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.

Merger proposal

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Read the proposal:

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL states the following:

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

The entire point of the article is a prediction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

State certified election results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is sad that this article has degenerated into a dispute about which media outlets are the most reliable. Who cares. The point is: the USA is a carefully crafted system of checks and balances, one of which is the limited sovereign of individual states. This article has completely misrepresented the role of state sovereignty in the USA. I read this morning that Texas and seventeen other states are suing four states to invalidate their election results. In this lawsuit, we have seventeen states who are asking the federal government to deprive four states of their limited sovereignty. In my opinion, the contributors and editors of this article have played a role in subverting and delegitimizing state sovereignty in the USA. Unitfreak (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Unitfreak:, I highly doubt that existence of this article has contributed in any form to the political situation going on. To get back on topic, the map is going to be updated in 72 to 96 hours from now with the results of how the electoral college voted, including faithless voters. We have the full certified election results as a table in the article. Is there any changes you would like to suggest be made with regards to the topic or can discussion on this come to a close? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@EPicmAx4: The Washington Post is considered to be generally reliable. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources and please be careful not to make blanket statements about other users. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of closing discussion. I agree with you that this article is having little impact, in any way, on Americans. I suspect very few Americans are reading this article, and the ones who do are not taking it seriously. I see this as a missed opportunity. Unitfreak (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FWIW - Latest News re Trump's coup attempt is a "Failed Coup"? - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Trump 2020 election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote threshold for candidate table

(ping Reywas92, XavierGreen, Devonian Wombat)

The threshold for inclusion in the candidate table in 2016 was 0.05% of the votes, but the threshold has been different in every election year's article so I see no reason to use the same number in 2020. Instead, I find it better to select a threshold that reflects a natural separation between groups of candidates, based on the ratio of votes between one candidate and the next most voted. In 2020, among the candidates after the four prominently mentioned in the article, the highest ratio by far is between Brian Carroll and Jade Simmons (>5), all other ratios are <2.[6] So I suggest either listing only 4 candidates down to Howie Hawkins (threshold of 0.1 or 0.2%), or listing 10 candidates down to Brian Carroll (0.01 or 0.02%). A threshold of 0.05% in this case is inappropriate, as it lies between two candidates with a ratio of <1.3. What do you think? Heitordp (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made the change, but I just realized that with only 4 candidates this table doesn't add any information that is not already in the table of results by state. Is the candidate table still useful or should we remove it? Heitordp (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I still support an inclusion criteria of 0.05%, same as was used in 2016. That provides a sensible cut off point, and it standardises this page with previous years. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As an add on, we had a previous discussion about this literally only a month ago, where it was agreed we would use 0.05%. Also, with a 2-1 opinion, there wass no consensus for the change you made when you made it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw this section a few days ago and thought the changes were reasonable. Since it is needed, I support the changes proposed/made by Heitordp. Now that we are past the election, it is clear that 0.05% was good initially, but should not be what we stick with for the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Sorry if I was precipitated. I can certainly revert if there is a different or no consensus, but I dispute your assertions about the criteria. The threshold in 2016 could be anything from 0.03% to 0.05%, 2012 uses 0.02 or 0.03%, 2008 uses about 0.035%, 2004 uses about 0.0017%, and 2000 could be anything from 0.01 to 0.07%. So I don't really see any standard. In addition, I don't find 0.05% a sensible cut-off point for 2020 because of the above graph. Maybe 0.1% is too high, but if the desire is to list more candidates, I really think that we should use 0.02%, which also matches some of the previous years. Heitordp (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well...it's been over a week and the cases that got to SCOTUS were shot down for the very reasons Muboshgu (talk) mentioned. This didn't age well, did it? Moral of the story: Trump is lying to his supporters. And let me also clue you in on a few things:

1) Trump and the GOP have lost 59 cases and won one.

2) "Losing cases to win cases" is utter garbage and is a Trump line designed to keep his supporters donating to his "cause", whatever that's purported to be.

3) There is no "widespread voter fraud". The FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Bill Barr and the DOJ, and every single ELECTION OFFICIAL ON THE PLANET have stated this, AD NAUSEAM.

4) Affidavits aren't "proof" and the ones introduced in court didn't hold up. And another thing...

5) Those laughable "hearings" Rudy and the club held? Those weren't actual "hearings". They're glorified pressers. Aside from the fact that "hearings" don't usually take place inside a Holiday Inn ballroom...

a) There was no judicial process for any of the "hearings".

b) There were no judges present.

c) Nobody was under oath, meaning that ANYONE who "testified" could lie with impunity -- including Rudy or any member of the GOP who was present.

d) There are no case dockets for ANY of these "hearings".

e) There are no judicial records for any of these "hearings".

f) There are no official court transcripts for any of these "hearings".

6) No, there's nothing that can be done by Trump or the GOP to stop Biden from being President. They cannot sue (any litigation is now moot), the GOP cannot "block the count", and if they try to stall it, the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) becomes the new President until Biden is eventually confirmed as the POTUS.

7) The Epoch Times and that other one you mentioned (I've never heard of it and I don't care) are not reliable sources and have lied before and have been WRONG before.

Trump isn't going to have "four more years". Trump lost the election. He's lost nearly 60 cases. The Electoral College is set to certify Biden's win tomorrow -- and, YES, that WILL HAPPEN despite what you might be told by anyone who is floating around in your bubble with you. I implore you and other Trump supporters to wake up and embrace reality. The denial on your part isn't just disturbing, it's very unhealthy. AntiHeroDwight (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

BaseplateRBLS the sources you consider"reliable" are lying to you, or at best they are giving you only the details of stories that you want to hear for your own confirmation bias. EPicmAx4 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

More Results are in but haven't been added

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

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

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

I updated Colorado with an official source including write-in votes. Heitordp (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

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

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

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

California certified

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

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

From where are we getting the exit poll data?

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

I used Edison polling data. It should have a citation in the headder of the table. It's the same one we used in 2016, and I styled the table the same way too. And it looks like all the data has been gathered, but we can update it if the data changes. I don't expect it to though, it's been a month since the info was gathered Anon0098 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

(edit conflict)@Reliable source fan:  Not done: please follow your own advice and use reliable sources. The source you've provided is not. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official Certified New Jersey Results are published.

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

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

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

Undemocratic System

WP:NOTFORUM

This highly important fact should be stated in the article as one persons vote in California is worth less than 1/3 than a vote (55 votes for 40 million, 1.375 votes per million), Than in states with 3 votes , Al 730K, Del 1M, Col 690K, Mon 1.07M etc! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#:~:text=Each%20state%20appoints%20electors%20according,the%20president%20and%20vice%20president.--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC) This is somewhat irrelevant to the 2020 election, as we would need to put it in each election page if we wanted to be consistent. Nojus R (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC) This isn't relevant to this specific election. There's no reason for its inclusion in this particular article. Builder018 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC) America uses a republic-style voting system for the presidential election. It's not supposed to be direcly democratic. Regardless, it's undue for this race specifically Anon0098 (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey Official Results Published

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

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

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

GSA

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

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

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

Colorado vote totals

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

Yes, I agree, I was just about to make the same update. Colorado had problems with Gunnison County and then slowness getting the counties to update their pages to "Official" The numbers now shown on the current, "Official" website page do appear correct but are now incorrect in the Wikipedia table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I updated Colorado with the official abstract, which matches the numbers for individual candidates in the interactive website but also includes write-in votes, so the total becomes slightly higher. Heitordp (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

California Vote Totals are incorrect

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

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

I have a copy of the certification in PDF form if you can let me know how I can get it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your "personal call" falls invalid under Wikipedia's No original research policy, if you have access to a properly published, state-provided source then please supply it before requesting such a change. You can do this by sharing the link to the PDF on the state's website. Builder018 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Understood. That is what I suspect but thought I would offer it anyway. As far as I know, they have not yet published it externally. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I updated California with a link to the certificate of ascertainment, which contains the numbers listed above. Heitordp (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Very good. I'm impressed you found it. I scoured the SoS and Governor sites looking for it. Interestingly, while the numbers are the same, what they physically sent me was the actual SoS certification and what you have linked to is the final Governor's Cert of Ascertainment which references the document I received. Regardless, it is done, thanks and whew! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Alaska Vote totals shown do not match official totals shown at the official link

Alaska should be: Biden: 153,502 Trump: 189,543 https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/20GENR/data/sovc/ElectionSummaryReportRPT23.pdf

But your table shows: Biden: 153,778 Trump: 189,951 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The link that you cited is from November 18 and says "UNOFFICIAL RESULTS" at the top. The link currently in the table is from November 30 and says "OFFICIAL RESULTS". Heitordp (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, My Mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A key word should be replaced.

In the 'subsequent events' subsection it says 'Trump decided that Biden won Arizona by fraud, and his legal team started to prove it'. They have not proved anything. It should be 'and his legal team started looking into it' or 'his legal team began trying to prove it'. Sneakycrown (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sneakycrown, I agree that "started to prove it" is bad language and I have removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Demographics Table

I added the demographics table for the exit polls a few days ago. Someone else made a good faith edit to add an "other" category that is unreferenced. I assume they just subtracted the total from 100. However, I worry that this is WP:OR because the tally difference could be due to rounding or abstaining, and not an "other" candidate, considering a lot of the categories have 0 or 1%. I'm not terribly concerned about this edit but I figured I'd bring it up. Thoughts? Anon0098 (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should not add the "other" column because it's not in the source, and the difference from 100 could be due to other reasons as you wrote. This column is also present in the articles on previous elections, so we should also remove it there if it's not mentioned in the respective source. Heitordp (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"other" was a category in other Edison polls, just not the 2020 one. 2016 is accurate Anon0098 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Indiana Elections Division "Final" totals do not match Certificate of Ascertainment

When balancing my totals against Wiki's totals, I discovered a discrepancy on Indiana.

The "Final" totals on the Indiana Elections Division of the SoS located here: https://enr.indianavoters.in.gov/site/index.html

The Indiana Certificate of ascertainment (referenced in your table) is located here: https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment-indiana.pdf

As you can see the vote totals are not the same. I'm not sure which takes precedence but just informing you of the difference. Probably the Certificate, but you may also want to link to the SoS-Elections page since it too is listed as "final." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but the difference is only 6 votes. The official canvass previously cited in the table is also different by 30 votes. I prefer to use whatever the FEC uses when it compiles the national results, which should be available next month. I think that it will be the certificate of ascertainment, but if not we can adjust the numbers at that time. Heitordp (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the FEC didn't use the certificate of ascertainment in the previous election, so I changed the numbers and source to the Indiana Election Division. Heitordp (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

The result of the exit poll is wrong. 5% of Democrats voted for Trump, not 4%. Seoul1989 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I confirmed the information in the reference cited at the top of the table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2020 (2)

Change "Joseph Biden" to just "Joe Biden" Rogerjamesdsouza (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC) If possible, I'd like to change "Joseph Biden" to "Joe Biden" as referenced in his current page.

 Done. Don't know why that was changed. Can't find any discussion here or anywhere else for it.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Timeline split

As per consensus, I just split the timeline in three: 2017-2019, 2020-election day, Election Day-2021. This was something that was needed for a long time. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2020 (3)

Same thing goes for Mike Pence. Please change "Michael Pence" to Mike Pence Rogerjamesdsouza (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC) The same request from earlier, only this time it's for Mike Pence - as it is on his page as well.

 Done I have no idea why someone would list these candidates with anything other than their WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: I ended up undoing your edit here. As you might not be aware of it, this discussion and another above do not agree with your changes. Feel free to respond to either myself or the discussion above if you disagree. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: Why then, right above this, is Joseph Biden changed to Joe Biden? Just seems inconsistent, and hostile to the end-user if you aren't calling people by the name everyone knows them as. Full names are for info blurbs on articles about those people IMO. Gabrishl (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding, but I linked to the other discussion in my reply. The sum of the requests was to change the full name to their common name. (Joseph Biden -> Joe Biden, Michael Pence -> Mike Pence, remove middle names) If you disagree with the change to Joe Biden and Mike Pence, then feel free to reply to Muboshgu and Rogerjamesdsouza. If you agree with the change, then just keep an eye on this discussion. I was informing Devonian Wombat that their edits did not take into consideration what was being discussed on the talk page, which is likely because they didn't see the requests on the talk page. No harm, no foul. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Now that all certifications are in

I think we should change the caption for the electoral map in the infobox to clarify that they are the certified election results in each state, instead of the current language which mentions the map is based on projections made by media organizations. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Heitordp (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Herbfur (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closed by Markworthen, an uninvolved editor, because: Further contributions are unlikely to be helpful, and the discussion has devolved into a series of unacceptable, back-and-forth, repetitive, and often ad hominem salvos.
As a foreigner with no dog in this fight, these paragraphs are extremely disheartening to read: "Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging that there had been widespread voter fraud, and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states. Officials in each of the 50 states stated that there was no evidence of systematic fraud or irregularities in their state. Federal agencies overseeing election security said it was "the most secure in American history." Attorney General William Barr concluded there was "no evidence of widespread fraud" in the election. On multiple occasions, Trump falsely declared himself the winner. The Trump campaign and its allies continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by filing dozens of legal challenges in several states, most of which were dropped or dismissed by various courts, spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud, pressuring Republican state electors and legislators, and initially refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition. Although major media outlets called the election for Biden on November 7, Emily W. Murphy, who as the head of the General Services Administration (GSA) is in charge of managing the presidential transition process for the outgoing administration, refused to officially acknowledge Biden as the president-elect, which meant that the official transition process could not start." I can't make any edits, but shouldn't Wikipedia strive to be neutral here? All these weasel words like "subverting", "falsely alleging", "conspiracy theories", etc are completely unnecessary, especially when followed by statements from officials who, at the time they made those statements, wouldn't have had enough time to review any of the legal evidence presented. universalcosmos | talk 05:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC) That is a neutral rendering of what RS tell us. To neuter or censor that would mean editors were not remaining neutral, but choosing to side against RS and taking the side of what unreliable sources say. We must not do that. -- Valjean (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC) There are also other RS saying widespread voter fraud does exist. In my opinion, the said paragraphs really lack neutrality. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Are there? Can you give us some? Nothing I've seen which says this has been reliable.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 07:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Please check the news from Newsmax , Sky News Australia , NTD , and OANN . They have reported many news about voter fraud. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Per WP:RSP, Newsmax is deprecated and unreliable. The CEO is quoted saying that Newsmax only portrays info supporting President Trump. OANN is likewise listed as deprecated. RSP is silent on Skynews Australia, but I don't find it a reliable source and you linked to Youtube, which isn't reliable due to WP:verifiability. I would say the same about NTD. You'll need better sources than those and specific citations with links, not declarations of names of outlets. Herbfur (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Since CNN has recently been exposed (in those leaked tapes) for intentionally publishing news which are unfavorable to Trump, can we deprecate CNN then? --Matt Smith (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC) No. I suggest you cope harder and learn to deal with the fact that you've been lied to and scammed by right-wing grifters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Replace the "right" with "left" in your own sentence and read the sentence for yourself. In the future, please only reply if you can cite a Wikipedia policy to backup your opposition. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I invite you to review WP:V and WP:RS. We deal with reality here on Wikipedia, not cult delusions. The reality is that Joe Biden won the presidential election, will be elected by the Electoral College, and inaugurated as the next president of the United States on Jan. 20. That you cannot cope with that reality and instead wish to disappear into a fantasy is your problem, not Wikipedia's. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) You can say that "main stream media" are saying Biden won. But whether he really won is a different thing. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC) It's not just the media, every state has certified the election results and enough of these states with enough electoral votes have pushed Biden to victory. Herbfur (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC) By foundational policy, Wikipedia is based on mainstream reliable sources. If you disagree, you're welcome to find some other encyclopedia project that isn't. Like Conservapedia or Metapedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with publishing news unfavorable to any person, as long as it is fact checked and has editorial control. Newsmax and OANN don't do that. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Could you prove that Newsmax and OANN don't do fact check and editorial control? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I can see it with my own eyes and I can read the comments by their staffs and leadership. I don't seek to convince anyone of that view, and you are free to hold a different view. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC) With all respect, that's not a proof. And the same remark can be made by anyone targeting any medium. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I'm not targeting any medium. Just giving my opinion. You are free to disagree. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC) To be fair, it's not even just this one editor's opinion, looking at WP:RSP, there's a wide consensus that these sources are unreliable and we go by that consensus. Herbfur (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Regarding "wouldn't have had enough time to review any of the legal evidence presented"; almost no legal evidence has been presented. That's the whole point. Trump has been getting tossed out of court by judges of all ideological stripes. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC) How do you define "legal evidence" and how do you know no legal evidence has been presented? Please elaborate. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Judges have said so. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks. Could you please cite a source? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC) In ALL the cases. Every single one has been tossed for not having evidence. We don’t need to do your work for you, even bogus sources like Newsmaxx can’t claim the legal effort is working out.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC) (ec) All cases except for the one in Pennsylvania where poll watchers were kept too far away. Just a few examples; "amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation"; "The judge said the challenge failed “to provide the court with factual support for their extraordinary claims.”" and numerous others that can easily be found with the search engine of your choosing. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I'm not surprised that an Obama-appointed judge ruled against the case with such a reason. If you're willing to look into the evidences presented in the case, I believe you would most likely have a different view. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Republican-appointed judges have too. [7] (correction, in this case the judge is a Republican but was not appointed by one. But other Republican judges have. You don't have to believe me, look for yourself.)331dot (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia summarizes what sources say, it doesn't go into the evidence presented(again, almost no evidence has actually been presented of even one fraudulent vote) to make a judgement ourselves. If OANN and Newsmax are your only sources for a pro-Trump viewpoint, there really isn't any more to say here. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Here is a Trump-appointed judge ruling against a case. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Trump appointed judge: "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here"--Ermenrich (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I would not continue to argue about the evidences and would let the time tell. I would just like to point out that the Keweenaw Report source contains a misinformation about Sydney Powell. She was not part of Trump's legal team from the very beginning so there was no "dismissal", and Trump's legal team never said that she uses outlandish conspiracy theories. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC) There is no evidence to argue over of even one fraudulent vote, let alone the number needed to change the results in even one state, so no one is arguing over evidence. I'm not sure what is hard to see about that. "People voted for Biden" is not evidence of fraud. If the Keweenaw report has misinformation, please contact them to get them to issue a correction. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Do you regard counting ballots without poll watchers present an evidence of fraud? If yes, we can talk. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC) What sources do you have for this happening besides a bunch of right-wing propaganda outlets and affidavits that have been dismissed in court as “inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.”? If there's so much fraud and evidence, why hasn't a single case been successful?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Even if that were true, it doesn't change what's on the ballots unless there is also evidence of fraudulent ballots. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Counting ballots without poll watchers should not be considered legal, let alone Biden's votes explosively increased after that questionable counting finished. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) That didn’t happen. No reliable source says it did and no court has found it did. Only the Republican versions of Pravda are repeating these claims. They are propaganda in support of a man whose ego is too fragile to admit that 8 million more people voted against him than for him.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC) The fact is that happened blatantly: 1. counting ballots in private and then 2. Biden's votes explosively increased. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Neither Trump's grift campaign nor his son are reliable sources for anything. Sorry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) If you decide to ignore even the video and the chart evidences, I won't try to convince you to do otherwise. I would only feel sorry for you. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC) There is nothing to ignore - Donald Trump is a liar and you can't trust anything he or his campaign puts out. He is certainly not a reliable source, and reliable sources--as well as state and federal judges--have debunked his claims including videos circulating that supposedly show fraud.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Despite Team Trump's Orwellian attempts to claim Powell was never on the team, she clearly was; words from the man himself are rather hard to explain away. ValarianB (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC) In a strict sense, he did not mean that she is part of the Trump Legal Team and just meant that she is an ally. A member of the Trump Legal Team is a lawyer for president Trump in his personal capacity, has a contract with Trump, and receives payment from Trump. Sydney Powell is not such a lawyer and is just practicing law on her own. And that's why she needs donation. Both she and Lin Wood are not members of the Trump Legal Team. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Your personal analysis is irrelevant. Powell was announced as a member of the legal team, worked in conjunction with Giuliani and Ellis, then was sidelined and eventually dismissed when she started going to far into tinfoil territory. These facts may be inconvenient to Trump supporters, but facts they are. ValarianB (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC) So as yours, sir. Unless there is a proof that she was specifically announced as a member of the Trump Legal Team and had a contract with Trump, please desist from asserting that she was a member of the Trump Legal Team. Even the Trump Legal Team's announcement says she "is not a member" rather than she "has been dismissed". Please read the announcement. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I have provided no opinion, only facts, such as the former President's own twitter. Powell was a member, then they distanced themselves once she started to become a distraction. Facts. ValarianB (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) As long as none of them is backed up by the Trump Legal Team's announcements, they remain as your opinions. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC) It is a fact backed by Mr. Trump himself, as he said it. I realize that some have made a career of "but ackchyually-ing" the former President and re-interpreting his proclamations, but that doesn't fly here. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC) In order to be dismissed from something, one must be a part of it in the first place. Otherwise, any 'dismissal' is meaningless. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC) That's correct. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Is there an actual change or editing suggestion being made by someone in this discussion? If not, then perhaps it is time this was sent to the archives. ValarianB (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Seems like there's a lot of semantics talk going on here. You can get the same point across with resolutions for both parties. Powell worked extremely closely with Trump and his legal team, in the manner an employee might. Later, post-Tucker, she was announced to in fact not be part of the team, and hasn't worked with Trump's legal team since. Right? Gabrishl (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Matt Smith, I'm pretty amazed that no one has linked to these articles. We have all the RS there, so check it out and complain there: Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results‎ Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election. There you'll find all the attempts by Trump and his lawyers, and all the defeats they have suffered in courts. The Supreme Court's latest rejection of Trump's attempts is possibly the shortest decision they have ever made, in one sentence: "The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied." "Tuesday's one-line order was issued with no noted dissents or comment from any of the nine justices. The court is made up of six conservative justices -- including Trump's three nominees -- Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett -- and three liberals." Check out our articles and you'll find Trump's myriad losses (over 51 now) documented by plenty of RS. The fact that you seem to not know this shows how the right-wing media bubble keeps this information from Trump's supporters and lies to them. That's why they are not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the links. I can't understand more about those fake news forged by the left-wing media, especially CNN. The Supreme Court only denied the emergency injunctive relief, not the lawsuit. Yet CNN reported it as if the Supreme Court denied the lawsuit. The Trump Legal Team lawyer Jenna Ellis already debunked that fake news [8]. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Practically every reliable source indicates that this denial of the injunction is final, citing testimony from legal experts. I can't find a single reliable source that would even suggest that this lawsuit could continue. Herbfur (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Numbers in infobox don't match certified results

The number of votes for each candidate in the infobox, reported by ABC and the New York Times (and also other news agencies), is higher than the total calculated from the certified results. The difference is almost entirely due to New York, where the news agencies show 13,021 more votes for Biden and 5,432 more for Trump. There are also smaller differences in 8 other states. Should we change the numbers in the infobox to match the totals in the tables in the article? If we need to cite a source for the totals, I suggest the Green Papers, which seems to be more accurate. Heitordp (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I found that the difference in New York is entirely in Suffolk County. The news agencies show the numbers reported by the county, but the results certified by the state for that county are lower. I don't know which one we should use. Heitordp (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

Change "Attorney General William Barr concluded there was "no evidence of widespread fraud" in the election." to "Attorney General William Barr stated that he "had not seen evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to change the result of the election."

The quote from Barr is inaccurate. You are quoting the quote of a partisan opinion writer misquoting the Attorney General. There has been plenty of evidence of irregularity, fraud and criminality all widespread over the swing states but Barr stated that he had not seen evidence of such that would be sufficient to change the result. If Wikipedia supports the notion that there was no fraud at all then you are either lying or incompetent and I won't be able to trust any information published here. SteveSenter (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)— SteveSenter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

•  Not done If the source quoted Attorney General Barr incorrectly, you will need to take that up with them. Wikipedia itself has no opinion as to if there was fraud or not, Wikipedia just summarizes independent reliable sources. You shouldn't trust anything published here as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You should look into the sources themselves. That's what Wikipedia is, a content aggregator summarizing sources. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

And personal attacks do not help you. If you are interested in civilly collaborating with other editors regardless of political viewpoint to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say, you are welcome. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, 331dot, I just checked the source, and that quoted phrase "no evidence of widespread fraud" is the title of the AP piece, and not from Barr. So, Steve is right that that is misleading and I will revise it. However, there was no fraud beyond a handful of isolated incidents, so I'll call this change  Partly done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

@Zoozaz1: Please explain your revert, especially the "recent rfc". It would be unacceptable if even the Wikipedia is becoming a platform of censorship favoring only one faction. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It would certainly be unacceptable if that were the case. See this link for the recent rfc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_303#RfC:_Fox_News Zoozaz1 talk 04:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The rfc mentioned "The pundits and talk show programs related to Fox were explicitly excluded from this RFC". The Fox source I cited is the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe interviewed by the "Sunday Morning Futures" program hostess Maria Bartiromo. The quotes are John Ratcliffe's remarks, not Fox's own commentary. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt, there are multiple issues with what you added:

1. You added it to the lead without first covering it in much more detail in the body of the article. That is not allowed.
2. You started this new section, even though you have the same agenda as in the hatted section above, where your attempts have been soundly rejected. Repeating/continuing the same line of thought here is disruptive. That section was hatted for a reason, so why on earth would you persist? That's just asking for trouble. Read WP:IDHT.
3. Your sources are terrible. The first two are to the same article at Fox News, a dubious source for political content. We demand better sources here. They push falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and you have chosen exactly that type of thing as your chosen content. Not good. Ratcliffe is notable, but he is not a RS. When we quote him, and we do, we use RS so the context will explain how what he is saying is filled with falsehoods. Fox News will not tell that part of the story.
4. Your third source is Chinese. We prefer easily verifiable sources, so we prefer English language sources here at the English version of Wikipedia, or at least translated sources. I'm sure the Chinese version prefers mostly Chinese sources. We don't know whether your source is reliable or pushes falsehoods or conspiracy theories. There are plenty of English language sources, so there is normally no need to use other sources. (Note that I'm not saying we can never use other language sources. There are exceptional situations where we do it.)
5. We favor facts from RS, not falsehoods from unreliable sources. That's the only kind of "censorship" we practice.
6. This stuff doesn't even belong in this article. It belongs in one of the articles I told you about above:
   1. Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results‎
7. You should read that article before you discuss this subject anymore. Really. Get informed. Your ignorance is showing.
8. Even worse than ignorance (we are all learning here), your choice of bad sources is also showing. That's not good. Questions about sourcing should be broached at WP:RS/N and WP:RS/P. Study those pages before you proceed.

If you take your complaints to the talk page there, beware how you do it. Assume they know much more about this subject than you do, so ask, rather than tell. If you, especially because you have been warned, continue down this road, you risk getting blocked for disruption and pushing conspiracy theories and disinformation from unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

In any case (even if better sourcing can be found) it's patiently undue for the lead, especially given that this article is for the entire election. And since Radcliff is a Trump administration political appointee, his opinion doesn't really have any weight distinct from Trump - that is to say his statements fall under the broad summary of Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging that there had been widespread voter fraud, and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states and The Trump campaign and its allies continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election. It's not leadworthy to individually quote every Trump administration figure stating "we tots won tho." Yes, of course Trump, his allies, and the Trump administration all say these things, that's what the entire paragraph is about; the broad summary, from a 10,000-foot lead perspective, is that they say these things but reliable sources are unanimous in stating that there's no evidence for their claims. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Sorry about that.

2. This case is not exactly the same as my discussion above.

3. 5. The recently leaked tapes proved that CNN, intentionally, avoids normalizing Trump and avoids reporting Hunter Biden scandal during the election. It's a intentionally, strongly biased medium. If Fox News is not allowed, why is CNN?

6. If William Barr's saying no evidence of widespread fraud found belongs in this article, why doesn't John Ratcliffe's saying widespread fraud found?

I hope there is no double standards here on the Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What does CNN have to do with it? Take it up at the reliable source notice board if you have sources showing CNN has been exposed as a fraud, but if they’re the same dubious sources as where you are discovering “fraud” in the election you’re not going to get anywhere. As for why Barr is notable, he contradicted the president rather than going along.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying remarks which contradict Trump is allowed and remarks which recognize Trump is not allowed? If that's not a double standard, what is a double standard? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Text already says he and his admin are saying these things and that RS call them false. That’s not a double standard, that’s reality. There’s no reason to quote specific trump officials making bogus claims - as was already pointed out to you before. You might want to read wp:FALSEBALANCE.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt, you asked: "Are you saying remarks which contradict Trump is allowed and remarks which recognize Trump is not allowed?"

No, that is not correct. We actually do document both sides of such issues when RS have written about them, and this is a case where myriad RS have done so. If it were a matter where there was some legitimate doubt about the matter (not everything is black or white), but there were differences of opinion, we would present both sides and let readers make up their own minds.

In cases like the one under discussion, where the contrast is literally truth vs disinformation, we still present both sides, but we do not present falsehoods as if they were true. We present the false claims (still only citing RS that mention them) and show how RS have debunked them. In that case, if a reader still chooses to believe the falsehoods, Wikipedia cannot be blamed for being inaccurate or fake news.

Ermenrich is correct. We do not present a false balance here. Not all information has equal validity, due weight, or truth value. You and I may not agree on what is true or false in this case, but I doubt you would think that presenting truth and error as if there was no difference would be a good idea. That is something we really try to avoid. Can we agree on that? -- Valjean (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we can agree on that. Because of the dominant mainstream media, letting the time speak the truth might be a better option here on the Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Being partisan (as in avoiding reporting certain types of news) does not make a media automatically unreliable, so citing a media being left/right is the least argument you should use in such discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. 2020.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

FAQ updated

Just wanted to inform editors that I have updated the FAQ at the top a bit in case anyone has an issue with the formatting of the text. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2020 (2)

Change the text in the controversies section from future tense to past tense, "On November 21, the Trump campaign requested a machine recount, which will cost taxpayers $200,000 but will not address concerns about absentee ballot signatures." Change "will cost" to "costed" and "will not address" to "did not address." CarsonSnorts (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox after Electoral College votes

Just to let you all know, after everyone in the Electoral College casts their vote on Monday- we should change the College_voted parameter in the infobox from "no" to "yes". Doing this will change the "Projected electoral vote" header to "Electoral vote". I also recommend we add a footnote to the infobox saying, "These Electoral College results will be officially counted by Congress on January 6, 2021" (see my sandbox for an example). Prcc27 (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I posted the wrong link to my sandbox. Now it should link to my sandbox. Prcc27 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Split of timeline

I would like to figure out if the timeline article should be split, so I started a discussion at Talk:Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election#Should the page be split? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing the word "Coup"

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.

---

A coup de' tat is "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." The Biden Administration is not the current "government", so how could Trump be stealing the government from himself. This needs to be changed (Aricmfergie (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC))

May I weigh in here? If we go by your definition of a "coup d'etat", it doesn't matter what Biden's current status is. That's not relevant at all. The Constitution states that a president voted out of office has a definitive end to his term, and is replaced by a duly-elected successor, so any attempt on the part of the current president to stay in power, delegitimize the results of the election, or avoid having to yield the trappings and privileges of his office to his duly-electeequd successor by the appointed date constitutes the textbook definition of a coup d'etat, as you yourself laid it out. The terminology used in this article clearly defines how Trump is attempting a coup d'etat to keep himself in office and avoid yielding the powers of the presidency to Biden by the appointed date is a coup d'etat, and the cited sources support that definition as utilized in this article. Consequently, the phrasing in this article relative to that is accurate and consistent with what's noted in cited sources. And when in doubt, Wikipedia content goes with what the sources say. Simple as that. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If he already holds power, he can't be "seizing" it. Thus, this fails on that part of the definition. Calling this hilariously drawn out temper tantrum "sudden", would also be wrong by definition. Finally, no violence has been used as of yet. There may be a word for what Trump is trying, but "coup" is not it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RS widely describe it as an attempted coup, see autogolpe (self-coup).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Well said. Aricmfergie, you should be at Talk:Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results‎.

Trying to keep power he has lost in "the most secure election in U.S. history" can be seen as a soft/bloodless coup, and since many RS use the term to describe Trump's power grab and attempt to steal the election from the clear winner, we are required to document this use of the word, so your objections fly in the face of our policies. -- Valjean (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a RS using "government" to describe the Biden team? If not, it should not be used. EDIT: "the" and "team" were added. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt, what is the exact wording in the article that you find problematic? Also, your removal of "administration" from your sentence now makes the sentence incomplete. -- Valjean (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought Aricmfergie said that the word "government" is used in the article to describe the Biden team. I stand corrected.

John Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence, said that there are across-the-country issues of election fraud and "we'll see who is in what seats and whether there is a Biden administration." I agree with him. In my view, this whole thing is not over and whether there is a Biden administration remains undetermined. For making the sentence of my previous comment complete, I just added "the" and "team". --Matt Smith (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Aricmfergie, please look up Self-coup. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 08:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• I thouhgt this was already discussed a few weeks ago. By no stretch of the imagination is this a coup. Trump is still constitutionally the president. If he makes some attempt to stay in office beyond 20 January, then maybe. But until then, pursuing legal avenues is perfectly within his rights, however far-fetched they may be.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That's why it's an "attempted coup," (i.e. "attempted self-coup") no matter how "legal" it might be. In the unlikely event he somehow succeeds it will no longer be attempted. Specifically, the OP appears to object to the following well-sourced sentences. The first is in the lead:

• The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress, still continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by filing dozens of legal challenges in several states, most of which were dropped or dismissed by various courts, spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud, pressuring Republican state electors and legislators, and refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition, all in what was described as an attempted coup.
• The second in the body: Many commentators described Trump's actions as an attempted coup d'état or self-coup.

On what grounds can we exclude these sources? Maybe some of them are objectionable, but I don't see how they can all be thrown out.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to saying that others have described it as a coup, I only object to the idea of saying it in Wikipedia's voice as it demonstrably does not fit the definition. The weird term "self-coup" (which I had not seen before this Trumper tantrum started) seems to have the correct meaning, despite being etymologically dubious. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no question that it's an attempted coup, but as another editor stated, self-coup is the accurate description. The question now is what terminology should we use according to how RS's have described it? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If I may, this discussion seems mainly driven by the fact that some users' misunderstanding of the word 'coup'. Obviously a coup can be carried out by somebody already in power, and it can be bloodless. So the arguments against "coup" based on Trump being president, or not having resorted to violence, are as null and void as Trump's lawsuits. Jeppiz (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Khajidha has hit the nail on the head. What Trump is doing can’t be described as a ‘coup’ in Wikipedia’s own voice (it’s not per dictionary definition and ‘self-coup’ is risible) but what the article can (and in my opinion should) say that is that his attempts at subverting the results of the election have been described by sources as an attempted coup. It’s a fairly obvious point that the sources are using the term as a metaphor to give a sense of the extreme lack of legal basis for Trump’s claims. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I support removing the "coup" language. All of the avenues Trump pursued were legal recourses he was entitled to. They were based on nonsense and had no evidence but they were still the legal avenue for challenging the results in a court of law. That's not a coup by any stretch of the imagination. Basil the Bat Lord (talk)

Again, Wikipedia's "voice", including tone, content, and substance are based on a neutral point of view according to sources that meet Wikipedia standards of neutrality. The sources as cited clearly lay out both the fact that the lawsuits brought by Trump strain the bonds of legal credibility and have no proof. And all of these efforts, not well-planned, lacking in evidence, and thus dismissed on every level, are an attempt by Trump to retain power above and beyond what the Constitution legally allows. The sources cited define this as an attempted coup by Trump, and Wikipedia goes with what the sources say. So my respectful suggestion to anyone that objects to the terminology used here as supported by reliable sources is to do the research and put in the work on your end for sources that would justify the belief that describing Trump's actions as a coup are unwarranted. The burden of proof in this case should be borne by those objecting to the terminology. With the case clearly laid out in support of the usage of the term, based on the sources cited, anyone who objects to the current terminology can feel free to compile resources in support of whatever other wording they can get behind. But either way, until a consensus decides anything to the contrary, the sources as currently cited support the description of Trump's actions in this case as a coup, so the onus is on those who object to that definition in those sources to present other sources to support whatever terminology they'd prefer. That is consistent with Wikipedia policies on this matter, insofar as I understand them correctly. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources in question are not neutral. I think most editors know that, they just won't admit to it because of their own political persuasions. This is a problem with Wikipedia as a whole when it comes to political issues, when the sources in question are overwhelmingly biased in favor of one side (and are even more so, because Wikipedia deprecates sources if it's considered "unreliable") then it's no surprise that Wikipedia will be biased as well. I'm not saying it's Wikipedia's problem what sources are writing, but I am saying it's a major systemic problem with Wikipedia's purported dedication to neutrality which most editors seem uninterested in paying any attention to, again likely because they value their political persuasions more than any actual dedication to neutrality. As for sources which refer to the legal efforts as something other than a coup, what exactly are you expecting to see? I'm arguing that it is not appropriate for the efforts to be described as a "coup", therefore are you suggesting I show you articles from reliable sources which do not use the coup language? Because there are plenty of those. Or are you suggesting that I find articles which refer to the efforts as some other thing, but not a coup? If an article is not going to use the hyperbolic language of "coup" then it's just going to say "legal issues" or some other such term. Genuinely not sure what you're asking for. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord, here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. According to our NPOV policy, neither content nor sources must be "neutral". Very few are, and they are really boring. We want to say more than "duh". It is editors who must edit neutrally. We present what RS say without censoring or neutering them. We must not get in the way of their bias. We should present what the source says, with its bias clearly in view. That is how editors stay "neutral". Read more about this at my essay which digs deep into this aspect of the policy: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
2. Don't get bogged down in what is "true" about this. It makes no difference. This is about an opinion that is widely voiced in many RS, so we document it. We don't take sides. We just document the phenomenon, and we also document those who object to it. That's what we do here. We should not violate FORUM by getting bogged down in long discussions over "the truth" of the matter. We only care about "verifiability, not truth".
3. This discussion is at the wrong article. This is a mother article, whereas the spinoff fork for the subject of controversies over this election is found here: Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results. That's where we find a larger section dealing with the subject of "coup" verbiage.

I hope that clears up a few things. -- Valjean (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, it is just so difficult for me to believe that this standard of "Don't worry about whether the sources are true or not" would be used if the shoe was on the other foot and this discussion was instead about using language from sources that apply some ridiculous hyperbolic language about someone on the left, or indeed if the reliable source in question was one which leaned conservative (but I assume that would never happen anyway because a source like that would probably be deprecated). I think that because the subject here is someone on the right (and specifically Trump), that most editors think that disregarding the truth on articles related to him is acceptable and that "all is fair in love and war." You may not think that's a fair statement for me to make, but I have seen nothing on Wikipedia thus far to convince me otherwise of any kind of commitment to fairness on these kinds of matters. I noticed on your page you have a userbox specifically about your opposition to Trump. Respectfully, how can anybody trust you to be fair and neutral on an issue like this? I genuinely don't mean that as an ad hominem, I just can't believe that this is the standard for neutrality that we are asked to abide by. I really wish I could view these kinds of situation differently but the reality stares me straight in the face: Wikipedia is biased and editors don't care. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You may request for comment if you believe the editors supporting the inclusion of “coup” is because of political bias. But let me remind you, Wikipedia never promises fact/truth in its articles, it just reports what accepted sources say. I would make a horrible analogy to Scotus rejection to Texas lawsuit on ground of the US Constitution, not because they believed there were no voter fraud. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think those references also are not free from neutral policy because they do not imply the supporter of Trump or people who are against of using 'coup' word (not in Wikipedia). I understand that by 'neutral policy', there should be no controversies when we use that word. And sources that were given in this article which describe Trump's action as 'coup' can be interpreted as 'Bias in sources' which is also part of the NPOV -- Wendylove (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding what "Don't get bogged down in what is "true" about this" is supposed to mean? We have a duty to the truth, that can be verified. People all across the world look at this and its extremely dangerous to put opinions as truth. (Aricmfergie (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

We document and attribute opinions all the time here, true or not. That's part of our job. If RS say an opinion is false, we document it, sometimes by actually adding words like "false" or "baseless", if that's what RS say. We do not present facts as opinions or opinions as facts. -- Valjean (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should remove the word "coup" until there is verifiable sources claim that there are/were discussion of a coup in the Trump circle. Up until this point it has just been the news media using their word to describe the actions of the Campaign. (Aricmfergie (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

No, we document what RS say, true or not. -- Valjean (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

IF we want to add the Coup section from Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results I think that would be better because it discuss both sides to the argument, instead of unilaterally describing the actions as a "coup" on the introduction (Aricmfergie (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

We should summarize that section extremely shortly here, and that's all. The other article is for in depth coverage.

In fact, that single sentence we have does it nicely. -- Valjean (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aricmfergie: As Valjean has repeatedly stated, Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say, regardless of Wikipedians individual opinions about whether or not it is true, or whether or not the sources are correct in saying what they do. Several reliable sources have called it a coup, self-coup, soft coup, or attempted coup, which the current section sums up succinctly. There is no need to either expand upon or remove the current section. Builder018 (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, a more neutral solution could be making it clear that the said "coup" is the mainstream media's opinion and terminology. That's less controversial than simply asserting that it is a coup. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The article makes two references to it at the moment. In the lead it says “described by some as” and in the body it says “many commentators” have described it as such. I don’t see anywhere where it’s ‘simply asserting that it is a coup’. I can’t really see what the problem is. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: I hate to point it out but by the time you made this comment, the version of this article 2-hour earlier had already employed the language of "described by some as an attempted coup" and "Many commentators described Trump's actions as an attempted coup d'état or self-coup". You are consistently raising questions of non-issues or issues have long been fixed. I would recommend you to read through the latest version of the article before raising another question in the talk page, so it does not give other readers the impression that our editors bias towards a specific political party. -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that and I'll be more careful in the future. As for whether some editors bias towards a specific political party, I would say yes because I have seen editors in this talk page asserting blatantly that the election is "the most secure election in U.S. history", there is "no evidence" of fraud, etc, without attributing those opinions to a source/person. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt, I have added quotation marks to my comment above so a future editor will realize I'm not just stating my opinion. That was an accurate description made by the top election official in the United States. His agency had examined all available evidence and that was his summarization. Of course, such a statement of fact was not what Trump wanted to hear, so he fired him. That's what Trump does. Speak truth that offends Trump and get fired; lie all the time in ways that please Trump and get promoted and pardoned. That's what we've seen for the last four years. -- Valjean (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You are again making personal opinion on the subject. The statement about "the most secure election" was quoted from federal agencies and reported by news media accepted in Wikipedia. I am not weighing in how true the statement is, no users should ever do that in either article or talk page. Other users may make it sound like their own opinion on the matter, only for reducing rhetorical redundancy. I don't think your behavior have violated the disruption policy (yet), but certainly does not contribute towards a constructive editorial environment. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please understand that I did not intent to make personal opinion. Maybe my wording or phrasing was not accurate enough due to not being a native English speaker. My comment about the issue of bias was to reply your comment which sounds like none of the editors here is biased.

I knew the quote was quoted from a federal agency. The reason I found the quoter biased is that he did not attribute the quote to the federal agency, and that lead to his comment looking like a common fact rather than the federal agency's statement. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The article already contains language more than accommodating towards any person with a regard to reality, there is no need to further sanitise and censor it in order to meet the demands of those who misinterpret NPOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: I think we didn't misinterpret NPOV. Articles describing terrorist attacks that can estimate who is behind them, or groups that can estimate which state supports them, also add explanations for them if the state or the hinterland denies it. If an early editor attaches data that Trump's actions are thought to be coup d'etat or that defines it as a coup d'état, it is natural to briefly explain an article or material that presents a contrary position. -- Wendylove (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

That isn’t how neutrality works on Wikipedia. We don’t call it a coup in our own voice, so there isn’t a problem. It’s a widely repeated claim in RS, so we have to include it.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't call it a coup by own voice, but only citing references which define Trump's acts as a failed coup or coup attempt is a problem. Still, there are lots of Trump supporters (who think Trump's action is not a coup), and if we aren't going to add these claims, it negelects the other perspective. That's why I said 'natural' to add the article from 'contrary position'. If editor adds that, then there would be no debate for this 'coup'-relates problem. -- Wendylove (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the brevity of the mention (a total of two sentences that simply say "some call it"), that seems totally unnecessary. The place to do that (and where it is discussed) is Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results#Description of GOP actions as Coup. And what Trump supporters think is irrelevant. Only what RS think. There are Trump supporters who believe the Democrats are controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles, but we only report what RS say about these beliefs, not what the Trumpies themselves do.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point. We have exhausted the issue here, and it is no longer relevant. I'm going to close this thread. -- Valjean (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt Smith, no editor is expected to be neutral in real life or on talk pages. People like that are extremely rare, boring as hell, quite ignorant, and, if they go so far as to claim they are "neutral", have no insight into themselves. It is only when editing an article that editors must put on their "neutral" hat. We have a certain amount of leeway in discussions before WP:FORUM gets invoked, unless the personal POV are fringe views from unreliable sources. That path can quickly become a violation of our prohibition against advocacy of fringe POV, which are automatically "at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy."

Discussions that have their background in what RS say are allowed, and editors don't have to reference every comment with a citation. That is only a requirement for article content, but not for talk page discussions, BUT, if an editor is asked for a source for their comment, they should supply it, as the burden of proof is on the person making an unusual claim. If the person asking is requesting a source for a claim that is not unusual (for RS), such as a "the sky is blue" type of comment, then they are revealing their ignorance of what most other editors know is an idea or POV found in mainstream RS. We often encounter that phenomenon with newbies and editors whose media diet is from unreliable sources. We often bear over with them for a short time, but if they refuse to listen and accept what RS say (yes, Wikipedia does expect that editors have a positive learning curve), then their continued dialogue becomes tedious and IDHT tendentious. Such editors often get topic banned, or even blocked. The lesson is to see Wikipedia and its talk pages as a classroom where we can learn from others and realign (an often painful process) our POV so they align with what RS say.

Obviously "some editors bias towards a specific political party" (your words). So what? Don't go further down that road as it borders on a personal attack: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." While it's okay to recognize that editors have left- and right- opinions, that should not be used as a personal attack. That cuts both ways. We have plenty of very opinionated editors who hold strong political views. Big deal. Fortunately many of them can lay that aside when they edit, and they can still be very valued editors. -- Valjean (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

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.

Typo in "Subsequent Events" section, could someone fix it please ("ligitation")

Near the end of the "Subsequent Events" section, a sentence refers to "ligitation" led by the Trump campaign. Of course, this is supposed to be "litigation." Could someone with editing privileges please make this minor correction? 97.127.33.227 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 00:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Edit Request

What's up with note "n" of the article (which is used in the state-wise results table)? I think it should have "Many" as the first word instead of "May" unless I'm misunderstanding it. 45.251.33.129 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)