Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 29

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[2][3][4][5][6] 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)