the county canvass by Friday afternoon. I personally had a call with the California SoS Elections office and they personally informed me the certification was in process at that very moment. Then AP News and Bloomberg both published stories claiming the canvass had been certified but did not provide any vote totals. As of this writing, California had still not published anything externally attesting to the final certification of the county canvass. So I again called the California SoS office and spoke to someone in Media Relations. That person has sent me a PDF copy of the official certification with the signature of the SoS and the seal of the state of California.

The official certified results are: Joseph R. Biden, Democratic, 11,110,250 Donald J. Trump, Republican, 6,006,429 Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian, 187,895 Howie Hawkins, Green, 81,029 Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente Guerra, American independent, 60,160 Gloria La Riva, Peace and Freedom, 51,037 Brian Carroll, Write-In, 2,598 Jesse Ventura, Write-In, 610 Mark Charles, Write-In, 557 Brock Pierce, Write-In, 185 Joseph Kishore, Write-In, 121

I have a copy of the certification in PDF form if you can let me know how I can get it to you.