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.

RfC: Should we include nominee boxes and primary results for third parties?

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.

---

Should this article include full-size templates presenting presidential nominees of third parties, like below? 00:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominee

File:LPF-torch-logo (cropped).png 2020 Libertarian Party ticket
Jo Jorgensen	Spike Cohen
for President	for Vice President
Senior Lecturer at Clemson University	Podcaster and businessman

Candidates

colspan="6" style="text-align:center; font-size:120%; color:black; background:Template:Libertarian Party (United States)/meta/color;" |Candidates in this section are sorted by date of withdrawal
Jacob Hornberger	Vermin Supreme	John Monds	Jim Gray	Adam Kokesh	Dan Behrman
Founder and President of the Future of Freedom Foundation	Performance artist, activist, and political satirist	Former president of the Grady County, Georgia, NAACP	Former presiding judge for the Superior Court of Orange County, California	Libertarian and anti-war political activist	Software engineer and podcaster
		—	—	—
—	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	—
W: May 23, 2020 8,986 votes (20.55%) 236 first round delegates	W: May 23, 2020 4,288 votes (9.81%) 171 first round delegates	W: May 23, 2020 1 vote (<0.01%) 147 first round delegates	W: May 23, 2020 42 votes (0.10%) 98 first round delegates	W: May 23, 2020 2,728 votes (6.24%) 77 first round delegates	W: May 23, 2020 2,337 votes (5.34%) 0 first round delegates
Sam Robb	Justin Amash	Ken Armstrong	Lincoln Chafee	Max Abramson	Kim Ruff
Software engineer and author Former naval officer	U.S. representative from MI-03 (2011–present)	U.S. Coast Guard commissioned officer (1977–1994)	Governor of Rhode Island (2011–2015) U.S. senator from Rhode Island (1999–2007)	New Hampshire state representative (2014–2016; 2018–present)	Vice chair of the LPRadical Caucus
	—	—	—
Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	—
W: May 23, 2020 1,943 votes (5.06%) 0 first round delegates	W: May 17, 2020 3 votes (0.01%) 17 first round delegates	W: April 29, 2020 3,509 votes (8.03%) 0 first round delegates	W: April 5, 2020 294 votes (0.67%) 1 (write-in) first round delegate	W: March 3, 2020 2,052 votes (5.34%) 0 first round delegates	W: January 11, 2020 3,045 votes (7.93%) 0 first round delegates

Nominee

2020 Green Party ticket
Howie Hawkins	Angela Walker
for President	for Vice President
Co-founder of the Green Party	ATU Local 998 Legislative Director (2011–2013)

Candidates

colspan="6" style="text-align:center; font-size:120%; color:white; background:Template:Green Party (United States)/meta/color;" |Candidates in this section are sorted by delegate count
Dario Hunter Officially Recognized	Sedinam Moyowasifza-Curry	Dennis Lambert	Jesse Ventura	David Rolde Officially Recognized
Member of the Youngstown Board of Education (2016–2020)	Activist	Documentary Filmmaker	Governor of Minnesota (1999–2003)	Co-chair of the Greater Boston Chapter of the Green-Rainbow Party
		—	—	—
Campaign	—	—	—	—
89.5 delegates (20.1%) 3,087 votes	10.5 delegates (3.0%) 2,229 votes	9 delegates (2.6%) 2,029 votes	8 delegates (1.7%) >49 votes	5.5 delegates (1.6%) 960 votes
			No Candidacy

00:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Per WP:DUE, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to [...] prominence of placement [...] and use of imagery. The templates look nice but they are clearly undue here, as they would also be for any of the several other third party candidates. The extent of arguably noteworthy material on the above candidates in the article is this:

Jo Jorgensen, who was the running mate of author Harry Browne in 1996, received the Libertarian nomination at the national convention on May 23, 2020. She achieved ballot access in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on September 8, 2020, when her Rhode Island petition was verified by the Secretary of State.

Howie Hawkins became the presumptive nominee of the Green Party on June 21, 2020, and was officially nominated by the party on July 11, 2020. Hawkins has also been nominated by the Socialist Party USA, Solidarity, Socialist Alternative, and the Legal Marijuana Now Party. Hawkins has secured ballot access to 401 electoral votes as of September 15, 2020, and has write-in access to 113 electoral votes.

(Extra info on conventions is cited to primary sources and a newsletter called Ballot Access News.)

We could autocollapse the templates, create a smaller/less prominent alternative, or just remove them entirely, which is what I'd opt for, as versions already exist at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• No per the above argument over WP:Due. The templates are large and give the impression that Hawkins and Jorgensen are considered on some level of equal footing with the Democratic and Republican sources given that the Democratic and Republican candidates have similar templates used, which is a level of equal footing not backing by sourcing. Moreover, the 2016 article does not have the same level of template equality this page does, and while I need to be careful of WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, and an election page looks different pre and post election, I do believe that the 2016 article is relevant. The 2016 page documents the last election, and given that the sourcing does not give any reason to believe that third parties in this election are going to have a more significant effect in this election than in 2016, such should be accurately reflected in the page. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Conditionally Yes as discussion below brings up the idea that the boxes should be collapsed, removing the nomination part as substitution, which is a solution I am equally in favor of. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party is on equal footing with the Democrats and Republicans ballot access wise, it has ballot access in all 50 states plus DC.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not consider ballot access alone an accurate signifier of impact on the election; poll numbers are generally considered a good indicator of how relevant a candidate will be in the election, and only Trump and Biden have polling numbers of any significance. Neither Jorgensen nor Hawkins have any other reason to be considered impactful in the election. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Except that they plainly do and your blatently wrong. For example polling agencies regularly poll Hawkins and Jorgensen alongside Trump and Jorgensen but not other third party candidates. Also, Jorgensen at least is plainly having an impact because Jorgensen frequently polls higher than the projected margin of victory in many polls. Finally, wiki:CrystalBall prohibits such conjectural analysis as you have used because the event in question, the election, has not happened yet. There is thus no definitive way to know what their impact will be on the election. In Florida in 2000, Nadar and Buchanan's candidacies ended up being deciding factors in the Election, and yet neither of them polled higher than 5%.XavierGreen (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

On Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election, there have been 339 polls conducted between May 1, 2020 and today, Sept 22, 2020. Jorgensen in included in 44 of those polls and Hawkins in 43 of them, for a percentage of ~13% and ~12.7%. I don't know what you define "regularly" as, but certainly being included in under 15% of polls does not qualify as regular inclusion. Furthermore, in said 44 polls, Jorgensen polls above the margin of victory by 1% in one single poll, and ties the margin of victory in 2 more polls. Jorgensen does not frequently poll higher than the projected margin of victory. Figuring in margin of error with Jorgensen's polling, the sum of Jorgensen's polling and the margin of error is only larger than the projected margin of victory in 6 of the 35 polls which include Jorgensen and a margin of error. So even if you include the margin of error, Jorgensen does not "poll higher than the projected margin of victory in many polls". Additionally, WP:CrystalBall does not prohibit speculation on an event if the speculation is well documented in reliable sources. The entire article is based on this speculation, so even if the fact that there is no definitive way to know what their impact will be on the election is true, there is a definitive way to determine what reliable sources consider their impact on the election will be. Lastly, you are correct that Nadar was considered by some to have an effect on the election, both pre and post election night. However, The Bush/Gore race was considered to be much closer than the Trump/Biden race, and as such Nadar's inclusion in the race was seen as much more controversial than Jorgensen's. Republican leadership ran pro Nadar ads in some states and the President of the Sierra Club even wrote Nadar about his concerns. No one on any level of similar notability is writing any of the third party candidates open letters nor is the Trump campaign running pro Jorgensen or Hawkins ads, to my knowledge at least. Jorgensen is not considered a spoiler candidate in the way Nadar was, a more precise comparison is to that of Evan McMullin in 2016, who was not considered to be a spoiler candidate until after the election and included as such then. If Jorgensen defies what reliable sources are reporting and is later considered a spoiler candidate after the election, then such should be recorded after the election, and only then. WittyRecluse (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationwide polling is utterly meaningless in United States presidential elections, the national popular vote is of utterly no consequence to the results of the election. Rather statewide polling shows a candidates impact. In several key states, Jorgensen is polling higher than the projected margin of victory in various polls.XavierGreen (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationwide polling is not utterly meaningless in United States presidential elections, as prior example Nader's goal of 5% for federal matching funds has carried on into even this election and the likelihood of a national popular vote winner also winning the election is quite high. But, as they say, correlation does not mean causation. In any case, Jorgensen is not considered to be making an impact in state races by reliable pollsters. In all 13 states I could find with at least one poll that shows Jorgensen's polling numbers combined with the margin of error outpolling the margin of victory (Az, Fl, Ga, Ia, Mi, Mn, Nv, Nh, Oh, Pn, Tx, and Wi), she was included in an average of 14% of polls, only breaking 15 percent in Az and Nc and not breaking 25% in either of those states. In these 13 states, she outpolled the margin of victory ~23.3% of the time, outpolled or tied the margin of victory ~37% of the time and outpolled the margin of margin of victory when combined with the margin of error ~46%. Even with a less than decent sample size and all the possible ways to find relevancy, Jorgensen isn't close more than half the time. The only individual states that Jorgensen's polling numbers mean anything in any category more than half the time were Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina (excluding Nv, Nh, and Oh which had one poll with Jorgensen each, and Ia, which had 2). However, Georgia only has 6 polls with Jorgensen, so her having relevant numbers in 4 simply means the sample size is too small. She is only relevant in Fl because there were 8 polls with margins of error and she was outside the margin of victory when combined with the margin of error 5 times. She did not exceed 50% when considering the 2 extra polls that did not have margins of error. The most compelling case is North Carolina, where she was included in 18 of 75 polls (the highest percentage by far (almost 25%)) and because she tied the margin of victory 6 times and beat it 5, so 30% of the time she beat the margin of victory and 60% of the time she beat or tied it. When summed with the margin of error she beats the margin of victory a whopping 75% of the time, but only with 12 polls of data. I am unwilling to say that someone who is arguably relevant in 1 state based off of being included in 10 or 20 polls out of almost 80 polls is someone who is going to have an impact in the election.

Moreover, all of this doesn't matter, because what I think or do math on is literally irrelevant. Clearly my ranting is WP:OR. What matters is what reliable sources think, and clearly reliable pollsters don't consider her to be a significant candidate because she isn't included in even 1/4 of yearly polls in any of the states or districts and reliable sources elsewhere don't consider her an impactful candidate either becuase they consider this to be a 2 candidate race decided by things that are not third parties. The point is, my OR cant even find her as an impactful candidate. If Jorgensen really is an impactful candidate, reliable sources do not think so and we aren't in the business of righting WP:RGW here, so unless there are other WP:RSs out there who do consider Jorgensen to be an impactful candidate, the WP:ONUS of bringing reliable sources that believe so here is on you. Clearly they aren't pollsters because they do not find her impactful WittyRecluse (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What reliable sources state Jorgen and Hawkins are irrelevant as you purport? THAT is OR and your own biased opinion. While in contrast there are tons of polls that show Jorgensen polling greater than the margin of victory in various states. For example see this Georgia poll from just yesterday [https://www.ajc.com/politics/ajc-poll-race-for-president-senate-contests-in-georgia-too-close-to-call/FCIZO2M5ZNH2XAQBRMAXJLFQVE/. I can post a myriad of others.XavierGreen (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do not think you read the comment you responded to. As stated previously, "the WP:ONUS of bringing reliable sources that believe [Jorgensen is a relevant candidate] is on you". From WP:ONUS directly: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Clearly, these templates are disputed content, so I do not need to find sources that state Jorgensen and Hawkins are irrelevant, you need to find sources that state Jorgensen and Hawkins are relevant. Also, my "biased" opinion is based off of the polling that you are talking about. Georgia has had 35 polls conducted by reliable pollsters in 2020, and, due to the new poll, it now has 7 polls with Jorgensen in it. While you are right that Jorgensen beats the margin of victory in 5 of the 7 polls, inclusion in only 7 polls out of 35 (20% inclusion in polls in Georgia) certainly is not a large enough sample size to make a clear and obvious determination on whether or not reliable pollsters think she is going to make an impact on the election there, especially considering only 20% of pollsters in 2020 consider her to be relevant enough to include at all. Further more, she is beating the margin of victory by exactly 1% in all 5 polls she beats it in, and, most importantly, the margin of error in those polls is larger than what she polls at in 6 of 7 polls and larger than 1% in all of them. An opinion based off of reliable pollsters, assuming I've taken them as a whole and weighted them fairly, which I believe I have, is not biased. Your judgement is off of "some polls" or "various polls" or "tons of polls" and not the wholistic picture. In any case, again as previously stated, Georgia is a much less effective example to use for argument than North Carolina. WittyRecluse (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, NPOV demands it and the so called Undue weight arguement is inaccurate. Joregensen and Hawkins are regularly included in polling and Jorgensen has hit 5% in several polls including those used to determine who enters the presidential debates. If anything Jorgensen and Hawkins should be added to the infobox at the top of the page.XavierGreen (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, as clearly WP:UNDUE and as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Besides, none of them are even included in most polls and their polling is pretty low. It would also look right now as if they are given more coverage in this article than that for Libertarian/Green in the 2016 United States presidential election, when the candidates for those two parties had way more coverage in sources ahead of the election. Impru20^talk 16:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• No. Fails WP:UNDUE. Coverage is not proportionate to that of the legitimate candidates. KidAd talk 16:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"legitimate candidates"? How exactly are the Libertarian and Green party candidates not "legitimate candidates", they are ballot qualified and have filed all proper paperwork with the FEC. Your statement smacks of what this really is, an attempt to sway the article against third party candidates of any sort and thus a blatant NPOV violation.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak No While I do find them useful, third parties aren't really as important as the major ones and they can easily work just as well with galleries or a table Weak Yes per Tartan357. Nojus R (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes with the nomination infoboxes/tables collapsed it provides appropriate WP:DUE weight. That said, I would also be fine with the nomination part being removed and just leaving the box with the nominees and their photographs. As these parties have ballot access to over 270 electoral college votes, it would be undue to exclude them and a photograph of their nominees. Those who want to know more about Green or Libertarian nomination contests/primaries, can find that information on the pages about those nominations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Wikipedeans arguing for the suppression of third party candidates should be seriously considered for permanent edit bans from the site. They obviously see this free encyclopedia project as a political cudgel. I think their stance on something as simple as mentioning certain candidates at the same level as others is very useful for determining the attitude they take for all of their edits and contributions. Imagine if our article on the 2000 elections refused to list Third party Candidate Ralph Nader, despite the huge impact he arguably had on the election results. Popularity does not equal notability. 12.33.243.106 (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Neither party has had a notable impact upon the election thus far, and if any candidates other than Biden or Trump were to become notable in their campaign, the page would be edited to reflect it as such. Your argument that "Wikipedeans arguing for the suppression of third party candidates should be seriously considered for permanent edit bans from the site." is a hysterical claim and does not belong on this talk page. There is no suppression - in fact, I'd argue that there are a few here who are trying to increase the notability of candidates by trying to give candidates undue weight on this page. However, I'd agree with Darryl Kerrigan that the boxes should be added, but collapsed, removing the nomination part as substitution. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• No - this is a clear-cut case of WP:UNDUE. Unless one or both of these candidates qualifies for a debate or consistently polls above 5% nationally, there is no reason to include them. No reliable source has indicated that either one has a chance at becoming president, or even has a chance to change the outcome of the election. --WMSR (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• They should stay. There were several false electors in 2016, and even if neither receives more than 5% of the national vote it is very possible that they will receive a vote from at least one faithless elector. If that happens, then the 2020 results page will end up including them while the 2020 election does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimmeytop (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Although the reliable sources generally do not consider them to be viable candidates for the presidency, the Libertarian and Green nominees are typically considered to have a potentially substantial effect on the outcome of the election and are commonly included in national and swing state polls. For example, Michelle Obama warned voters in her 2020 DNC speech that it would be potentially costly to "play games with candidates who have no chance of winning", and The Wall Street Journal recently pointed out that third parties received more votes than the winner's margin of victory in several key swing states in 2016, saying: "In some battleground states, [third party votes] made up a larger share of the vote than the margin between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump." Trump himself argued in his recent interview with Laura Ingraham that Gary Johnson caused him to lose the popular vote in 2016. The reliable sources routinely represent the Libertarian and Green candidacies as important factors that could tip the scales of the election, and it is therefore perfectly WP:DUE to include them in this article under the Other parties and independent candidates heading. Moreover, the WP:CONSENSUS has been in favor of inclusion in past presidential election pages (see 2012 United States presidential election#Third party and other nominations and 2016 United States presidential election#Minor parties and independents), and we would need a compelling reason unique to 2020 to overturn that consensus for this article alone. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, concerning Tartan357's point I would also add in a similar vein that the Democratic party's attempts to keep the Greens off the ballots in some states also suggests the Greens are more significant then the DNC would care to admit. See sources like any of these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] & [6].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, per "No votes" that cited the issue of WP:UNDUE. Idealigic (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per other comments, WP:UNDUE, and the lack of clear precedent for such actions in prior election years. I believe that it would only make sense to think about including candidates from either or both parties in the main infobox in an election article following a prior election in which those third party candidates earned a significant number of electoral votes. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and since available sources are pretty plainly clear about the fact that third-party candidates haven't been shown to make a substantial difference in the electoral vote tally, there is in fact an established precedent to not include third-party candidates in reliable coverage on presidentiial races. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Jgstokes, why do you not see 2016 United States presidential election#Libertarian Party as precedent for inclusion? Also, why are you talking about the "main infobox"? This RfC has nothing to do with that. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 10:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, previously, this page was where that information was primarily presented. However, with the recent changes to Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, third-party candidates being included here is both a WP:CONTENTFORK and a violation of WP:UNDUE, as they are completely irrelevant electorally. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE. Sources cover mainly the Democratic and Republican tickets. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• No because these third-party candidates, while I admire their gumption, have not generated enough support (as measured by media coverage and polls) to merit equal standing (due weight) with the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 21:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  Markworthen, I think "equal standing" would be putting them in the infobox. We're just talking about whether they should be included in the body of the article.  — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I understood the RfC to be about including the templates in the article body, and my "No" was based on that understanding. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 05:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note - Why has the entire set of infoboxs (ie everything) been removed while the RfC is ongoing? Also I am not sure a "No" vote results in all of the content being removed. There was discussion of compromises that removed some of the content (presumably for due weight or redundancy) but not all. The way that the RfC question was worded meant that a "Yes" would leave everything as it is, but a "No" does not necessarily mean everything is removed, only that the content will be changed in some way (ie some of it is removed, all of it is removed, or it is altered, etc).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  Darryl Kerrigan, I support keeping them as-is but would prefer collapsing them to removing them entirely, which is what some "no" !votes are conditional on. I agree that their removal was premature. I also think a case can be made for removing Hawkins but not Jorgensen because she has universal ballot access; it is not necessary to either keep or remove both tickets. These are examples of conditional/compromise "no" positions that the editor who boldly removed the boxes failed to consider. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think collapsing them or removing the "nomination" box is appropriate, but the photos of the actual presidential candidates should stay. I am not sure we need the "nomination" boxes for the Democrats or Republicans either. This content is covered in another article, and likely doesn't need to be restated here (but a "see also" line is appropriate).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• No Seems to take up a lot of space and provide little of value. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, it's the only place in the article with pictures of the candidates. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Tartan357, why do we need to have their pictures in the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, pictures show readers what the candidates look like, which is of great encyclopedic value. It seems strange to me that it's deemed necessary to have Biden's and Trump's portraits each appear in two places in the article (their ticket boxes and the infobox) while those of other candidates are kept out entirely. I think removing Hawkins is reasonable, but removing Jorgensen, who is polling at 5% in several state and nationwide polls and has universal ballot access, is an WP:NPOV violation. We included these boxes for Johnson and Stein in 2016, and as I mentioned in my !vote above, we'd need a compelling reason unique to 2020 to ignore that precedent. So far, differences between 2016 and 2020 are not being sufficiently discussed. For example, Jgstokes stated above that there is a lack of clear precedent for such actions in prior election years, but declined to answer my question about why 2016 does not qualify as precedent for inclusion. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• No per WP:UNDUE as others have noted. Carter (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Note - I have requested a formal close for this RfC. It should likely be allowed to run for 30 days, but a formal close is likely required in the coming weeks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, since the third parties' results are regularly also given in RS, especially RS about the primaries and the elections, not about Dem. vs. Rep. or Biden vs. Trump (which is material that often over-focuses on the persons or on party machinations, not the election processes). The UNDUE arguments above are flawed, as many others have already explained. I can see excluding "wild card" candidates that do not represent notable parties and which do not get even a trivial number of votes or more than passing-mention coverage. But even Kanye West may need to be factored in, since he's very notable and, along with established third parties, has a vote-draining effect primarily on the Dems (multiple entire major-media pieces have been written about this). Reader understanding of that will be damaged if the third-party and other notable-candidate information is censored.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• No. No matter what anyone says this does not comply with WP:DUE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

And what is your response to what others have said? Or why you think it is WP:UNDUE? Do you have a response to the 2016 precedent for inclusion? The fact that they have ballot access in most/all states? May split the vote? Etc.? With respect, this is not a vote. It's best to show your work and explain your position.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, agreed, this is not a vote. I don't see why others have not responded to my above questions about the 2016 precendent, especially Jgstokes, who said that no such precedent exists. Commenters need to explain their opinions and supply evidence to back up their assertions. If they don't, their comments should not weigh much in this discussion. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

RfC closure

• Comment: As one of the editors arguing for keeping all the content on the Libertarian and Green parties, I'd just like to say that I approve of this close identifying a consensus to remove the primary results. The primary information is certainly far less WP:DUE than the nominees may be and this seems to be a good compromise as it still presents readers with the most basic information on who the nominees are. I thank Rosguill for thoughtfully assessing the discussion's nuances in making the formal close. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight Election Predictions

I believe we should add the FiveThirtyEight predictions to the prediction section. It is one of the least biased and most accurate sources for election polling data. They even called every state during the 2012 election. It would be a good way to add polling data and predictions while still abiding by WP:RS and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywood43ar (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We have that on the Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election page, but it does beg the question: why don't we have any polling on the main page at all? Przemysl15 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree.Colin dm (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)--

It's definitely very strange there's no polling. There's not even a link to that page on the article. Maybe add a link to that article for the mean time and then decide how to move forward after that. Hollywood43ar (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This article has two links each to the nationwide and statewide polling articles. There is one in the infobox at the top of the page (under the US map), and another in a section titled "General election polling". --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I certainly think we should at least have a list of aggregates and/or a graph instead of just links. The predictions section shouldn't be being weighted that much more significantly than the polling section Przemysl15 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I also agree, we should simply transclude the "Polling aggregation" section over at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election over to here, I reckon that would be better than just having links. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion we should have a link to the polling but also graphs from FiveThiryEight on this talk page, updated on a weekly basis. I think that polling information is relevant enough to the topic of the presidential election before it has been conducted. After the election occurs, we will get rid of the pre-polling information and replace it with exit polling and actual results. A top priority for this page should be to keep readers informed on the ongoing developments and educated predictions for the outcome of the election. Lshane23 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Election night prep

Election night is less than 1 month away!!! I just replaced the "ongoing" parameter with a parameter that will allow us to say "projected electoral votes" instead of "electoral votes" up until the vote count becomes more official. We need to make a few things clear before the big night (not sure if we should make this into an RFC):

1. How many reliable news organizations must project a state before we add its electoral vote totals to the infobox and the map? I will note that in 2016, it seemed like it only took 1 news organization projection for us to update the map and infobox. This meant that Wikipedia indicated that Donald Trump won the election before most (all?) the major news organizations did. Do we want to continue this to give readers up-to-date information, or do we want to be on the safe side just in case an outlier news organization gets a projection wrong?
2. Do we need to spell out which news organizations qualify as reliable and should be used for our projections, or should work that out on election day as projections come in?
3. When should we add the popular vote tally to the infobox article? If we add it right when votes start coming in, how often would we update the tally? And which source would we use for the popular vote tally while it's in flux? Popular vote tallies will differ across different news organizations up until we get a better idea of what the official tally will be.
4. Are we going to use the dark gray color that we used for the primary election maps on the map in this article? The dark gray color was used to indicate that all the polls were closed in a state, but that no projection had been made for the state. This color was not used in 2016 if I remember right, but I liked having it in the primary election articles, so I would like to see it used in this one.[7] Prcc27 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent questions. My responses: (1) Two Three reliable news organizations. (2) Yes. My initial list of reliable news organizations (for this purpose): AP, Reuters, CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, NPR, PBS, New York Times. I don't know if the Wall Street Journal routinely calls states on their website, but if so, add WSJ to the list. Maybe count AP as "two" for this purpose, as long as we know which news organizations rely on AP before they call a state, in which case we would not count them and AP. (3) Do not post until 12 hours after the last polling places close and add an easy-to-see asterisk with an easy-to-find note explaining the preliminary nature of the number. Then every 12 hours. (4) I concur. Grey seems to be a universal "don't know" color, and it's better than white, which I interpret as "the state is so incompetent no one knows if any results will be posted in 2020". Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 22:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Mark Worthen, but I do have some things to add, namely, should Politico be added to the list of reliable sources?, and I think the gap between updating the popular vote after the first 12 hours should be shortened somewhat, perhaps every six hours, because after the first 12 hours things will probably have calmed down a bit. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mark Worthen as well with the Devonian Wombat alterations of Politico and 12>6 hours. Przemysl15 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

How could I forget Politico!? And yes, 6 hours seems quite reasonable. :) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 00:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We have to be careful about calling it for two reasons: one it will almost certainly not be clear who wins on election night because many key states are accepting mail-in ballots for a few days after November 3rd. Also, it is also somewhat likely there will be a big fight about the winner-I don't want to get out my crystal ball-but we should just make sure not to get involved on a side of the political debate by calling it before it is official. Hollywood43ar (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We should document any reliable sources who do call it, however. Przemysl15 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's very possible that we could have 4 or more news organization calling the race, but we wouldn't be able to "call" the race on the map and infobox if we follow the 3 or more projections criteria strictly. For example, if candidate A only needs either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin in order to win, and those are the only two states that have yet to be called- we could see say CNN and Fox news projecting that candidate A won PA, and thus the election, while Politico and NPR might project that he won WI, and thus the election. In this scenario, 4 news organizations have called the race, yet Wikipedia's map and infobox would not reflect this. On the flip side, we still might end up calling the race before the media does, just like we did in 2016. If candidate B needs both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in order to win, and those are the only two states that have yet to be called- we could see say CNN, NPR, and CBS projecting that candidate A won PA but WI is still too close to call, but on the other hand NBC, BBC, Politico, and Fox News might project that he won WI, but PA is too close to call. In this scenario, both PA and WI would be added to the map and infobox, and candidate B would be "projected" as the winner by Wikipedia, even though no media organization would have projected a winner for the election as a whole. Honestly, I have no problem calling the race before the media does, if we call the race before any media organization does, we could add a footnote explaining that no media organization has called the election, even though our map might reflect that a candidate has in fact won. By the way, should we also include sources like Bloomberg, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the Guardian? Bloomberg definitely seems reliable enough for inclusion, and some of the other sources I mentioned may be reliable enough as well. Possible wording for a popular vote asterisk: "these popular vote tallies are preliminary results, and are updated every 6 hours". Also, once this discussion has more or less concluded- we should make sure that this consensus is followed out uniformly for all 2020 U.S. election articles. Prcc27 (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I would think calling the election before any major news source does based on states being called would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. I think adding all of the other sources you named would be good, though. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think per WP:CALC, it should be fine. If 3 reliable sources call PA and 3 other reliable sources call WI, it wouldn't make sense to exclude those states from the map and infobox tally, just to avoid not being the first to call the race. I don't see any other viable alternative. But of course, we would need to make very clear that no major news organization has called the race. We could do this with a footnote that makes this clear. In fact, we could even hold off on bolding the electoral votes total, which we usually do once a candidate hits 270+ votes, until after at least 1 (or possibly more) news organization(s) have called the race for a candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

On the flip side, if 3 reliable sources have called the race, but we haven't called it yet (per one of the possible scenarios above), we should add a footnote noting that 3+ major news organizations have called the race. And maybe we could even bold the electoral votes total of the projected president-elect even if our infobox doesn't yet have them at 270+ votes. Prcc27 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I see your point about no viable alternatives, although I don't think this is a case of CALC. Przemysl15 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I do think that WP:CALC and WP:IAR would allow us to overlook the WP:SYNTH concerns. But the other alternative, is to use only 1 source's projections when updating the map and infobox. Since many reliable sources rely on the Associated Press anyways, we could update the map & infobox based solely on AP projections. This would also make our jobs a lot easier, since it could be a huge mess trying to figure out which news organizations have and have not made projections for such and such state. Prcc27 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

While I like this proposal over the prior, what do we do if multiple news orgs report different winners? Przemysl15 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add a new color (probably black) to the map and infobox for states with conflicting results. We would also want to leave the conflicting state(s') electoral votes out of the infobox and maybe note that the electoral vote tally reflects the AP's projections minus the conflicting state(s). If the AP and many other organizations project a state/the race for one candidate, but there is only 1 outlier projecting it for the other candidate- I think we could possibly avoid using the black color, have the infobox and map reflect the AP's projection, and maybe add a footnote noting that there is an outlier with the opposite projection. However, if the AP is the organization that is the outlier, this could be an issue. Since the AP seems to be the most prominent (even though they sometimes make wrong projections) and many organizations' projections seem to be directly or heavily influenced by the AP- we would probably want to have those states colored black regardless, and add a footnote about the conflicting results. Another issue we need to deal with is recounts. If a state is projected for a candidate by the AP, but it ends up going to a recount- do we want to have the state colored in for that candidate, even if the AP doesn't retract their projection? Prcc27 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is really specific. If this happens we can figure it out then when all the other things we discussed here have a clear consensus. Przemysl15 (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the scenarios we discussed are quite specific. But the main thing we need to sort out is if we are going to use 3+ reliable sources for projections or if we are just going to use the Associated Press. Markworthen noted that many news organizations rely on the AP, you seem to think that using only the AP mitigates WP:SYNTH concerns, and I support it because using a bunch of sources could be a confusing mess. Given that nobody has expressed opposition to moving forward with a map/infobox sourced by the AP, I think we can assume that consensus leans towards doing this. But maybe we could ping the users to ask them specifically about what they think, just to be sure. But honestly, I think the consensus is headed towards an AP only infobox/map. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

No its not, you are the only person advocating an AP-only infobox. I for one am opposed to it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm also the only person that has tried to address Przemysl15's WP:SYNTH concerns. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so you can't ignore WP:SYNTH, just because you have the !votes. Until you demonstrate that combining sources doesn't violate Wikipedia policy, you can not move forward with combining sources to reach a conclusion that no reliable source has reached themselves. If we are going to move forward with a 3+ sources infobox, someone needs to demonstrate how WP:CALC applies. While I may be the only one "advocating" for an AP only map/infobox (whatever that means), another user has expressed they prefer it over an infobox that might violate WP:SYNTH. So yes, as of now, the consensus leans towards an AP only infobox/map. Prcc27 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

We haven't heard from @Markworthen: and @Hollywood43ar: in a while, so I'm pinging them, because I want to hear what they think about the WP:SYNTH concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I would be careful about making assumptions about what I prefer. My understanding of the consensus, as evidenced by the first three replies from Mark D Worthen, Devonian Wombat, and myself, and supplemented further down in the thread, is for three reliable news orgs, acceptable orgs being the ones specified by Mark D Worthen, with the addition of Politico and the few you named as well, for updating popular vote tally 12 hours after polls close, then every 6 hours after, and for the use of grey for states with closed polls but no projection. You challenged this initial consensus by stating that using a 3 org system for projections could end up with us calling the race before any org does, or vice versa not calling it when several orgs are calling it. You stated for the former, you were ok with this. I did not share the sentiment that that calling the race before a major org was ok, as doing so would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. You stated that it was fine under WP:CALC, and the alternative would be to exclude the states causing a premature calling of the race on our part. I did not think it was a case of WP:CALC, but conceded I did not have a better alternative than the poor solution of removing the state predictions to align with the media predictions. You then provided an alternative to the removal of states by suggesting an AP only map and infobox. I stated that this proposal was better than the previous proposal, a statement I intended to use to refer to the prospect of removing state predictions to align our national prediction status with major media orgs, but one you took to mean I preferred your AP only solution to the 3 org solution. However, I did state that using only AP could mean we could be using APs projection and claiming one candidate won when most other major news sources were contesting the election and reporting different winners. You took this to mean I was referring to states, which admittedly is a further issue with using only AP as a source, but not what I was referring to, inventing some sort of black color solution to denote a mixed result and trying to add footnotes and a whole bunch of other stuff about who the outlier org was and recounts and retractions which I felt all were really specific, as was the case we began with: Wikipedia calling or not calling the race when major orgs have not or have called the race, respectively. I felt, and still feel, that the possible WP:SYNTH violation occurs in such specific cases that we should work on hammering out the rest of the consensus: i.e.: if sources like Bloomberg, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the Guardian are acceptable sources, and under what conditions we should call the race, as opposed to this discussion on an AP or 3 org solution, which, contrary to your assessment, I believe clearly and obviously should be the 3 org variant, as does every other person on the thread other than yourself. Admittedly, however, I could have been clearer about this. Then, if on election day we do end up in this scenario where we venture into a possible WP:SYNTH violation, we could determine consensus then and there, when we have already built clear consensus on when and how we should be calling the election, which we could apply to the specific scenario that is causing issues at that time. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be WP:SYNTH regardless of whether we are the first to call the race or not? What if CNN says candidate A has 268 votes, the AP says he has 265 votes, Fox says he has 266 votes, etc. but our infobox says he has 256, even though that is a number that we came up with ourselves and no reliable source has his tally at 256? Does WP:CALC allow us to come up with an electoral vote number not supported by *any* major news organization? If so, are you saying that WP:CALC only doesn't apply once there is a disagreement between us and the source(s) about whether the race is called yet or not? That is an inconsistent view and I don't think we get to pick and choose when WP:SYNTH does or doesn't apply. I respect everyone's opinion here, and I too previously indicated that I supported a 3+ source infobox/map. However, I am also trying to respect your WP:SYNTH concerns, and am doing my best to address them. Unfortunately, I don't think we will get anywhere if it's only the two of us trying to interpret what that policy means by ourselves. Since you and I are the only ones having a conversation about WP:SYNTH, I genuinely think our best move forward would be to go to the no original research noticeboard to get another opinion on the WP:SYNTH issue. Once we know in what ways WP:SYNTH and/or WP:CALC does and doesn't apply, it will be easier for us to move forward with a discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przemysl15: Thank you for the ping. :) I appreciate your pithy summary of the dialogue thus far. Even though your summary is a long paragraph, this discussion has been complicated, and you summarized it concisely. My suggestion is that to follow the KISS principle as much as possible. Otherwise, on election night, editors will be more likely to ignore the consensus we achieve here b/c it is too opaque and takes too long to decipher. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 13:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Requesting feedback and suggestions from other knowledgeable Wikipedians in general, and specifically about the WP:SYNTH and WP:CALC considerations, seems wise. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 13:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I posted on the No original research noticeboard. Please feel free to join the discussion! Prcc27 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's all very simple. Two networks for the easy ones. Kentucky for example will be called almost immediately, same with DC or Delaware. This is going to take a week or so, if there aren't any lawsuits stopping everything. So let's get the chart on the page by at least the first. We should know if there's a "Red Mirage" on election night. We're going to have to wait until the fifth to get any good numbers unless it's a Biden Blowout. Get rid of the prediction section on Haloween. We don't need it after that, as those interested are going to more immediate sources. We also need a section on lawsuits. Three of them were already ruled on by the Supreme court. There will be more. More on that below...!Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Combining sources is likely a WP:SYNTH violation per discussions above and below. Many major news organizations rely on the AP for projections anyways, so we should just use the AP as our source for the infobox and map. Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Post noticeboard discussion

Even though I posted in the No original research noticeboard about whether the current consensus violates WP:SYNTH, earlier today I proposed some footnote wording just in case we do move forward with the 3+ sources proposal. But since so far, a user has indicated that yes, combining 3+ sources to make your own electoral vote tally is a WP:SYNTH violation, I'm going to move my footnotes proposal to my sandbox for now. But even though I'm moving this proposal, please feel free to comment on what you think about the proposed footnotes. Given that the 3+ sources proposal may in fact be a WP:SYNTH violation (although we should certainly wait to see if other users chime in at the noticeboard), the alternative would be an AP only infobox. But the user that commented on that noticeboard said that per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, that we should wait until after the election's outcome becomes official before adding the results to the article. So that is another option as well. As I said at the noticeboard, I don't think those policies necessarily apply. Prcc27 (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to turn on notifications for this page and I just saw your ping @Prcc27:. I am concerned about WP:SYNTH but I think I am probably more concerned about WP:NOTNEWS. I think that we shouldn't cloud everything with confusing calls from multiple different news sources. I think we should wait until the election is official either after the electors vote or congress verifies the results. To declare a winner on the page. Hollywood43ar (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, three sources is still by far the superior option. We should be hamstringing ourselves to a single source on election night, all that will do is cause confusion and a constant need for reverts. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is completely irrelevant as far as this goes, it is mainly a notability guideline, not a content guideline, and is specifically says we are allowed to update information about current events. Just refusing to do anything and keeping clearly outdated information because of some weak concerns over WP:SYNTH would be as clear a WP:NOTBURO violation as one can get. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. It doesn't make sense to wait 1 or 2 months before updating the article, when the obvious (a projected winner) might be stated as soon as election night. However, you still haven't explained why we should ignore WP:SYNTH. WP:IGNORE says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." But I don't think it's been demonstrated how exactly a 3+ sourced infobox would be a significant improvement from a single sourced infobox. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that a 3+ sourced infobox would be less confusing. Trying to keep track of which sources have and haven't called a state will be pretty confusing. Since it was suggested that the AP count as 2 sources, and that sources reliant on the AP for projections shouldn't double count, this will likely create confusion with many users. For example, someone might mistakenly think that if the AP, NYT, and NPR all project a state, that it allows them to add that state to the map and infobox. Since NYT and I believe NPR rely on the AP, that would not be the case. I actually think there would be more reverts under the 3+ proposal. An AP infobox is straightforward- either the AP has projected a state or it hasn't. By the way, what even is the rationale for using 3+ sources? Is it to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't call the race before a major media organization does? If so, I already explained how this proposal does not guarantee that we will not be the first to "call" the race. AFAIK, only a single sourced infobox would make it absolutely impossible for us to be the first to "call" the race. Is the reasoning that a 3+ sourced infobox is more accurate? It's important to note that major media organizations are careful about projections, so it's pretty uncommon (although not unheard of) for a projection to be wrong. And of course, a 3+ infobox could still have an error, e.g. there was a 2018 house race that was called by most (all?) of the major news organization for a Republican, that ended up actually being won by the Democrat in that district. But given that we are up front with the readers that these are only projections, I don't think it would be that big of a deal if we call a state or the race for the wrong candidate. Regardless of the perceived benefits of a 3+ sourced infobox, there have been no strong arguments for why we should ignore WP:SYNTH. Keep in mind, that a user at the noticeboard said a 3+ infobox would "definitely" violate WP:SYNTH. We should only violate Wikipedia policy as a last resort and/or when there are no viable alternatives for a functioning infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you take that one user's opinion of WP:SYNTH and apply it, but disregard their opinion of WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, one user's opinion anywhere shouldn't be taken as consensus, especially when that user has views on the application of NOTNEWS and CB that go against consensus here. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, my understanding of consensus opinion here so far is that if there is a SYNTH violation, which a significant part of the discussion does not believe there is, it is very minor and/or only occurs in incredibly specific scenarios. You are the only person who uses phrases like "there have been no strong arguments for why we should ignore WP:SYNTH". Everyone else refers to it as things like "possible SYNTH violations" or "weak SYNTH concerns" etc, with the exception of the singular person on the noticeboard who has no prior experience in this area of WP to my knowledge. To be quite honest, I regret ever mentioning SYNTH because it turned a 10 comment thread with each entry being a sentence or two into a 30 comment thread, not including several new sub threads with a noticeboard post, full of long wordy paragraphs over a tangentially and marginally related subject that completely derailed the thread. AS previously stated, you are the only person in favor of an AP only infobox, and furthermore the only person who finds a 3+ sourced infobox more confusing or otherwise worse than an AP only infobox. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Only one person from this talk page thinks WP:NOTNEWS means we have to wait until December or January to update the infobox and map, whereas another user here and I have demonstrated that it doesn't apply. So that's why the person at the noticeboard's WP:NOTNEWS concerns are being "disregarded". On the other hand, most of the people at this talk page, including you, have conceded that at the very least, there are some WP:SYNTH concerns, albeit "weak" concerns, but concerns nonetheless. IDK where you get that I'm the only one at this talk page significantly concerned about it, given that Hollywood43ar expressed concern as well and never said they were "weakly" concerned. For what it's worth, I do think a 3+ infobox does in fact violate WP:NOTNEWS, whereas an AP only infobox does not necessarily violate it. WP:NOTNEWS says "Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source." The 3+ sources infobox proposal is the exact definition of first hand reporting since the electoral vote tally will be calculated from Wikipedia users and would not necessarily match any of the major media organizations' electoral vote tally. Furthermore, it might lead us to be the first to report that a candidate has won the election, even if no major media organization has reported this. That is an even worse violation of WP:NOTNEWS, and that's how this WP:SYNTH discussion got started. On Wikinews, maybe you could combine 3+ sources to say that a candidate has 36 electoral votes, even if no major media organization matches that tally, but on Wikipedia, we are not a newspaper, so it is not our jobs to do our own reporting, which is what the 3+ sources infobox would entail. If we do move forward with the 3+ infobox proposal, I did propose something at my sandbox that might help mitigate a premature call for a candidate (see scenario #4). I would like feedback on this scenario and the other scenarios as well. Even though my sandbox proposals would be moot if the 3+ infobox proposal doesn't go through, I still would like input, just in case we do use a 3+ sources infobox. But as far as I'm concerned, the 3+ sourced infobox has WP:SYNTH concerns that still need to be addressed, and the WP:NOTNEWS concerns are even stronger for a 3+ sourced infobox than they are for a 1 sourced infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

He said that while he was concerned about SYNTH his main concern was NOTNEWS, so while they did not say their concern was weak, they did say it was secondary to a concern that you apparently demonstrated as inapplicable. While I should let that user argue for themselves, I don't understand why you disregard their main concern, but use their secondary concern as evidence that there is significant overall concern. All references to SYNTH other than mine, hollywood's, and your own references, are to the SYNTH concerns of those 3 aforementioned people. As stated previously, my concerns over SYNTH were never significant and now are insignificant entirely, and your habit of taking things other people say and arguing in place of them has continued with hollywood, and they should defend statements they make, not you. So in short, no, hollywood has not stated they have significant concerns over SYNTH (and the two of us should stop acting as interpreters for their statements), and the only thing anyone has conceded that there is one person with strong SYNTH concerns on the talk page and two people who at one point had at least weak SYNTH concerns, which is where I got that you're only one at this talk page with significant SYNTH concerns.Przemysl15 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, they did not say that. They said that they "think" that they are "probably" more concerned about WP:NOTNEWS. But that doesn't mean that their WP:SYNTH concerns are "weak"- it only means that their WP:NOTNEWS concerns might be stronger than their WP:SYNTH concerns. Their comment where they said "I think that we shouldn't cloud everything with confusing calls from multiple different news sources" seems to be a direct argument that a 3+ sourced infobox probably violates WP:SYNTH, and should not be used. But of course, I agree we should let them speak for themselves, because only they know for sure what argument they were trying to convey. Until then, I just don't think that it is accurate for you to assume that their WP:SYNTH concerns are "weak". Also, I did not "disregard" their WP:NOTNEWS concerns. I just don't think they have fully demonstrated how it applies (although a 3+ sourced infobox does seem to violate WP:NOTNEWS per what I said above). The first sentence of WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." I don't quite understand how they read that, and interrupted it as meaning that we should wait until the results are official before adding them to the article. But that doesn't mean their concerns are being "disregarded", it just means that they should elaborate more on how it applies. Prcc27 (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we could avoid NOTNEWS by saying that "source X called the race for candidate Y at time Z" in the article instead of just taking their calls and citing them. And I especially disagree with the combining of sources because than we could end up calling the race before anyone else has and that would definitely be considered a NOTNEWS violation because we are creating our own story that we wouldn't be able to cite and no one else could verify. As for SYNTH, combing sources in this manner is specifically what SNYTH was designed to protect against. However, I don't have any strong concerns about NOTNEWS or SYNTH concerns about any of the other solutions proposed, my original comment was directed at the combining of sources although I apologize that that wasn't made clear in the way I wrote it. Hollywood43ar (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

To the above user, I agree that we should not issue a projection for a winner before another source does. While a 3+ source infobox could end up giving a candidate 270 via aggregation, I think the chance of that happening is small enough that we should simply add a note to some effect stating that no winner has been declared, but all states have 3+ sources projecting the winner we project. I think this is a better solution than tossing out the 3+ source infobox for a version based on less concrete sourcing over this small discrepancy that may occur. Would like your, and others in the above thread, thoughts on this. Przemysl15 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be ok. is the best solution currently suggested. Hollywood43ar (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Does that mean you support a 3+ sourced infobox over an infobox based solely on AP projections, or would you prefer an AP infobox over a 3+ sourced infobox? Please note, that my SYNTH concerns do not stop at the unlikely event that we would be the first to call the race. Combining a bunch of sources to create an electoral vote tally that is not reflected by any major media organization is still very likely to occur regardless, and I'm not sure WP:CALC allows us to do this. Prcc27 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer the 3+ sources infobox as long as we aren't combining sources to come up with a new result. If it is just a list of sources and their predictions I am fine with that.Hollywood43ar (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Could you please clarify what you mean by "new result"? "New result" meaning that we project a candidate as the president-elect even though no major media organization has done so, or does "new result" also include an electoral vote tally not backed by any of the major media organizations? If the 3+ sources infobox rule was in effect during the 2016 presidential election, at 8 P.M. Eastern our infobox would have had Clinton at 68 electoral votes, and Trump at 57 electoral votes. However, out of all the 8 P.M. projections that I found- none of them directly matched what our infobox would have said. ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, FOX, and AP did not have both Clinton at 68 and Trump at 57 at 8 P.M. So basically, this would be a WP:SYNTH/WP:NOTNEWS violation, and this same violation is likely to occur this year, if we move forward with a 3+ sourced infobox. How would you feel if we had a table in the article that listed all of the major networks and their projections? The infobox could be AP only, but with a footnote telling readers to also check out the table that shows what the other major media networks have projected. I probably wouldn't have enough time to create such a table myself, but I would not oppose any of the other users creating a table like that. That way, the readers themselves can make their own determination about which states should and shouldn't count as being "called" or not. But as for the infobox/map, I just don't see how a 3+ source infobox would work without us coming up with electoral vote tallies not supported by the media per what I said above. That's why an AP only infobox is our best option. [8][9] Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

An alternative to making a whole table with major media projections would be to have the AP as our main source for the infobox, but also have a footnote about what the other major media organizations have as their electoral vote tally e.g. "CNN has Trump at 48 electoral votes, ABC has him at 37 electoral votes, NBC has him at 66 electoral votes", etc. Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Compromise proposal: use the 3+ sources infobox proposal for adding states to the map, but have the infobox tally reflect the AP's projected electoral vote count with a footnote explaining why the infobox tally doesn't directly reflect what's on the map. Example of possible footnote- "this electoral vote tally is based on the AP's projections. However, states are added to the map using a different criteria: a state is called once at least 3 major news organizations or the AP & at least 1 major news organization that does not rely on the AP, projects that that state was won by the candidate. Using the map's criteria, Trump's projected electoral vote tally would be 229, and Biden's projected electoral vote tally would be 218." Here is an example of what the infobox could look like. This compromise proposal would help mitigate WP:SYNTH & WP:NOTNEWS concerns. The map would probably still violate Wikipedia policy, but since the map is on Commons- it might be okay.. Prcc27 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Since Hollywood43ar mentioned listing a bunch of sources' tallies, we could also add other news organizations' tallies to the footnote that I proposed. But I think it's best not to have a verbose footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Does the silence in this discussion mean that you guys are fine with my compromise proposal, and that I can proceed with implementing it on election day? Or does it mean that this discussion is dying out and nobody is following it anymore..? Having an electoral vote tally that doesn't match any reliable news source is unacceptable. Hollywood43ar seems to agree that we shouldn't be coming up with a "new result". My compromise proposal wouldn't do away with the 3+ source electoral vote tally entirely and it wouldn't prevent a 3+ sourced map- it would just put that 3+ tally in the footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody said they oppose the compromise proposal, on election day, I intend on moving forward with it. However, I tweaked the proposal once more, so this is what the infobox would look like. Prcc27 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Lack of comment for 24 hours does not mean that everyone agrees with your compromise proposal. As stated previously, I support the consensus for three reliable news orgs, acceptable orgs being the ones specified by Mark D Worthen, with the addition of Politico and the few you named as well, for updating popular vote tally 12 hours after polls close, then every 6 hours after, and for the use of grey for states with closed polls but no projection. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it has been 5 days since I proposed a joint AP/3+ sourced infobox, not 24 hours. But I have tweaked the infobox once since that original proposal. Our readers deserve to be able to verify the infobox's tally per WP:VERIFY. The "consensus" you are citing does not allow users to be able to click on a link to a source to verify that the tally is backed by a reliable source. Putting the AP tally up there (even if in addition to the 3+ source tally) allows users to do this. Also, please keep in mind that this is not a vote- it is a discussion. If you disagree with a proposal, it is helpful to give a reason for your disagreement. Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right I apologize, more than 1 day had gone by. The reason I personally stopped responding is because I have nothing more to say. I have decided: as stated above I support the consensus for three reliable news orgs, acceptable orgs being the ones specified by Mark D Worthen, with the addition of Politico and the few you named as well, for updating popular vote tally 12 hours after polls close, then every 6 hours after, and for the use of grey for states with closed polls but no projection. I disagree with your proposal because the previous consensus proposal is simple, effective, functional, useful, and a whole host of other positive attributes. I stopped responding because it was clear to me your proposals were all unneeded because an effective solution has been devised I agree with, and the only reason I responded here is to prevent conflict on election day. I see no reason to over complicate an info box, much less throw constant proposals at the discussion dart board to see if one sticks and then declaring victory once people become exhausted with what was approximately your 10th suggestion for a new or altered solution to a problem that was effectively figured out by the 5th comment. Furthermore, when challenged, you call on not a vote, even though of all people making assertions based on some sort of understandable logic, you are the sole editor opposed to the general consensus of a 3+ info box stated above, your interpretation of tangentially related comments by other editors notwithstanding. I see no reason to continue a finished discussion. Przemysl15 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• When a user makes a proposal, and another user concurs and builds on that proposal, and it goes unchallenged- it is easy for one to assume that a new consensus has formed, albeit weak consensus. The fact that so many people are tuned out off this discussion makes it harder to form a strong consensus. And I wouldn't oppose pinging all the users that have commented in this discussion thus far. Nevertheless, at the very least, you have to have a footnote that says something like "a state's electoral vote tally is added to the infobox once at least 3 major news organizations or the AP & at least 1 major news organization that does not rely on the AP, projects that that state was won by the candidate." Not explaining to the readers, as well as other Wikipedia users, what the criteria for the infobox is makes us look unreliable. Anyways, on election night, if our infobox's tally does not match any of the electoral vote tallies of the major media organizations, I very well may make a WP:BOLD edit implementing my proposal. However, I would be deterred from being BOLD, if I heard opposition to my or Hollywood43ar's proposal, from more than just 1 user. Prcc27 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

After much thought, I've decided that a BOLD edit probably wouldn't be the best move. However, I do intend on flagging the infobox as having a possible WP:SYNTH violation. This is what the infobox would look like with the synth flag. Prcc27 (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There have been more comments made at the noticeboard. Based on the concerns raised at that noticeboard, I don't think there is currently any consensus on how to move forward with the map and infobox. Until we can come to some sort of consensus and/or compromise, I think that we will have to hold off on updating the infobox and map. Prcc27 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, as previously stated, you are just about the only, if not the only, editor here who believes there is not a consensus for a 3+ sourced info box. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Przemysl15: Did you check the noticeboard lately..? Over the past few hours, several more users have chimed in there. Consensus is measured by both the discussions here and at the noticeboard. Right now, the consensus is mainly split between a 3+ infobox & not updating the infobox on election night at all (but with only a couple users supporting an AP only infobox). Virtually nobody at the noticeboard supports a 3+ sourced infobox. Most of the users there think we should wait until the results are finalized per WP:NOTNEWS. But 1 user there agreed with me that we should use an AP only infobox. Even if you exclude Hollywood43ar's SYNTH concerns- there are at least 2 other users that explicitly agreed with me that a 3+ infobox would violate that Wikipedia policy. The burden of consensus is on those trying to change the article, so if we can't get a strong consensus on a criteria for the infobox, we would have to default to the status quo which is leaving the infobox as it is now. I strongly suggest we ping the other users that have commented at this talk page to see what they think about the concerns expressed at the noticeboard. That way, we will know whether or not they agree with the concerns expressed there. Prcc27 (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I added a hidden note to the infobox that says "there is currently no consensus on how to add a projected electoral vote tally to the infobox. Please do not update until a consensus is formed at the talk" and a user thanked me for that edit. So no, I am not the only person on this talk page that thinks that there is no consensus for updating the infobox come election night. Prcc27 (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

To my understanding, consensus here on this talk page is that an acceptable infobox shall be updated when a state or the race is called by three reliable news orgs, acceptable orgs being the ones specified by Mark D Worthen, with the addition of Politico and the few you [Prcc27] named as well, for updating popular vote tally 12 hours after polls close, then every 6 hours after, and for the use of grey for states with closed polls but no projection. Is this correct? Additionally, does anyone here oppose that consensus? @Devonian Wombat: @Markworthen: @Devonian Wombat: @Hollywood43ar: Przemysl15 (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• You are correct that most of the users at this talk page expressed support for a 3+ sourced infobox, and up until yesterday, consensus did seem to lean in that direction. But I'm pretty sure that any discussion conducted at a noticeboard is also included when assessing consensus. A couple of the users at the noticeboard have WP:SYNTH concerns with regards to the 3+ sourced infobox, 1 user there supports my idea to have an infobox based only on the AP's projections. But most of the users there are against updating the infobox on election day altogether due to WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think it would be right to ignore their concerns, so I would say that consensus is probably split if we include the users at the noticeboard in our overall assessment of consensus. @Arglebargle79: was also briefly part of this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Can we just implement the 3 source criteria and stop endlessly procrastinating? I personally am in favour of just completely ignoring the noticeboard comments. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't edit Wikipedia based on personal preference. I think it's unthinkable to completely disregard the comments of other Wikipedia users, simply because you disagree with them. WP:SYNTH, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOTNEWS are all Wikipedia policies that should be followed to the best of our abilities. Until those concerns are addressed, I don't think we should move forward with updating the infobox, especially a 3+ sourced synth infobox. The noticeboard discussion should be included in our assessment of consensus. Consensus is split. Prcc27 (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboards are for for specific problems that editors encounter in writing and maintaining Wikipedia articles. Posting a message to a noticeboard can also be an appropriate early step in resolving disputes on Wikipedia. Noticeboards are best used for simple and urgent matters. While I understand that you may have thought was a specific problem in writing this article and that you wanted to resolve your dispute, there is not problem in writing or maintaining the article, as consensus on this page for that issue had been determined by the time you went on the noticeboard, and thus your dispute is manufactured. While I understand you are coming from a place of good faith and likely do legitimately have those concerns you stated, you are right it is unthinkable to completely disregard the comments of other Wikipedia users simply because you disagree with them, so I find it incredibly frustrating that you would completely disregard all the editors here, ignore a consensus on this page, and even go as far as opening a dispute resolution valve where it was unneeded, just to have a swarm of editors agree with you because only one side of the argument is presented. The editors there don't even agree with your point and want to shut down the article entirely on election day, which flies in the face of every notion of precedent that exists in this space of Wikipedia. While I am not saying that the editors on the noticeboard are anything but well respected editors with a long and positive history of constructive contribution, they clearly have not read this talk page they are supposedly resolving a dispute for, and by this you have created an echo chamber, unwillingly but all the same an echo chamber. Przemysl15 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, no. That's not what happened at all.. At the time, you and I were the only ones discussing the WP:SYNTH concerns. I thought it was a problem for only two people to be discussing the issue, so I suggested opening up a discussion on the noticeboard. Once another user said they agreed with my suggestion to open up a discussion at the noticeboard, that's when I brought my concerns there. So going to a noticeboard was not a unilateral decision, even though you seem to be suggesting that it was. I did not disregard the users at this talk page- I suggested going to a noticeboard, then waited for users to chime in before moving forward. Furthermore, I did not open the discussion there just so users would agree with me, like you are suggesting. In fact, in general, they don't even agree with me, and I'm okay with that. Sometimes, consensus is not on my side, and I accept that. But what they are proposing is the status quo of what's currently on our article. And unlike the 3+ sourced proposal, it does not violate Wikipedia policy to wait to update the infobox. By the way, I'm not sure Wikipedia operates on "precedent", and remember, consensus can change. You can't vote to disregard a Wikipedia policy just because it suits your personal preference. You two (with the possible addition of Arglebargle79) are the only users that seem to support a 3+ sourced infobox full stop without any reservations. Hollywood43ar prefers a 3+ sourced infobox, but seems to want a list of sources on the infobox and has some WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:NOTNEWS concerns. I think Markworthen is the one that proposed the 3+ sources criteria, but he also wanted us to go to the noticeboard to get advice from users that are more familiar with WP:SYNTH, and since then, two users at that noticeboard have explicitly said that the 3+ sourced infobox violates that Wikipedia policy. Arglebargle79 seems to concur with a 3+ sourced infobox idea, but would rather use a 2+ sourced criteria for certain states..? The consensus here was already shakey before the developments at the noticeboard that took place yesterday. Prcc27 (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The only reason you and I were the only ones discussing the WP:SYNTH concerns, to my understanding, is because everyone else had felt that the consensus had been decided and moved on and want to continue moving on, as evidenced by Wombats wish to simply implement the 3 source criteria and end the procrastination. However, I am speaking for other users so I will let them chime in instead of talking for them using the pings I slated earlier and stop running this thread into the ground. Przemysl15 (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• That's my whole point. You and Wombat seem to be the only users strongly in favor of a 3+ only sourced infobox! One user preferred it but had reservations, another user supported going to the noticeboard to hash out the WP:SYNTH concerns, and another user wants to use a similar 2+ only criteria in certain cases. Please note that I am not the only user that is against moving forward with updating the infobox on election night. Tartan357 thanked me for my edit that you two have since reverted. I will not ping them here though per WP:CANVASS. Prcc27 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH concerns are valid regarding using 3 sources' result predictions that may be collectively biasing toward one party/candidate or another. This is where WP:NOTNEWS comes into play. Synthesised content should not be intentionally generated just to satisfy some media frenzy about the event. We know we will get the election results eventually throughout the proper channels, there is no rush to have all the data available here on en.wikipedia on day 1. Unlike international news organisations wikipedia is not beholden to its readers/viewers for any advertising revenue. There is no pressure placed upon editors to have conclusions reported immediately out of some notion of being the 'first' organisation to report such a winning party/candidate in a given district or state. The media outlets generally do this out of a notion of competing with other such outlets to say they were 'right' about the victor first, but this is done at the risk of being incorrect about the result in the short term. We must wait for accurate reporting to reflect that specific data. If it takes more than 24 for hours for that data to come through, so be it. If it takes more than 1 week, so be it. Readers will naturally seek out predictions from media outlets if they feel the need to and the final data has not yet been sourced here. This is without issue. If a problem will occur with a flood of new editors/editors without proper accounts adding in this inaccurate data for themselves that is precisely what the protect article button is for. It can stay up for as long as is needed for the flood of heavily biased contributors to subside. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Where do you stand on an infobox that only has AP projections? The AP has long standing historical significance, and many major media outlets rely on them. Plus, this would take care of the WP:SYNTH and possibly even some WP: NOTNEWS concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say there are some definate WP:NPOV concerns for relying on a single source for all data projections. However my objection to such a proposal is definitely less than that of the WP:SYNTH issues. I think the decision on using a single RS with relatively minimal bias is something that ultimately should be general consensus here before being implemented. As WP:NOTNEWS would most definatly favour having no assignment made whatsoever to the infobox until the sources can agree. Eventually all the RSs and media outlets will coalesce around a single candidate as the overall winner. When this occurs, and it can be shown in the sources without challenge or controversy, then yes, it may be reported here and in the infobox that one candidate overall is indicated as victor. This may not yet be directly indicated in the data for individual states and districts, but as long as the sources are in agreement it should not be controversial to include in the article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• If you want to be even stricter with WP:NOTNEWS, we would have to wait until all states and districts are projected by every major outlet before adding the vote tally to the infobox. I am absolutely opposed to not updating the infobox initially, and then all of the sudden updating the infobox once a winner is unanimously declared- meanwhile one or two states are still too early to call and we could possibly see news organizations call those races at different times. We should either update the infobox on election night, or wait until every state and district has been projected. All or nothing. But, what we could do (and maybe this is what you were suggesting) is to bold the candidate that won once they are unanimously projected the winner, but leave out the vote total until we get full results. This should maybe be discussed in the national criteria section below. Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Completely unrelated, but why don't we just designate one editor to update the projections every half hour? This will prevent any major edit conflicts, or people that obsessively edit and refresh, hoping to be the one that adds the state. To take it to another level, maybe fully protect it and make an admin edit it every half hour? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• But what about the rest of the article..? Would we have to make edit requests to update the article as well..? I'm not sure if this is necessary, especially if we can agree on a criteria for the infobox. By the way, do you support a 3+ source infobox, an AP only infobox, or do you think we should hold off on election night projections altogether? Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Prcc27, that was an error on my part. I just now realized that if you're extended-confirmed, you'd probably see the warnings before editing, and follow the rules. I personally support just the AP infobox, as many of the major outlets use that as a gold standard, as well as the campaigns themselves. Clinton didn't concede until the AP called the race, so I consider the AP to be the one that matters. Of course, we won't be getting many calls on election night, as the mail-in ballots can be received later in many states. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If we were to have a halt on updating the infobox until there was clear sourcing for who won either any state or the entire race, what criteria would we want to use to determine when the dust has settled and we can update the page? I am willing to go along with this principle of don't edit the infobox on election night if the consensus goes this way, but I am against simply saying don't update the infobox for 24 hours after polls close. While it is incredibly likely that the race will not be callable within 24 hours, it is possible that one candidate wins in a massive landslide, and, more importantly, there is a pretty decent chance that some states, namely those considered safe, will be called by most Reliable Sources within a pretty short time and I don't think it is a violation of NOTNEWS to declare that a candidate has won a state/district when most major media outlets are declaring they have. Simply putting a full stop on the page would incorrectly display that no one is considered to have won any state/district when there is a distinct possibility that a candidate has won some districts. I would absolutely want a note saying that the page is out of date and we are waiting for the dust to settle, but I have some concerns that implementing a policy of "no infobox editing for the first 24 hours" conveys a message of "things will be too crazy to call in the first 24 hours", which is undocumented speculation and thus a CB violation. However, I also take issue with statements to the effect of we need all or most major media outlets to call a state/district for us to call it, and I have made such statements in this very response. What counts as all major outlets? Further up in the thread we have a list of around 15 sources we consider reliable. Do we need 10-15 sources to update the infobox in that case? Surely that is a source overkill and thus a violation of WP:OVERKILL. This could possibly by mitigated by finding 10 sources and then only citing AP, but I think that is an issue in it of itself. The answer may be to simply go with the AP only infobox, but my issue with that is it based our infobox off of 1 source could be an WP:NPOV violation, among other things. My point is if we want to say the 3+ infobox violates a bunch of Wikipedia policies, which I'm not sold on the fact that it does but for the sake of argument let's say it does, I am having problems coming up with a solution of my own or finding a previously proposed solution that does not violate some other policy as well. Clearly having an updated infobox is important so surely it would be better to update it some way as opposed to sitting in gridlock here. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really buying the WP:NPOV arguments against an AP only infobox. While the AP is "only 1 source", it is seen by many as the most prominent source for election projections. And many news organizations rely on them. Per WP:DUE, I think it's absolutely fine to give more weight to the AP's projections. It's a stretch to say this proposal violates Wikipedia policy. Prcc27 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Prcc27. AP is the standard. For example, NPR will not call a state until AP has called it.* Carter (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I should be more clear: there is at least 1 user here who has concerns that an AP only infobox could violate WP:NPOV. I generally agree that AP is reliable but the point is that every proposed solution here someone somewhere has had some sort of issue with, not over principle or accuracy or whatever but directly over WP policy. If, for the sake of argument, we say that an AP only infobox doesn't violate WP:NPOV, which I don't necessarily agree with but for the sake of argument let's make that assumption, you could argue that because AP is inherently a news organization, using only AP is a violation of NOTNEWS. If we take the stance that AP is the be all end all projection source, which again I don't necessarily agree with but for the sake of argument let's make that assumption, just because the AP puts out news, that does not necessarily mean that it is worthy for the article. From WP:NOTNEWS itself: Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Thus, this statement from WP policy can directly be taken to mean that precisely because AP is regarded as the first news source for elections, it is the precise definition of "first-hand news reports on breaking stories", and thus we should wait until the dust has settled from the election to be updating the infobox. I'm certain there exists a counter argument back for why an AP only infobox does not, in fact, violate NOTNEWS. While you may believe your proposal doesn't violate WP policy, my point is that "your proposal violated WP policy and mine doesn't" is a poor angle to go on because, at least in the scope of this discussion, that's subjective, and we should be evaluating infobox policy on how to most accurately, efficiently, and consistently provide encyclopedic information about the election, using WP policies to guide us to a solution that achieves that rather than taking firm ideological stances on one particular solution and warping WP policies to justify our most liked solution.

An example of this would be such: due to the fact that WP should not offer first hand news reports on breaking stories, the infobox for the election should not be edited at all for some amount of time, say 6 hours, after polls close. Then, the infobox should be updated only to updates states/districts where the AP has called the race at least 6 hrs after polls have closed AND several news organizations, say 2 or 3, have corroborated the story from the AP after the AP calls the race in that state/district. The race itself should not be called for say 24 hours after polls close and only when the AP calls the race and 3/4 news orgs corroborate this after the AP folks have called the race. This should be used as a building block for further discussion and not as a strict hardline solution I want to die over, but this sort of discussion, I hope, can help break the deadlock on this page. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are WP:NOTNEWS concerns, I'm not denying that. But my point was, those concerns are not specifically related to the AP proposal itself, but rather about any election night inclusion criteria broadly. WP:EVENTCRITERIA seems to allow us to update the infobox on election night and possibly even renders WP:NOTNEWS not applicable. Prcc27 (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite get the rationale for not displaying the results of the election when we know of the results of the election. Our job is to serve our readers, both for today, tomorrow, and 20 years from now, and we have a responsibility to present them with accurate, up to date information, and not giving them that information as soon as we responsibly can is shirking our responsibility. After AP calls the race, and possibly after other news organizations have as well, we should display that; there is no logical argument (as far as I can tell) for arbitrarily denying information to the public for a large amount of time. Zoozaz1 talk 04:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I am for displaying in the infobox any result called by the AP and a few other news orgs. Przemysl15 (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Przemysl15, You said "the infobox for the election should not be edited at all for some amount of time, say 6 hours, after polls close" and "The race itself should not be called for say 24 hours after polls close," which seems like an arbitrary time limit. Zoozaz1 talk 14:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we should update the infobox with projected electoral votes immediately when the AP calls races. But, the consensus to hold off on adding popular vote totals until 12 hours after polls close and only update them ever 6 hours still seems to be unchallenged. Prcc27 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, this consensus for the popular vote criteria only holds if we agree to update the infobox on election night. Prcc27 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought you meant the electoral votes. I don't really think the specific number of sources we use is really that important, only that we provide accurate and up to date information. Zoozaz1 talk 18:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1:, I also said This should be used as a building block for further discussion and not as a strict hardline solution I want to die over, but this sort of discussion, I hope, can help break the deadlock on this page. The point is to try and achieve some workable consensus so we definitely do not need any arbitrary time limit, but we should have some way to ensure we are not reporting numbers not backed by a sweeping RS consensus. I would then prefer to wait until the AP AND a few other sources call the race, the few sources corroborating AP as opposed to calling it before AP, so we have a better way to ensure our information will not be taken back at a later date. Przemysl15 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A projection is never 100% accurate, even if several media organizations are in agreement. I don't think it's that big of a deal if we have to retract an AP projection tally in the infobox, because it should be quite clear that these are not official results. However, I wouldn't have an issue with holding off on bolding a candidate until at least 1 media organization agrees with the AP. This is something we have already discussed in the national criteria section. Prcc27 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I also mean to say that this should be how state/district calling works as well. Once AP and 1 other source (preferably more but 1 seems to be something we can all agree on) say a candidate has won a state/district, we should reflect that information. Przemysl15 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think having AP and one or two major news organization call it is the way to go. Zoozaz1 talk 20:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That absolutely will not happen. Many users have already expressed that this would violate WP:SYNTH. We can't ignore a Wikipedia policy due to personal preferences. The only viable proposals thus far that can be carried out are using 1 source for the infobox tally (e.g. the Associated Press), or holding off on updating it until the tally is closer to being finalized. Can we please move on away from this proposal that clearly will not be implemented per Wikipedia policy? Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing this proposal with a prior one. This is a more refined version of the first alternative proposal you suggested. We use the Associated Press as the primary source for the infobox, but we do not put up the AP sourcing until a few other news organizations have corroborated the AP's findings. Przemysl15 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding up the electoral votes to me seems to be a pretty clear example of the basic arithmetic described in WP:CALC. We could easily just add up the electoral votes from the states that have been called by a number of reliable sources. Zoozaz1 talk 21:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It still seems like borderline WP:SYNTH. WP:CALC may negate the SYNTH concerns, but my biggest concern is actually WP:VERIFY. Our electoral vote tally should be easy to verify via a source. Waiting for a source to agree with the AP before updating the infobox will likely lead to an infobox tally that does not match any major media organization's electoral vote tally. Maybe we could have a separate color for states that have been projected only by the AP (light blue/light red) and another color for states where the AP projects a state with agreement from another source (regular blue/regular red). But honestly, I worry this will overcomplicate the map and infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is sufficient to let users verify the result from state results as long as it is clearly stated where the overall tally comes from; my main concern with relying on only one source is the chance of an incorrect call. It's best to be cautious about something as consequential as this and to me, that means not depending on a single source for the results. Zoozaz1 talk 23:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• If more users voice support for that proposal, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to that as a compromise (although I still have reservations about the proposal). But more users seem to support an AP only criteria, so unless more users agree to that proposal- I feel like agreeing on an AP only criteria would be our only viable option. Otherwise, waiting until after the election to update the infobox would seem to be the consensus. Let's see what other users have to say about the proposal though. Prcc27 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting an RfC below, where it'll (hopefully) be more organized and easier to follow. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Legions of Lawyers: Part 2

Unless there's a Biden blowout that even Trump can't contest, there's going to be a contested election or at least an attempt by the Trump people to make it one. Now whether how much is going to be on this page and how much will be on a new article will be determined when the time comes. An article called Supreme Court cases related to the 2020 US Presidential election can be started now, as there have been, as I mentioned before two cases, not including Trump's taxes (that would make it five) which have already been ruled on. I suggest we have a list of the cases and their rulings before the big stuff gets going. Then I'm not so sure. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Do the 2 current cases warrant creating a completely new article? Would we end up with a stub article if we move forward with a new article today? Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A stub will do for now. There are at least ten or fifteen cases that haven't been ruled on yet, including Trump's second bite at the apple on the taxes thing. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

National criteria

There seems to be a weak consensus for a 3+ sourced map/infobox, a weak consensus to list other tally/tallies in the infobox as well, and a moderate consensus that there are some WP:SYNTH/WP:NOTNEWS concerns (which might have been mitigated to a small degree in my compromise proposal in one of the discussions above that nobody has explicitly objected to). Many users are not tuned in to the discussion we have had. So it's possible, that on election day (when more users will be tuned into this article) that consensus will change. Nevertheless, we should move forward with the consensus that we achieved here. That being said, while we have a 3+ source criteria for declaring a candidate a winner of a state- we do not currently have a criteria for declaring a candidate the winner of the national election (projected president-elect). When should a candidate be "declared" the winner of the election in the infobox? In other words, when should we bold the candidate's name, running mate's name, and electoral vote tally? Should we bold a candidate once our map shows they have won, so long as at least 1 other major news organization has also projected them a winner? Should we bold a candidate once 3+ major news organizations have declared a candidate the winner, even if our map does not yet reflect that? My answer to both questions is "yes"- both should be the criteria for bolding a candidate. Of course, if the media organizations all declare a candidate the winner simultaneously- this discussion will be moot. Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason not to extend the consensus for the infobox to the calling of the race. When 3+ sources call the race, we should as well. I also disagree with your characterization of the consensuses in the prior discussion: there is at least a moderate consensus, and I think more accurately a decently strong consensus, for a 3+ sourced map/infobox, at most a weak consensus to list other tallies in the infobox, and at most a weak consensus that there are SYNTH, etc, concerns. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• There is moderate consensus for a 3+ sourced map/infobox broadly speaking, but there is weak consensus for an infobox that only lists a tally using the 3+ source criteria. I should have made that more clear. Prcc27 (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Issues" Section of this Article - Omitting the "Hunter Biden, Ukraine, NY Post, and Twitter Censorship" Issue

Right now (October 19, 2020), the biggest issue being discussed in right wing media is the Hunter Biden laptop and corruption story. The President himself has highlighted the Hunter Biden laptop story directly today (indeed, literally telling a reporter that the reporter is a criminal for not reporting on the Hunter Biden story).

The NY Post story about this issue led to Twitter censorship. It is a huge story and one of the big issues of this election.

Further, even before the NY Post story, the President referenced alleged Biden corruption due to Hunter Biden's receiving $50,000+ per month from Burisma and a large sum of money from the wife of the Moscow mayor during the first presidential debate.

Thus, it seems incomplete to list the issues of this election and not include this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki899 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It's covered in the Biden campaign article. That's enough. It is not likely to have much of an effect on the election based on the current reporting and reactions. If it somehow turns into a huge issue we can reconsider. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Currently The New York Post is considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP, and quite frankly this issue is not relevant at all. To the degree that this has received coverage, I find that it's mostly people laughing at the Post's lack of journalistic standards. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwiki899, NYP is an unreliable source per WP:RSP. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This story has not yet reached beyond pro-Trump echo chambers like the NYP. If it gains significant traction as an issue of the campaign in mainstream reporting, we can consider adding it then. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating whether the supposed emails are part of a Russian intelligence operation. Let's not give it any more exposure than we have to. But that reminds me, it should be added to the article Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Issues" Section of this Article - Omitting the "Civil Unrest and Rioting" Issue

Massive civil unrest occurred across the United States in 2020. Depending on political orientation, one might call it "civil unrest" or "riots."

President Trump makes an issue of the rioting/civil unrest in every single rally speech he delivers.

Thus, it seems like a glaring omission to leave this off as an issue being discussed in this campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki899 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the article about the election as a whole, and should not be a blow by blow account of the campaign. Such things can be discussed in the respective campaign articles. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the proposed wording, I can get behind the idea of having a section on the George Floyd protests, because they clearly had a massive effect on the campaign. It's currently mentioned in the lede, but not the article body. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ballot access table

It looks like the criterion for inclusion of candidates in the ballot access table has been to have ballot or write-in access to most of the electoral college, but the number of candidates satisfying this criterion is growing as more states are publishing their lists of write-in candidates. Currently there are 10 (see here), some of whom haven't been added to the table yet, and several more are expected in a few days. Should we use a more limiting criterion? I suggest the same used for the open debate, ballot access in at least 8 states, which would limit it to 10 candidates.

I also noticed that in the article for the previous election, the ballot access table was only added after the election, listing only candidates who received more than 100,000 votes. So should we just remove the table altogether, and only add it after the election based on the votes? Heitordp (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Heitordp, there was a consensus to include all candidates with access to 270 electoral votes (including write-in access) in that table. If more candidates have achieved that since the table was created, then they can be added. Taking a look at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, it seems that Blankenship and Simmons now qualify to be included in the table, in addition to the candidates already listed. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Well personally, if Jade Simmons, who is on the ballot in like two states and has done absolutely nothing of importance meets the criteria for that table, I would rather just remove it. I mean, it's clearly not even showing us the most notable third-party candidates at that point. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat, I'm personally indifferent, but there may be a well-established consensus behind this that I'm unaware of. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 04:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There is also Kasey Wells, who is not listed on any ballot but reached access to more than 270 EC votes by write-in registration alone. See the collapsed table under the main table here. Given that he's not even visible by default in that article, I'm hesitant to list him in the main article. Moreover, I don't think that access to most of the electoral college is a good criterion at all, because it's not difficult to obtain and it's not even a requirement to win the election. In theory, a candidate could win just one state (or even just one unpledged elector) and then get elected in the House (that was Evan McMullin's strategy in 2016). Of course that is extremely unlikely, but so is winning by write-in votes. I'd rather rely on notability such as media coverge or being invited to the open debate. For now I'll add only Don Blankenship as he satisfies both criteria. Heitordp (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose removing the ballot access table, leave it in for now, the number of people in it will be culled after election day when they fail to get the 100,000 votes. Note that the election results table for post election has a lower bar than the ballot access table, every candidate that gets 0.1% of the popular vote or alternatively gets a electoral college vote (via pledged, unpledged or faithless) is included.XavierGreen (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I can agree with XavierGreen on this one. Looking at the 2016 page though, it looks like the bar for inclusion in the election results table is 0.05%, not 0.1%. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

At 0.05%, its entirely possible that anyone from Phil Collins of the Prohibition Party on up ballot access wise could meet the inclusion criteria in terms of the final popular vote tally.XavierGreen (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's possible sure, but I doubt it would happen. In 2016, Gloria La Riva was on the ballot for a combined 80 electoral votes, and just barely got 0.05%. If we apply the same standard here, Kanye West, Brock Pierce, Don Blankenship, Rocky De La Fuente, Gloria La Riva, Howie Hawkins and Jo Jorgensen would all be in the results table, and that seems fine to me. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add Jade Simmons, she reached >270 EC with write-in Deniz Demir 28 (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I made some formatting changes to the table: expanded the names of candidates, added wikilinks, lightened background colors to improve legibility, merged states and DC, formatted total access in smaller and italic text, moved and added notes. I also removed the empty columns for now, they can be added after the votes are counted. Let me know if you don't like these changes.

Regarding the criterion for inclusion, I kept the consensus of access to most of the electoral college, which required adding Jade Simmons and Kasey Wells. Tartan357 removed Kasey Wells as he's not listed on any ballot, to avoid undue weight. I agree. Later, Mark Charles also reached access to 270 electors, and I noticed that two other quite unknown candidates might also reach that threshold soon (President R19 Boddie and Tom Hoefling). These candidates are on the ballot in only one state, so to keep them off the table I raised the criterion to being on the ballot in more than one state (in addition to reaching >270 electors with write-in). Do you agree?

The remaining candidates that can still satisfy these criteria are Brock Pierce and Kanye West. Brock Pierce is close so I expect him to reach the threshold soon. But Kanye West would have to register in all remaining write-in states to reach it, which I find unlikely. However, he has been mentioned in the media more than any other minor candidate, so he might even get more votes than most of the others despite having less access and a less serious campaign. Should we change the criteria to include him too? Maybe add an alternative criterion of ballot access to more than 10 states? Heitordp (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Tom Hoefling and Kanye West can no longer reach access to 270 electors. Due to recent edits and lack of response here, I don't really see a consensus to use access to most of the electoral college as the criterion for inclusion in the table, at least not on its own. And as I wrote earlier, it satisfies neither theory (it's not an absolute requirement to be elected president) nor practice (it has little relation to notability or popularity). Instead, I propose including candidates that have ballot access in more than one state and ballot plus write-in access in most states. This would include all candidates currently in the table, plus Brock Pierce and Kanye West. I'll go ahead and make this change, but I'm still open to discussion if someone disagrees. Heitordp (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

Delete "has increased" in front of Generation Z in the section Demographic Trends under Background. Red 05 (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2020 (2)

In this paragraph:

Central issues of the election include the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left over 220,000 Americans dead; protests in reaction to the killing of George Floyd and other African Americans; the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, and the future of the Affordable Care Act, with Biden arguing for protecting and expanding the scope of the legislation, and Trump pushing for repealing or narrowing many of its provisions.

Add: "climate change regulations, particularly the Paris Agreement from which Trump plans to withdraw;"

Making the paragraph read:

Central issues of the election include the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left over 220,000 Americans dead; protests in reaction to the killing of George Floyd and other African Americans; the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, climate change regulations, particularly the Paris Agreement from which Trump plans to withdraw; and the future of the Affordable Care Act, with Biden arguing for protecting and expanding the scope of the legislation, and Trump pushing for repealing or narrowing many of its provisions.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54395534
Alternative source: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/22/925468716/theres-a-lot-at-stake-for-the-climate-in-the-2020-election
2601:640:4000:3170:7D9D:E6D7:E959:A951 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I have implemented your request. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

In the article it says "(Biden would be) the first candidate to defeat an incumbent president in 28 years since Republican George H. W. Bush's defeat by Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992; and also, the first Democratic candidate to defeat an incumbent Republican president in 44 years since Gerald Ford's defeat by Jimmy Carter in 1976". The last part about Gerald Ford's defeat by Jimmy Carter should be removed as the last time a Democrat defeated an incumbent Republican president was already mentioned in the previous sentence which was George H.W. Bush's defeat by Bill Clinton. MetabolicMouth (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

To editor MetabolicMouth:  done by Heitordp, so thank you for the good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding to "Potential rejection of election results"

I am unsure if you need permission to make edits to certain pages so I will leave it here. In terms of the potential rejection of election results, I believe we should add a sentence or two about what Hillary Clinton said to Biden, "should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'". There have been many news outlets that have covered this included CNN, NBC News, Politico, and more. Thank you. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Grahaml35, the page is under WP:BLUELOCK so you are correct that you do not yet have the capability to edit this page yourself. But you need not worry about that because the system will not let you edit the article if you attempt to do so. Regarding your suggestion, I think that is perfectly fine, but I will wait to see if any other editors object here before adding it myself. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 20:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, I appreciate you waiting to see if other editors object to adding this, which is consistent with Wikipedia policies. But if it makes a difference, often, when two or more editors approve of content, it's been my experience in most matters like this that the content can be added and retained in the article unless and until there is an objection to the fact that that has been done. Although you can wait a little longer if you'd like, I'd say that, given the suggestion, the sources that support adding it, and both you and I being in favor of the change (which, for the record, is a suggestion I absolutely and completely support), my recommendation to you, given your track record of adding valid information to this article, would be to be bold and go ahead and add it however you see fit to do so. For any others reading this thread who disagree with that, feel free to make that known here. But for the interim, I'd said the suggestion has sufficient support unless and until there are objections to that addition. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jgstokes, thanks. To be clear, I would have felt perfectly comfortable adding it. I just didn't feel strongly enough about it to want to. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to add it, we need to add the WHOLE comment: that he should not concede on election night. [10] It would be grossly misleading to suggest that she told him never to concede. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, that is a very important distinction, and I'm glad you caught that difference. I agree that the mention of Clinton's advice to Biden should include the full and complete quote. Nice catch. So let's include the information while ensuring that distnction is made. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I just added it. Tweaks/improvements are welcome. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I had no idea she qualified it that way. Thanks for pointing this out. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 01:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

move the polls from the article to another article - state polls were completely wrong in 2016

I've looked at the polls section and don't think it should be part of the article. These were all the same polls that were wrong in 2016 at the state level while at the national level they were roughly correct. It's a high level of detail and considerable article space for something that likely will not be correct. Plus it is confusing and I question how often it is actually being updated. Thoughts. SailedtheSeas (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wikipedia does not evaluate the methodology of predictions and they should be included because they are an important part of the election. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 20:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support removing state level polls (I wasn't looking for something akin to a rfc, but in case that seems better I'll weigh in that way). I think they should be moved to their own article with a link from this one because they were all wrong in 2016 and there's no reason to assume they'll be right this time. I'm not asking wp to eval the methodology as that was done in 2016 when they were all wrong and i've looked at multiple polls and have yet to find one that has said they modified their methodology in the light of being wrong. And just so I'm clear, it's the level of detail that's my issue ie all 50 states + DC. I think this article should only have national level polls and that another article can have the state level of detail. At some point one has to make a judgement about how long an article is and whether it should be shortened for the good of the article. And lastly i'm not sure why polls are an important part of the election. Do you vote based on the poll of what other people think? Maybe I'm unusual but I have my own mind and I look at the policies of a person and their statements to decide who to vote for and don't vote based upon who an obviously prejudice media wants me to vote for. Frankly, the reason I supported Ross Perot way back in 92 was because I didn't like the other two, but I didn't support him 4 years later. I'd be curious as to some clarity around why polls are so important to you so I can try and understand. Thanks. SailedtheSeas (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Where on this page are there any polls, much less state polls? There isn't anything to remove. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, guess it's actually called "state predictions" but it's all based on polls so it's kind of a word game. actually all the info in the long table is actually available via polls links just above the section and these other pages are current whereas the info in the table is over 2 weeks old which is ancient in light of all the stuff going on. BTW I tried to follow some of the links in the table to what's supposed to be source material and most do not work or do not follow to info that actually supports the table. SailedtheSeas (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tartan357. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly there is no such section type in any prior election. That table is effectively a "stand-in" for when actual results will come in so for that reason it's useful, but the info in it is completely out of date. I do reserve the right though if when I look at this later still find the links do not actually support the info in the table that i'll remove it. regardless it must be sourced and right now it is not very well and it definitely is not current. SailedtheSeas (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Opposse, It can be removed once we actually have a results table, for now it serves a useful purpose. And if it is removed, Please take care not to remove the Results table that is currently hidden in the state predictions section. I also query the nom's assertion that they were "all wrong" in 2016. Yes, Trump overperformed expectations with regard to the predictions in some states, especially in the Rust Belt, but that is hardly grounds for a blanket statement such as that. There is a reason why the category "Lean R/D" exists, and its exactly to account for scenarios like that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename the "issues" section

Issues sounds like it would refer to any issues covered in the campaign, for example, healthcare. Instead, it talks about things that affect the election process. If anybody wants to write about campaign issues, they can do so in a new section, but the title of this current section should be indicative of its contents. The title of this section was previously something like "Issues unique to the 2020 election", which was more descriptive. I don't know what it should be changed to, but maybe "noteworthy issues" or "election considerations." Thanks. 2601:640:4000:3170:4086:D5CA:2B0D:D113 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Issues unique to the 2020 election" per nom. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I additionally support changing the name to "Issues unique to the 2020 election" (or some suitable and similar alternative) Przemysl15 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

What to do on the mid-afternoon on November the Fourth

Here's a good link to a pamphlet on what might happen if Trump tries to steal the [11] election. It could be used as an outline for an article, if worse comes to worst. I think such an article should be built from this draft which I've already started. Or Biden could win by a landslide and Trump concede, in which case, never mind. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that is a self-published source on Google Docs, that should not be used under any circumstances. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, no matter how many times you try to get a WP:CRYSTALBALL article created on the "mess" you predict on 11/4, it will not happen. WP:DROPTHESTICK. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure, but this sure feels like a good time to invoke WP:DENY Przemysl15 (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I can personally vouch for Arglebargle79, while they have done many things I disagree with and several things I consider misguided and silly, I have no doubt they are here to build an encyclopaedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Przemysl15, agreed. They've pushed this before and I've previously said to WP:DENY. I should have continued to follow my own advice and not dignified this with a response. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 08:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The election is less than a week away. I said it was something to read in case what might happen happens. Suggesting that getting people prepared is a BAD thing, is just really silly. If the result is so clear that Trump decides to accept the results, then fine. It's still something to think about. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Arglebargle79. While I do believe you are trying to help us by telling us to prepare for the possible election outcome you laid out- there isn't really much we can do at this point except wait for the election to play out, and then update Wikipedia accordingly. You're welcome to make draft articles, but keep in mind that a lot of the content of your potential article would be based on what happens after the election. So a draft article at this stage of the race would only get you so far.

In response to some of the other users on this talk page, please note that WP:AGF applies, and unlike WP:DENY (which is only an essay), WP:AGF is an actual Wikipedia guideline. Of course, assuming good faith does not apply when it is obvious that someone is acting in bad faith. But I don't really think Arglebargle79 is intentionally disrupting this talk page. Prcc27 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Very well. I can assume good faith on the part of Arglebargle. Wombat is right he has a long and protracted history of at least nominally constructive edits in the general US Election space. However, there is a similarly lengthy and protracted history of talk page edits along the line of "when this happens all hell will break loose and we need to be ready", often followed by calls to action for massive page overhauls, restructurings, or something of the sort, all of which are met with responses exclusively deeming such actions premature in nature with the best action being simply waiting until the date of apparent Armageddon. Many such comments can be found in this very thread. I'm not sure if the user in question was taken to ANI over it but I certainly know it was discussed. I know you're supposed to references diffs with this but I am not intending to call out anyone, just state that DENY was probably unfounded and out of frustration that I see no willingness to stop throwing proverbial "we need a massive overhaul" darts at the mainspace dartboard, and the cycle perpetually continues. However, this sort of thing is mildly frustrating at worst and doesn't need DENY or anything else invoked for that matter. Przemysl15 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Przemysl15, agreed. I feel exactly the same way (frustrated) by this and concede that invoking WP:DENY was probably unnecessary. I acknowledge that disruptive editing (WP:ICANTHEARYOU in this case) isn't necessarily bad faith editing. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 08:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, please stop worrying about what will happen "after" the election. Just do good work now and it'll all fall into place (on Wikipedia, at least). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The file is not opening for me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't open for me when I made the first comment, so the Devonian Wombat comment on that it should never be used is well placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Przemysl15 (talk • contribs)

Let's go back to the Y2K bug, for a moment. In the early to mid-90s, someone noticed that the old code from the '70s would crash when the years went from 1999 to 2000. People started to panic. "oh my GAWWD!!!" they said, "the cyberworld's going to crash!!!" This doomsday scenario was actually taken seriously, millions and millions of dollars were spent trying to fix it, and they were successful. Nothing happened. The general public laughed at these "Cassandras" who were yelling and screaming, but the general public was wrong. Thanks to the Cassandras, we dodged a major bullet.

Unlike previous elections besides 2000 and 1876, all the post-election formalities were, with a tiny blip or two, were unremarkable formalities worth a mention, but not an article, there's a distinct possibility of major disruptions and litigation. There have already been half a dozen Supreme court rulings.

As to doing a draft, I am already working on one. I invite everyone to come and improve the living daylights out of it. if you want to change the title to something like "2020-21 Presidential transition" that would be fine. I am open to suggestions. There is nothing wrong with being ready. The election's in less than a week. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not calm down, wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What if Biden does not win though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The draft article would be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Like @GoodDay said. I've no problem with that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Could we please archive this section of the talk page? I tried archiving it, but was immediately reverted. Prcc27 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said archive the whole section when it no longer needed. Don't break out a sub-section that is part of a large section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Prcc27: Why? This page archives automatically, and it's very unusual to archive just a subsection of a talk page section. Why can't it just archive normally along with the rest of the conversation, when it meets the criteria for the bot? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Reduce height of nominee tables

I find the nominee tables too large. I propose a few changes to reduce the height: merge the party symbol and header into one line, remove manual line breaks in the description below the photo, merge the campaign logo and link into one line, and limit the campaign logo height to 100px. See the examples below. What do you think? Heitordp (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Republican

2020 Republican Party ticket
style="font-size:135%; background:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color"|Donald Trump	style="font-size:135%; background:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color"|Mike Pence
for President	for Vice President
45th President of the United States (2017–present)	48th Vice President of the United States (2017–present)
Campaign

Democratic

2020 Democratic Party ticket
style="font-size:135%; background:Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color"|Joe Biden	style="font-size:135%; background:Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color"|Kamala Harris
for President	for Vice President
47th Vice President of the United States (2009–2017)	U.S. senator from California (2017–present)
Campaign

Libertarian

File:LPF-torch-logo (cropped).png 2020 Libertarian Party ticket
style="font-size:135%; background:Template:Libertarian Party (United States)/meta/color"|Jo Jorgensen	style="font-size:135%; background:Template:Libertarian Party (United States)/meta/color"|Spike Cohen
for President	for Vice President
Senior Lecturer at Clemson University	Podcaster and businessman
Campaign

Green

2020 Green Party ticket
style="font-size:135%; background:Template:Green Party (United States)/meta/color"|Howie Hawkins	style="font-size:135%; background:Template:Green Party (United States)/meta/color"|Angela Walker
for President	for Vice President
Co-founder of the Green Party	ATU Local 998 Legislative Director (2011–2013)
Campaign

• Mostly oppose: I think centering the logos makes the tables look cleaner and more organized. I do support limiting the campaign logo height to 100px. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly oppose, I concur with Tartan357, I think these wider tables look worse than the current vertical ones. I am fine with the images being limited to 100px in height though. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you see the tables wider? On my screen they have the same width as the current ones, only the height is reduced. Heitordp (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm viewing on a laptop right now, and from what I can see and by measuring very vaguely with my finger, they seem to anywhere from one-quarter to one-third wider than the current tables. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that some browsers handle column widths differently. I changed the code above and checked it in other browsers. Do you see the expected width now? If so, what do you think about removing manual line breaks in the descriptions below the photos? Heitordp (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly support: I don't see them as major changes and tightening them some makes sense. I don't think removing the break return in the description below the photo is necessary as it doesn't seem to make a difference (or where it does for one of the two people shown, it doesn't for the other so you might as well keep it in place to ensure consistency). Carter (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The current tables have two manual breaks for both candidates of both major parties, making the descriptions at least three lines, and the text "Vice President of the United States" occupies two lines (at least on my screen), for a total of four lines. In my proposal, all descriptions occupy at most two lines. Heitordp (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly oppose, per reasoning laid out by Tartan357 and Devonian Wombat. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. For now, I'll only limit the height of the logos to 100px. Heitordp (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Should "President Trump" be replaced with either "Trump" or "Donald Trump"?

I feel President Trump makes it feel like a news article. I'm in favor of "Trump". Should it be replaced? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Just "Trump" is fine after the first mention in the lede. Wikipedia does not use honorific prefixes before names per MOS:HONORIFIC. I think "President" is included within that category. KidAd talk 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not supporting or agreeing, just noting that some if not all of the mentions are relevant about Trump as the president of the time not just a mere candidate like Joe Biden or Kayne West. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Kanye West still running? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, he says he is, although he only has access to 237 electoral votes, even including write-in access, which is not enough to win. Every voter in the country could write him in and he still wouldn't win. It's therefore accurate to say he's lost and is no longer a candidate. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:HONORIFIC. First reference President Trump/Former Vice President Biden, and then just Trump/Biden. In cases where the office is relevant, we still know Trump is currently president or the sentence can be recast in some way. Carter (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per MOS:HONORIFIC and on the same argument as laid out above by Tcr25. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - How is it done on the other US prez election articles, where an incumbent president is running for re-election? GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, looking at 2012, "President Obama" is used only three times in the prose, two of those in captions. By contrast "Obama" by itself is used 99 times. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

I believe the home states of the running mates Vice President Pence of Indiana and Senator Harris of California should be listed Historymaj18 (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The VP nominees have joined the ticket of the Presidential nominees; the election is primarily about the presidency. What you propose is not done on the other US presidential election articles. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per 331dot. Consensus would be needed to change the entire U.S. presidential election series. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 08:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the word Senator should capitalized in the Harris info box

I think that the word Senator should capitalized in the Harris info box.

Cnon20 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Cnon

 Done ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 11:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tartan357

Cnon20 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Cnon20

COVID deaths in America

The number of deaths in America is 638,044; of which 220,000 belong to the United States alone. The article cites 220,000 as the number of deaths in the whole continent, when only people from the United States are allowed to vote in the US presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:40:28:DD9:A969:4CD4:CF48:217B (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"Americans" in English mostly refers to people in the United States, rather than to people who live in all of the Americas. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, and that is especially obvious in the context of this article. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 20:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding to issues in lede: immigration

Immigration has been one of the most hotly contested issues of Trump's presidency. I think this deserves a mention in the lede, maybe just a link to Immigration policy of Donald Trump and saying that Biden criticizes it, or also more specifically mentioning aspects like the Trump administration family separation policy. Examples of news coverage: NYT, CNN. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Updating predictions

I would update this myself if I were able to yet, but multiple sites under the state predictions section have dates marked from a couple weeks ago at least, and a lot of polling has come out since then. For example I noticed Michigan and Louisiana have moved up to Solid for their respective parties on 538 (though only very recently). CNN, The Economist, 270towin, CBS, ABC, and NPR have also likely been updated but I am not willing to comb through those for a wiki page that I cannot edit anyway. Predictions are bound to fluctuate in the coming days so maybe it's just not worth it to play whack-a-mole with them. Spondborber (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

US election disinformation contact email at WMF

Hi all - I just wanted to drop a notice here about a Wikimedia Foundation contact email address we'll be using during the 2020 US Presidential Election relating to disinformation on Wikipedia.

In the run-up to the election, a group of Wikimedia Foundation staff have been monitoring and investigating the potential for disinformation campaigns on Wikipedia (read more in this blog post). We have been working with other technology companies, external disinformation experts, and Wikimedia functionaries to explore how disinformation campaigns might intersect with Wikipedia in addition to understanding the broader landscape. Wikimedia projects are in a great position with respect to disinformation overall, but aren't immune, so we're making sure that we at the Foundation are in a good position to support the community in the event of a potentially high profile incident. Later in the year we'll share some information on how this work played out, any disinformation incidents that occurred on Wikipedia, and what we've learned.

If you see a disinformation issue on Wikimedia projects or social media that you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be aware of - for example because it requires an Office action or we might expect to see media coverage - please contact the WMF Disinformation Task Force at drtwikimedia.org. While this email address isn't quite as sensitive as emergency@, please only use it to report potential disinformation incidents, and not for general queries. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

US Election results Due Date

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.

---

When can we see the results for the election? Election night of November 3rd? Or November 17th when all 50 states have counted mailed in voting Ballots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume that whenever reliable sources declare a winner, the discussion will start here. In my memory, the Associated Press is usually the first to declare a winner.

Do not expect Wikipedia to declare a victor before media organizations do. We follow the sources, we don't lead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia going to declare the Winner on December then? Is that what they're doing? Delayed reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't declare the winner, we simply report if reliable sources declare a winner. Zoozaz1 talk 14:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, you’re going to report the result on December Like last time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As others have said, we will not add a result until reliable sources start reporting one–and even then, we may wait for a very clear agreement among multiple reliable sources. If they weren't to do so until December, then neither would this article, but I think it's too soon to speculate on when a result will become apparent. If you are looking to Wikipedia as a place to come for the first announcement of who has won, I would suggest reconsidering that choice. This is an encyclopedia: Wikipedia does not "declare" a winner or break news. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you know it only took 5 hours for Wikipedia to make 2020 Beruit explosion page on the same day it happened? Only 5 hours. That’s top notch professionalism worthy of a Nobel prize.

However, for 2016 election, it took a month after the presidential election results announcement for Wikipedia started display results. What happened? did you procrastinate by partying and drinking beer every night? Are you going to do the same for this election? Just wait a month after the election results get announced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 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.

Protecting state election articles

Hi. I think it would be prudent to protect the articles for the states, at least the competitive ones. There's going to be a lot of disinformation and bad actors who very likely will try to put fake results in/call it when the reported votes are still volatilely changing. DemonDays64 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: I suspect this is a better conversation for WP:RFPP or WP:AN. We generally don't preemptively protect, though I think a lot of us will be watching closely for attempts at m/disinformation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: hmm ok. (minor thing: remember that if you forget to ping and then edit it back in, you need to sign again for it to work). DemonDays64 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: Huh, I did that... surprised it didn't ping you correctly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Gremlins! Nobody panic, we can still protect Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Vermont if we work together and nobody feeds the results tables after midnight. I'm picking up troubling signals from Florida, seems someone forgot to not moisten their servers. Nothing but static from Kentucky and Marvin Gardens, but satellite imagery suggests hotel development in the cards for Baltic, Orient and Boardwalk. Good night, DemonDays64, and good luck, GorillaWarfare! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: what? DemonDays64 (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Gremlins. They like screwing with technology in times of political strife, especially annoying America. They were responsible for Pete Buttigieg apparently leading when the Democrats started counting primary votes. Could do worse than a few spoiled pings today, IRL. The rest is purposefully obtuse, ignore it if you'd like, but seriously, good luck with whatever goes wrong for various reasons (glitches, trolls, tricksters, irregularities, disputes, overriding edit conflicts, doubt). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: What sources should be used for calling states?

What sources should be used for calling states? Below are three of the (consensus) options from the section above.
• The Associated Press, which is used by many other news sources
• The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP
• The AP and a couple of other sources that do rely on the AP
• Don't call anything

Responses

• AP only, as the AP is considered the gold standard of calling elections. Many other news sources use the AP, as well as HRC's campaign in 2016. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP. Preferably 2 other sources who DO rely on the AP but this RfC does not have that as an option. I would like to have a broader catch of RS consensus than just the AP, and/or a show of faith in a call by the AP from other RS. Failing that, would prefer only AP to not calling anything until there is a clear and distinct winner because I feel that the infobox should be updated with as reliable as information as can be garnered. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I've added that as an option now. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I have changed my mind and I do support my original statement. I misunderstood the options, my apologies. Up to you if you want to keep that option, but I no longer need it. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP We are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. It's best to rely on multiple sources in case AP turns out to be incorrect; in other words, better safer than sorry. Zoozaz1 talk 02:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll also add that there is a dispute whether to show the overall electoral tally according to AP or according to the called state races on Wikipedia, which themselves are the subject of this discussion, so maybe you could work that into the rfc? Zoozaz1 talk 03:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I support attempting to include all of this in the RfC seeing as the election is literally tomorrow. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• AP only. They've been accurately and properly calling elections since 1848 and I think they're the most reliable source when it comes to this.Herbfur (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• AP only, the second (and possibly third) option has WP:VERIFY issues as well as borderline WP:SYNTH concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• For information purposes only: Twitter will "consider a result official" when at least two of the following have made the call: ABC News, AP, CBS News, CNN, DecisionDeskHQ, Fox News, NBC News. My personal opinion is that you're not going to get the 3 reliable sources that you talked about above if you're only going to accept AP. Risker checklist (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (Note this is an alternate account of mine - Risker (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC))
• Option 2. I like the idea of relying on any two sources from a predetermined list of high-quality news organizations (including the AP), sort of like what Risker mentioned Twitter is doing. Per Zoozaz1, we should also specify that the sources should be independently reporting, not, say, the AP saying "X has won" and another source saying "The AP has called the race for X". GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, as I have said previously, relying only on the AP is a bad idea, since that organisation is by no means infallible. We should instead have a predetermined list of reliable organisations, and since the clear consensus we had was buried among endless procrastinating, we should follow Twitter's lead as a last resort. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No projection is infallible, that's why it's called a projection. In 2018, most news outlets projected a House candidate for the wrong candidate, so option 2 doesn't necessarily ensure complete accuracy either. Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's a little late to be holding a RfC on this question. I mean by this time tomorrow, the voting will be over on the West Coast and the counting will be continuing. This RfC probably should have been done in September, not the night before the election. You can't hold an RfC for 12 hours and consider it definitive or say it's "the consensus". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good point. Since we probably won't come to a consensus by tomorrow- it looks like we are going to have to hold off on updating the infobox and map altogether. And most people at the noticeboard actually said they preferred not updating the map and infobox. So it looks like that will be the consensus by default. Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• ALL of the results that will be released on November 3-4 will be provisional. None of them will have been certified by the end of November 4. Some states will have projected winners, but most news outlets have indicated they will be very conservative in "calling" races this year, so it is quite possible that there will still be many states without projected winners by the end of November 4. I think it is wise to hold off on the infobox/map updating until then, and insist that any state results also meet the same standard of a minimum of 2 or 3 reliable sources for projected winners. Risker checklist (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. If we are going to hold off on updating, we should either update once 1 source (i.e. the AP) has projected all states and districts or we should wait until all states and districts have been unanimously projected by every major media outlet. Your proposal has WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 even though it seems like consensus won't be reached in the next 12 hours, I think that relying on just AP will give us less of a headache of each result being subject to interpretation. Sidenote: @Prcc27: do you know which other news sources rely on AP? I know at least NPR and some NBC local affiliates do but I can't find a definitive list. Sixula^Talk 13:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the New York Times and Bloomberg also rely on them? Prcc27 (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per GW. I'd separately support not calling any states until 0600 UTC, when the final polls close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote counts

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 reverted the unsourced addition of the first handful of votes that've come in in New Hampshire, as the addition was unsourced. Devonian Wombat has just restored them, with a source mentioned in the edit summary but not in-text.

What exactly is the plan here? Are we going to try to keep a running tally by adding individual towns' results, sourcing them in edit summaries? Source them all in-text and end up with a massive list of references for each state? Or perhaps we should hold off on adding these tallies until a meaningful number of votes have been counted?

Noting that the decision may be relevant to 2020 United States presidential election in New Hampshire also, which is facing the same issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The current consensus is split between either waiting 12 hours after the last poll closes before adding the popular vote total, and then updating it every 6 hours or to hold off altogether for the time being per WP:NOTNEWS. That user acted unilaterally and should be reverted. Prcc27 (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for reverting, I completely forgot the agreement made beforehand not to touch the popular vote until 12 hours after polls close. I hereby WP:TROUT myself. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

All good, I'll stick a note in a comment so others don't do the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The total is still up on the article. Prcc27 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I think I got the last of it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Also, for the record, I re-added some of the totals by accident. I meant to make a dummy edit, but failed miserably. My bad. Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not a problem, I think I got them too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:27, 3 November 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.

Removal of material w claim of “ dubious relevance”

here.

That the material is relevant is evident here. @Devonian Wombat, kindly revert your removal. Humanengr (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is it here exactly? As far as I can tell, that material should be at 2016 United States presidential election. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

E.g., https://apnews.com/article/5e14adfdd3f24f03b6944b778751a650. Humanengr (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The only reference to 2020 in this article is the title and a sentence in the introduction: "the ultimate verdict on President Donald Trump will be rendered by voters in the 2020 election", which could be said in relation to the election had the Mueller report never existed. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Przemysl15, also Ahead of the 2020 election, both [parties] are trying to reach the slice of Americans who have not hardened to partisan positions. A June poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 31% of Americans said they didn’t know enough to say whether Mueller’s report had completely cleared Trump of coordination with Russia and 30% didn’t know whether it had not completely cleared Trump of obstruction. A CNN poll found that just 3% said they had read the whole report. Perhaps Mueller’s testimony, with his button-down lawyer’s approach, reached some of them. Humanengr (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Przemysl15, I provided evidence that your claim is incorrect. Please respond. The text I offered is appropriate here.Humanengr (talk)<

@Devonian Wombat, also https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/us-voters-have-mueller-report-final-say-2020-election. Humanengr (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I still see no indication that this is relevant to the 2020 election at all. One off-hand comment in one news article is not enough. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s not ‘off-hand’. That’s -analysis- by AP. Did you read the VOA article? Humanengr (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

From VOA:

1. Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.
2. The Mueller rreport found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.
3. Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.
4. They are also moving toward citing Attorney General William Barr with contempt of Congress for not producing an un-redacted version of the Mueller report.
5. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., moves ahead with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after last-minute negotiations stalled with the Justice Department over access to the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
6. As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.
7. Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.}}

Humanengr (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: I have provided additional evidence the material is appropriate to include. Pls respond. Humanengr (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat and Przemysl15: I have provided more than sufficient evidence to counter your objections, which seem to approach WP:IDL. Humanengr (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Also note this re timing. Humanengr (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

With that, I propose

One day prior to the November 3, 2020 election, the Special Counsel's office released previously redacted portions of the Mueller report per the federal judge’s order in the lawsuit mentioned above filed by BuzzFeed News and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, while allowing other portions to remain redacted.

Humanengr (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

At this point, this amounts to WP:Stonewalling. Humanengr (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

In the candidate section of the page, the slot for other minor candidates is written in persian despite the page being in English. Would change other from Persian to English for ease of reading. Zombiedale (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Already Fixed, the issue was due to possible vandalism over at Template:U.S. presidential ticket box other, see diff. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

An admittedly quite pedantic suggestion

"Voters will select presidential electors who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020, to either elect a new president and vice president or reelect the incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence respectively."

to

"States will nominate presidential electors who will vote on December 14, 2020, to either elect a new president and/or vice president or reelect the incumbents Donald Trump and/or Mike Pence respectively."

Reasoning:

1. The votes of the people technically don't matter. So "States will nominate" is more accurate.

2. It is possible for a new president to be elected while the old vice president remains or the other way around. It is highly unlikely that it would happen, as it would rely on faithless electors, but it is possible.

Dieknon (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Per your first point, they do matter according to the laws of all 50 states. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 16:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020 (2)

In 2020 United States presidential election#Demographic trends, {{further}} should go before {{Update section}} per MOS:LAYOUT JsfasdF252 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done JsfasdF252 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020 (3)

Donald Trump is not from Florida. He is from New York, New York. The sidebar of him and Joe Biden indicates he is from Florida when he is not. DL19992020 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done He changed his residency to Florida. So that is what we consider his home state. Prcc27 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Prcc27. Also you do realize there is a note in the infobox explaining this? Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC on newly redacted portions of the Mueller report

Should the following be appended to the Foreign interference §?

One day prior to the November 3, 2020 election, the Special Counsel's office released previously redacted portions of the Mueller report per the federal judge’s order in the lawsuit mentioned above filed by BuzzFeed News and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, while allowing other portions to remain redacted. The newly released passages indicated that "federal prosecutors could not establish that the hacked emails amounted to campaign contributions benefitting Trump’s election chances."

For relevance, pls see my comment in Discussion, below.

Humanengr (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Survey

• No It's about the 2016 election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pls see my comment in Discussion below. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• No Not unless there's any evidence that this has any impact. It seems to belong on Mueller report, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Has the criterion of evidence that this has any impact rather than straightforward relevance been applied to anything else in this article? Humanengr (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• No Does not appear pertinent to this election cycle. KidAd talk 19:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems that experts anticipated (see points #6 and 7 in Discussion below) the Mueller investigation (of which this is part-and-parcel) would, in fact, be pertinent to this election cycle. Humanengr (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, completely irrelevant to the election, also the quote you added to the article previously was not the quote that was actually in the article. While I do not wish to throw aspersions, I must call into question the motives of Humanegr in this particular situation, given he, as far as I can tell, made up a quote and added it to the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Link please Humanengr (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Relevance to this article is indicated by this July AP analysis:

Ahead of the 2020 election, both [parties] are trying to reach the slice of Americans who have not hardened to partisan positions. A June poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 31% of Americans said they didn’t know enough to say whether Mueller’s report had completely cleared Trump of coordination with Russia and 30% didn’t know whether it had not completely cleared Trump of obstruction. A CNN poll found that just 3% said they had read the whole report. Perhaps Mueller’s testimony, with his button-down lawyer’s approach, reached some of them.

and by the following points from this earlier VOA article, in particular, points #6 and 7:

1. Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.
2. The Mueller rreport found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.
3. Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.
4. They are also moving toward citing Attorney General William Barr with contempt of Congress for not producing an un-redacted version of the Mueller report.
5. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., moves ahead with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after last-minute negotiations stalled with the Justice Department over access to the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
6. As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.
7. Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.

Humanengr (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why this deletion?

Due to the "consensus required" provision for this article, I won't immediately revert this absurd deletion, with no edit summary, by PackMecEng of a good sentence added by Snooganssnoogans. Here is the deleted sentence:

"In the lead-up to the election, Trump made frequent false claims intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, as well as refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

This is a very well-documented phenomenon with Trump. He lies constantly about the election, doing everything he can to weaken confidence in its legitimacy and to make it harder for citizens to exercise their constitutional voting rights. That sentence is factual, important, and very properly-sourced. What are the policy-based objections for complete deletion, without any attempt to follow the WP:PRESERVE policy? Let's hear them. If there is some background for this such as a previous/existing discussion or consensus, then please explain. -- Valjean (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Mostly because it is a standard POV push and cherry picking. For example he is noted for saying he would in fact accept a peaceful transition.[12] Just an undue mess of contradictions. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Then how should it be improved? -- Valjean (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just leave it in. Trump has a tendency to admit something and then change his mind and deny it later (or half walk it back anyway). It is clear from many reports that Trump, his administration and campaign officials, have made contradicting statements about whether they will respect the results of the election. It is undue to omit this, or to say "he took it back... nothing to see here."--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I did improve it with my revert. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Properly-sourced content is not improved by deleting it. PRESERVE is explicitly about NOT deleting, but keeping and improving content by tweaking, revising, adding more and better sources, etc. Deletion is not improvement. That only applies to vandalism, clearly (to ALL) dubious content that is not properly sourced, or content that is clearly (to ALL) a violation of policies. -- Valjean (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I've seen as a counterpoint to your make it harder for citizens to exercise their constitutional voting rights a similar objection from Greens objecting to Dems efforts to keep them off ballots. Humanengr (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with voting rights. Infighting between political parties is par for the course. -- Valjean (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Keeping a party off the ballot has nothing to do with voting rights? You're saying infighting: Fighting or quarreling among the members of a single group or side? Very confusing. Humanengr (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely, Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, and has undermined voting rights constantly. To claim otherwise is a ridiculous display of bothsidesism that is not backed up even the slightest by the facts. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It's literally on tape and it's widely known that he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power and has repeatedly said false things about the voting process. Being neutral means reporting the facts as they are, reporting this doesn't violate WP:NPOV. I think if the editor wishes to say that Trump later did commit to a peaceful transition of power, the editor should instead expand on the already-existing portions of text and cite reliable sources.Herbfur (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

But he has committed to it, repeatedly. The purposed addition is basically just partisan talking points. PackMecEng (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

From what I gather about the source you cited, I think the source is saying that Trump initially refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power before later committing to it. I think this should've been an addition to the added text, not a deletion, I think it would make more sense to say that Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power in September 2020 before making the commitment in October. Herbfur (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

PME, no, that backtracking has to be seen in light of his initial denial. That initial denial as his real opinion. He does this all the time, and his denials are usually blatant lies. Darryl Kerrigan (comment above) is right. -- Valjean (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No, he has repeatedly made vague statements implying that he might accept election results, just as he then repeatedly declares that he will not. Saying that he will accept a peaceful transfer of power is a partisan violation of NPOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence should be included. Trump's false claims and relucatance to commit to a peaceful transition of power are well-documented and clearly notable as a major issue during this election. As others have noted, it's not POV to report the facts. Even in the CNN article about Trump backtracking, it says he "continued to sow doubt on the election results and making baseless claims." -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Campaign issues section

I added a new campaign issues section. It's important to describe what the election was about. This is one of the most important things this article can do.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks good. I started to nitpick over the Defense Production Act funding but decided not to click save. It seems to give the impression that 45 has not funded medical equipment, and I don't think that is correct. - Bri.public (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I changed it a bit. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also suggest adding immigration as one of the election's hotly contested issues. Could include links to Immigration policy of Donald Trump and Trump administration family separation policy, and cite Biden's criticisms. Some examples of news coverage: NYT, CNN. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)