Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is this Wikipedia or a partisan journalist article?

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.

---

Whether there was or wasn't election fraud, this article is clearly one of the worst on Wikipedia. It's written to intentionally portray Trump and the disputes in a negative light. This article claims that Trump is lying and that there wasn't election fraud in the way he claims (an opinion, not a fact) and that there isn't any evidence for it (an opinion supported by countless news organizations, and again, not a fact.) Opinionated words in the lead like "aggressively" are used to poison the well.

Whatever you think about the disputes, everyone can agree that this article is one sided, and doesn't follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule. NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It's certainly a work in progress and tweaks will go on for some time, but it is fairly accurate as it stands, and there is plenty of discussions on specific parts to adjust titles and phrasing.

"It's written to intentionally portray Trump and the disputes in a negative light"

This is a really harsh accusation that seems to go against WP:GOODFAITH. If you disagree with specific issues in the article, lets discuss it, don't just accuse everyone here of deliberately throwing mud at Trump.

"This article claims that Trump is lying and that there wasn't election fraud in the way he claims (an opinion, not a fact) and that there isn't any evidence for it (an opinion supported by countless news organizations, and again, not a fact.)"

These statements are incorrect. Trump is making false statements, and there is no election fraud. The burden of proof rests on Donald Trump to demonstrate that there is fraud and he has thus far produced none. If you can find a reliable source backing up Trump's claims, we'd all be very interested in seeing it.

"Opinionated words in the lead like "aggressively" are used to poison the well."

I don't see how the word "aggressively" poisons the well. It isn't a good or bad term, it just indicates that Trump has been pursuing his claims of fraud vehemently.

"Whatever you think about the disputes, everyone can agree that this article is one sided, and doesn't follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule"

No. ThirdDolphin (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"This is a really harsh accusation that seems to go against WP:GOODFAITH. If you disagree with specific issues in the article, lets discuss it, don't just accuse everyone here of deliberately throwing mud at Trump." Try reading the article again, but from a trump supporters point of view. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and this isn't neutral because it takes a side. This is a controversial subject, and it splits to about half of the population believing there was fraud and the other half believing there wasn't (please correct me if I'm wrong.) This article is written as if the total agreed-upon-by-most-people opinion is that there wasn't fraud, which isn't true. Need proof that this is one sided? Read this quote:

"Stop the Steal is a right-wing campaign in the United States promoting the conspiracy theory that falsely posits that widespread electoral fraud took place during the 2020 presidential election to deny incumbent President Donald Trump victory over former vice president Joe Biden."

Just to clarify, I'm not here to say whether there was fraud or not. I personally believe there was, but even if I didn't agree with that, I still would be challenging this. This article does not follow the neutral point of view rule. NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Enthusiast, 60 court cases (with Republican-appointed judges and a two-thirds majority in the Supreme Court), Trump's own attorney general, Republican local election officials, majorities of Republican legislators in all the legislatures they control, and all reliable sources (seriously, I challenge you to find one) have accepted the election outcome as legitimate. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's side is treated harshly in this article because Trump's side is objectively wrong, and Stop the Steal simply is a conspiracy theory campaign. Wikipedia NPOV is about giving fair weight to both sides of a dispute, not equal weight. In that case, Trump comes off looking very badly. It would actually be a violation of WP policy to prevaricate in the article just to manufacture the appearance of their being a legitimate dispute to placate Trump. ThirdDolphin (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@NPOV Enthusiast: Indeed, there are reliable sources reporting election fraud (example), although that source doesn't really fit in the context of the topic. We have a policy about undue weight, which means fair weight and not equal weight, as ThirdDolphin pointed out. The article must characterize the topic the same way that the preponderances of reliable sources characterize it. The lead sentence you quoted does just that. If you have other reliable sources to offer, present them. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Enthusiast, I think you need to gain a deeper understanding of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that we should consider a trump supporters point of view as equal to any other point of view. It means neutrally reflecting what the sources say, and you haven't presented any examples of where this article fails to do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This article - and indeed most of Wikipedia - is clearly biased against anyone to the right of Mao Tse Dong. President Trump is just the latest one to be pilloried by the so-called editors on this site. When 65 percent of the sources are thrown out because a few members of a cabal feel they're "unreliable" you're going to end up with slanted garbage. Given enough time and provocation, you end up with trouble. Trump Is a Juggernaut (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Objectivly wrong" That isn't what objectively means. I used to use objectively that way as well, and I can see why you would use it. But it is wrong. Trump is subjectively wrong, just as he is subjectively correct. Be serious, ThirdDolphin. To Muboshgu and Anachronist, the problem here is that most "reliable sources" agree with the political left, and Google recommends those articles when you search. Don't try to deny it, it's blatantly obvious. That makes it really hard to find news sources that agree with Trump, because when you look up "election fraud 2020," you get "No, there wasn't any election fraud." I've found that Trump's youtube channel has some good evidence on there, although I'm in no position to fact check it. You guys seem to have missed my original point; this article is written like the majority consensus is that there was no fraud, which isn't true. Therefore, I ask that this article is written from a more neutral point, to reflect more of the population instead of one side. This would mean to totally rewrite the article from the ground up, so it's a lot to ask for. NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And since we're going to follow the reliable sources in terms of POV, you'll inevitably perceive this article as being biased towards the left as well. That's not a problem, that's the intention behind Wikipedia's core policies. Complaining about it is a waste of your time, and ours. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

this article is written like the majority consensus is that there was no fraud, which isn't true

It is true. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean indulging conspiracy theories.

Therefore, I ask that this article is written from a more neutral point

You have objected to only one specific point so far: that the word "aggressively" is used in the lede. Deleting a single word hardly requires rewriting the entire article. ThirdDolphin (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Literally every single claim of fraud or irregularity has been laughed out of court for being completely false and inaccurate. Youtube is also not a reliable source, per WP:RSP and WP:SPS. These claims are certainly objectively false. We can do nothing about your persistent belief in these incorrect claims but Wikipedia frankly doesn't care what you or I believe, Wikipedia cares about objective fact. Per every single reliable source, right and left (Fox, the National Review, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal have debunked claims of fraud), there has been absolutely no widespread fraud or irregularity. Stating this is a fact, not an opinion. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Enthusiast, there was no widespread fraud, only a handful of cases of Trump voters voting twice. If you don't have a NPOV view of reality, it will impede your ability to edit Wikipedia with NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

These claims of election fraud aren't trustworthy.Biden won,that is fact Yeial (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (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.

Title brainstorming

Originally this was titled "Attempt to overturn the 2020 United States Presidential Election", but an editor expressed concerns that it wasn't neutral. What would we think about Attempt to overturn the apparent results of the 2020 United States Presidential Election, which would still be neutral about the election results but less vague than "disputes" which could be anything. Or some other win-win that's both neutral and non-vague? Feoffer (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "dispute," which is how the article on Georgia's Rose Revolution describes the parliamentary elections that precipitated the power shift. Similar NPOV wording can be seen in lede of the article on Ukraine's Orange Revolution. Like the elections that led to those events, this presidential election is disputed — a typical word for this kind of situation. I'd recommend "Disputation of the 2020 United States presidential election". Lereman (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments elsewhere[1] point out that a result can be overturned but not a defeat. Instead, the wording could be Attempts to reverse the 2020 United States presidential election. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Small Typo

I don't see an edit link to fix this. "might have marred the election, the despite testimony given by elections officials" should be "might have marred the election, this despite testimony given by elections officials" 174.0.239.118 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Geogene (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

I agree that the lead section should be shortened, but I have reverted a recent series of edits to the lead section which, in addition to dramatically shortening it, made some edits that were unexplained and which I did not view as improvements. I would suggest that major content edits to the lead be discussed here, or at least made in a series of edits with clear edit summaries rather than one or two massive edits. Neutrality^talk 16:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Include "pillow coup"?

coverage has been extensive, just look up mypillow news, and the revelations from it seem fairly relevant for the development since the storming. jonas (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

1933 overthrow section

The section just added today relating to a 1933 event seems completely unrelated and irrelevant. Surely there were many attempts long ago to affect elections or install new governments but every one need not be discussed here.

98.37.74.80 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the comparison is done by a recent article in a reliable paper, it's not WP:SYNTHesis, but if it's WP:DUE is another matter. I left it there for now as it's a very short mention. —PaleoNeonate – 01:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It still has no bearing on these events, so I removed that out of place line. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Who is writing this garbage

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Who wrote this wildly inaccurate article just reading it makes you think that whoever did is trying to force their opinion instead of actual facts Ludwigfromhere (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Complaints get nowhere. If you have specific suggestions, then make them. Give one example of a sentence that is problematic, and why. Provide reliable sources to back up your claims. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC) As to who wrote it, are you aware of the history link? —В²C ☎ 17:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I do not see any false information. ESBirdnerd (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Censorship is not okay! Wikipedia has been turned into a narrative tool!

WP:NOTFORUM. Please give specific details of what you believe needs to be changed, with sources if necessary.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You revert anything that doesn't fit your agenda. You disregard reality in favour of bias and inaccurate portrayal. Absolutely despicable. You should be ashamed. No wonder millions believe this election was stolen when any dissenting argument gets censored, and evidence gets ignored and swept under the rug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smankey415 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) These accusations are so vague they are pointless. Please identify specific reverts that you think were inappropriate and explain why, ideally referencing WP policies that you believe were violated. —В²C ☎ 14:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Incumbent

At the start of the article, it says "incumbent Donald Trump", please change that to "45th president Donald Trump" because Trump is not the USA president anymore. 2603:9000:6505:52E1:6147:E0C7:620F:4058 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, but done partially. He was the incumbent then, and "incumbent" in the context of that sentence is correct. I did change it to "then-incumbent" to make it more clear that it's in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved The few !votes in favour of moving this to the "coup" title seem to be referring to events best left to another article (2021 storming of the United States Capitol), therefore are slightly misguided, and in any case the consensus is solidly against the proposal. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election → 2020—2021 United States coup d'état attempt – This is undeniably a coup attempt. The incumbent President, who lost reelection is trying to do anything in his power to stay President, hundreds of members of his party in Congress are refusing to accept the legitimacy of his loss, and have tried to block the certification of his opponent, Joe Biden's win as President. The President has also openly called on his millions of supporters to stand by and come across the capital to stop the certification of Biden. Hundreds of people illegally stormed the United States Capitol to stop the certification, openly opposing the peaceful transfer of power, hoping to ensure Trump would still be president. This storming of the capitol was premeditated and instigated on social media, with images of protests in gear made in advance of the storming today. Members of the press, media outlets, and of Congress, who fled from the storming has called this a coup attempt. There have been dozens of articles before today's events describing how Trump and his supporters were attempting a coup. Other articles on coup attempts were moved to those titles with less evidence and documentation, especially in African countries. Not moving this article is racist, and whitewashes the truth. We might not want to believe it, but this is a coup attempt. It doesn't just happened to people down there in Africa, but can happen to us here. This article has to be moved. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As I stated in the earlier section on this wording, what we're seeing does not meet the definition of coup d'état, which is an attempt to remove the sitting executive, usually by force — not an attempt to maintain a sitting executive in power. For example, the 2020 Malian coup d'état that Kew Gardens 613 has brought up was the effort of the Malian military to remove Mali's then-president, Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta. Lereman (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lereman: That is just semantics. This is a clear attempt to overthrow the newly elected government. It is popularly being called a coup, even if it "technically" does not meet the definition.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close. Lack of sources calling this a coup attempt. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There are literally hundreds of sources calling this a coup attempt.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

At most sources have called the storming of the capitol a coup. Flalf^Talk 01:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose A coup is normally violent, and while occasions during these past few months have been violent, it's mostly been political and legal. To call the all of these attempts collectively a coup would come across as even a little misleading in my opinion. Flalf^Talk 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you seriously calling what happened today not violent? Hundreds of protesters, some of whom were armed, storming violently into one of the most heavily protected and important buildings in the country, pushing back police and other law enforcement, and threatening the lives of congressmembers, in which they lay in fear of their lives?. In addition, one woman was shot dead. The only reason why it was not more violent is that the police aided the protesters. If this were a Black Lives Matters protest, hundreds of people would have been shot dead. This is not misleading at all.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The capitol protests have been bad, but that doesn't mean the whole thing can be categorized as a coup. I will admit I phrased it poorly, but I still believe that this move would be detrimental. Flalf^Talk 01:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Flalf, coups can be bloodless. Napoleon's, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Flalf: The Glorious Revolution was relatively bloodless.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, and SNOW closure JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Born2cycle This has been called a coup attempt in dozens of sources, so WP:SNOW does not apply. Closing it was ridiculously premature.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • By lack of sources, what I meant is that you have not shown them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - It's easy to come in here with a Johnny-come-lately attitude of "Well, the coup didn't succeed, therefore it wasn't a coup". However, I think given the circumstances under which this occurred, and the subsequent turmoil and lack of information in that vacuum, we need to address this event for what it was intended to be.--WaltCip-(talk) 01:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • By this event don’t you mean the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol rather than the topic of this article? WaltCip, will you reconsider your support for this proposal? —В²C ☎ 16:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • No.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
      • WaltCip, thanks for replying. When you say “this event” in your original comment, to what event are you referring? Thanks again. —В²C ☎ 13:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: it is not, by definition, a "coup." Although there's self-coup. soibangla (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a general article about months of different activities. Today's attempted selfcoup should receive its own article specifically. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support However the attempted self-coup today would need its own page. District9123 (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The self-coup has its own page at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. District9123, will you reconsider your support for this proposal? —В²C ☎ 16:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Support What happened over the course of the past few months was a coup attempt but I'm OK with leaving the title as is. Also, @ThirdDolphin: and @District9123:, an article on the events today already exists, at 2021 United States Capitol protests. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless Trump does something like declare martial law this won't qualify as a coup. funplussmart (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support roughly per Herbfur -- we should have an article called 2021 United States coup d'état attempt, but it should be focused on the events of Jan 6, incorporating a summary of this article as background Feoffer (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Numerous reliable sources and academics have labled it a coup. And we have this too: https://isthisacoup.com/ AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • By this don’t you mean the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol rather than the topic of this article? AugusteBlanqui, will you reconsider your support for this proposal? —В²C ☎ 16:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I said above, not all topics covered in this broad article can be considered part of a coup. Until the dust settles more and reliable sources come to a consensus about what this broad topic is, the current title is appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose - Reliable sources generally don't characterize this article's subject as a coup. Opinion pieces will refer to it as such as sources will describe it as "coup-like" or "parallel to a coup" (as it's carefully worded in AugsteBlanqui's source), but not as a coup itself. I've seen many sources ask the question of whether it is a coup, that's as far as they'll call it one. I have seen some sources that describe the events that happened at the Capitol as an attempted coup, but that event has its own article, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, and describing that as a coup would be done on that page, as it's not the subject of this article, which has a broader overview than yesterday's events. - Aoidh (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is another source to support the characterization of the events as a coup.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That source you cited is talking about Wednesday. I'm talking about this article's subject, which isn't about what happened on Wednesday in the Capitol; there is another article for that. Your source doesn't support this article being called a coup, and I'm sure we can find a source or two that might say this general subject is a coup, but they would by far be in the minority. - Aoidh (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and SNOW close. We already have a separate article about the January 6 events at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Whether that storming should be characterized as a coup attempt is entirely separate from whether that’s an appropriate or reliable-source-supported characterization of all the attempts to overturn the election which this article is about. I already closed this proposal per SNOW because it was a clear waste of time and precious editor resources, but was reverted by the proposal’s nom. I urge someone else to SNOW close this. —-В²C ☎ 14:55, 8 January 2021 (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.

NPOV seems to be lacking - Request to edit

This article reads like the script for a CNN hit piece, utilizing pointed adjectives such as 'baseless' and 'false' instead of using a neutral adjective like 'alleged'. There is a very negative tone which dismisses the underlying issue of voting integrity as some kind of baseless conspiracy theory. No where in the article are voter irregularities mentioned, such as ballots cast by dead people, returned ballots postmarked prior to the date they were mailed out to the voters, ballots cast by ineligible individuals, ballots counted after observers dismissed for the evening, etc., which cast a cloud over the accuracy and therefore fuel the notion that there was a possibility of inaccuracies or fraud.

The title, which includes the phrase 'Attempts to overturn' is problematic when the article plainly is worded to discredit or dismiss any arguments surrounding the validity, but the group has already hashed that issue and decided that this is the proper title for the article. As such, the reader should not be forced to digress from this article to search for the underlying issues which prompt the 'Attempts...'; for clarity and completeness, the issues which precipitated the actions of the Trump campaign should be included in this article objectively. Remember that at this point the issues are still pending in various courts and have not yet been heard. I would offer that, considering the title has been decided, then the body should be edited for NPOV.

I invite discussion on this. Mafairbanks (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mafairbanks, The words 'baseless' and 'false' are the 2 most common terms used by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES to describe the allegations that the election was 'rigged.' They were in fact lies and a conspiracy theory. William Barr, Trump's Attorney General, investigated these claims and stated that he found nothing significant. Trump and associates filed over 75 lawsuits, and lost all the cases mainly due to lack of credible evidence. Best, IP75 (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I invite you to cite reliable sources for the irregularities you appear to assert as established facts. It is worth noting that "irregularities" routinely occur in elections, commonly attributed to simple, innocent errors. For example, some "dead people vote" every election because they drop their absentee ballot in the mail and drop dead. soibangla (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Claim that Biden isn't really President

I've seen this claim on Facebook, and a link on another site, along with the claim Trump isn't finished. One theory is that the real inauguration is March 4 and Trump will take the oath that day.

Is this anywhere on Wikipedia?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because the inauguration date was changed by the 20th Amendment and the idea that Biden isn't president is fictitious. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, isn't this a notable conspiracy theory?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If anything, it should be discussed at the QAnon article. But I have to say, this conspiracy theory is over the top. If inauguration were still in March, why was Trump inaugurated the first time on January 20, 2016? Was he not really president for the first ~2 months of his presidency? This "theory" doesn't come remotely close to saving itself from its own false logic. But I defer to reliable sources as to whether it is notable enough to be mentioned somehwere. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I realized that too, and after discussion, this is the result. By the way, Trump was inaugurated in 2017.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The 20th Amendment states that the term of the President expires at Noon on January 20. Accuracy would dictate that since Mr. Biden completed the Oath of Office at 11:51, the United States had 2 concurrent Presidents for 9 minutes (until Mr. Trump's term expired in accordance with the Constitution). These are indeed interesting times in which we live.Mafairbanks (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden took the oath early, but was not yet president. He became president at noon (or 12:01, depending on your reading of the amendment) regardless of whether or not he had taken the oath or when he took it. The oath does not make him president, it only is a requirement for him to execute the powers of the office. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

NYT News (01/31/2021) examination

The New York Times published a lengthy article yesterday titled "77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election". I have not read it myself yet, but it appears to be a detailed explanation of attempts to overturn the election. They have also published a shorter version including "key takeaways" from the examination. The examination might prove useful in improving the article. Ahmad^talk 10:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done FWIW: The following NYT News (01312021) edit has been added to the main article - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Time magazine article

Why is there no mention of the Time magazine article about behind-the-scenes effort to influence the outcome of the election? It partly validates the claims of Trump supporters. Vgy7ujm (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Vgy7ujm, can you propose an edit? What text would you like to add, and where? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I put it into the Conspiracy allegations section at 14:34 hours on the 6th, but it was quickly reverted.Vgy7ujm (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Vgy7ujm, yes, this edit was awful and was rightly reverted. Do you understand why? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No. How would you add this highly relevant citation to the article using NPOV?Vgy7ujm (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Vgy7ujm, first things first, recognize that the article in Time was written by Molly Ball. Then, notice that she wrote this article sarcastically, claiming a "secret cabal" of non-secret people trying to save the sanctity of the election. Finally, see that Fox News is disingenuous in how they present that article, taking Ball seriously, and getting Don Jr and Lauren Boebert to throw in a couple quotes. There is nothing in Molly Ball's article about attempting to overthrow the election. Her article is about how the election was saved. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it says it is about how the 2020 election was saved, however, it uses words that are very suspicious, such as "insuring the proper outcome". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The piece makes it clear that the "proper outcome" was upholding the results of the democratic election process: "The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation.” Only in an ironic sense does Ball describe their work as a conspiracy. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent Quote worth adding?

Worth adding? - Following Quote ("A failed coup without consequences becomes a training exercise.") seems relevant - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

References

too much POV

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.

---

This article does not seem to be neutral. It calls the belief that the 2020 election was stolen a far right conspiracy theory, which does not sound neutral at all. Maybe you at wikipedia could include some perspectives from the other side (such as allegations and sworn affidavits, and other issues, such as violations of the elector's clause)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. And wikipedia will be brought down due to its criminal interference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9F90:2EA0:618F:8F42:64B3:A746 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean it this way, but FYI legal threats are banned on Wikipedia, see WP:LEGAL. Gershonmk (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Since that is how reliable sources describe it, so should Wikipedia, —PaleoNeonate – 00:13, 9 February 2021 (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.

Biden's title in lede

On January 24, I changed Biden's title from the addition of 'challenger' to 'president' with an edit summary stating 'rm challenger, not a sporting event.' Also it's not commonly used in U.S. politics. Another user removed the title stating 'possibly confusing, he was not then POTUS.' I thought that 'president' was obvious stating 'president" is Biden's title for the next 4 years. it clearly states that Trump was the incumbent. this is common knowledge.' IdreamofJeanie reverted my edit stating 'he was not President at time of the election.emphasis on NEXT.' After discussion on their talk page, I realized we should use his title at the time period of the article which was 'president-elect'. I have never addressed a minor issue at this length, but I want this in the talk page so we never have to deal with it again. Best IP75 (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that I strongly disagree -- he was no more President-Elect at the time of the election than he was President. I have left it untouched per this talk section but I ask other editors to weigh in about possible new wording. It's very confusing. Maybe we can just have "Joe Biden" without introduction? Gershonmk (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Also strongly disagree. Not only was he not President-Elect at the time, but the assertion that "challenger" is "not commonly used in U.S. politics" is demonstrably false. See: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/biden-best-position-challenger/index.html , https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/biden-best-position-challenger/index.html , https://libguides.spsd.org/election2020/biden , and https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/oct/14/where-president-donald-trump-and-challenger-joe-bi/ . To list just a few. --Khajidha (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Naddruf made this change, which I think is OK because conversation here has died down. Gershonmk (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC notification

I have started a discussion at [2]] regarding whether the events of January 2021 should be considered a coup in the United States. Your comments are appreciated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Attempts to overturn the 2016 United States presidential election

Where is the “Attempts to overturn the 2016 United States presidential election“ remember these videos where celebs asked electors to change their vote in 2016. https://www.businessinsider.com/celebrities-psa-electoral-college-not-vote-for-donald-trump-2016-12 --2601:3C5:8200:97E0:891C:1D20:37FE:61CE (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Faithless electors are not the same as storming the Capitol. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is 2016 United States presidential election#Post-election events and controversies. There's also several other articles linked out from there, such as 2016 United States presidential election recounts and Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election. But the months long program of lies and lawsuits from Trump and his supporters is still a vastly different phenomenon.--Khajidha (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it? Democrats spent years claiming that the 2016 election was stolen. Many of them still claim that it was stolen.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-12-20/the-delegitimization-of-donald-trump?context=amp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.7.82 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out that James Comey's statement a week before the election was meddling, or that Russia hacking Podesta's emails and having them released by Wikileaks impacted the election, is not at all the same as storming the Capitol with the intent of disrupting the electoral vote count. Nobody attempted to "overturn" the 2016 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Storming the Capitol wouldn't have overturned the election its a single building for christ sake. Quit bringing it up you sound delusional.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D963:173D:30F:6F15 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

They thought that it could overturn the election results.[3] Just look at what Trump said: And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. ... We're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.[4]

They didn't storm the Capitol (and build gallows on Capitol grounds) for anything other than trying to overturn the election results. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that invading the Capitol had zero chance of doing what they wanted is irrelevant, because it's clear from the documentary evidence that those who participated in the insurrection sincerely believed that it would (or at least could).

Yes, that's insane. But, as we see from the insurrectionists' reaction to being arrested, neither critical thinking nor a solid grasp of cause and effect were much in evidence that day. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Under 'Past Accusations of Electoral Fraud', somebody should include the accusations that Obama was not born in the USA therefore was illegitimate. It is part of the same story/pattern.

De-POVing of article

I am leaving a notice here as a kind of note of intentions. As discussion in this article has been dying down, I've decided over the next while to work on de-POVing this article, as there are significant sections that still struggle to meet NPOV. I'm aware that a majority of those who claim to be de-POVing the article only make it worse, usually because they're here to edit in favor of a cause, so I'm leaving a note in hopes of avoiding someone confusing me for one of those types. If problems are found with one of my edits please ping me here or on my user page and we can find a way to fix it, but please avoid mass-rollbacking the page unless necessary. Builder018 (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Builder018, I discourage you from making sweeping changes as you did here[5] if you expect others to refrain from mass-rollbacking the page. Better to do it incrementally. soibangla (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, I'm indeed planning to do this incrementally, but decided to tackle the lead at once since it's difficult to fix parts of it without fixing others. I've made some moreso incremental edits and plan to work on other sections/sub-sections as individual edits as well. The avoid mass rollback request was largely to prevent unrelated edits from getting rollbacked because one was seen as a problem. Builder018 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This Article is Very Far-Left. It needs to be deleted or reworked.

The Michigan court system just determined that President Donald Trump was correct in criticizing how the Democrat Party of Michigan ignored the Constitutional process by sending out en masse mail in ballots (violating state law) with no strong verification process. Georgia right now has over 150,000 ballots that arrived after election night which have no chain of custody records. We also have thousands of sworn affidavits - many of which were proven true but ignored due to technical restrictions like "latches" and "mootness."

According to nearly half of the US population, the majority of Republicans, and 30-40% of Independents, this article is conspiratorial in claiming the election was not stolen. This article is politically biased and is a disgrace to the entire website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBTMANIAC1990 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that the Michigan court system did any such thing, given that there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party of Michigan". --Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump won by the constitutional election deadline. Then several Democrat counties continued to take in mail in ballots late after red states had already submitted their results. Over 3.5 million ballots came in after election night with no chain of custody records.

feel free to submit this article for deletion if you feel the need to. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 21:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Mail in ballots were taken in as long as they were legally required to be. Mail in ballots being received after election day have been counted in many elections for many years. --Khajidha (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily think that it’s far-left, and while I personally agree with a lot of the statements of this article, they’re still extremely biased. This article needs to be edited heavily to comply with WP:NPOV. NondescriptError (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

NondescriptError, please provide an example. soibangla (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

TheBTMANIAC1990 The content of the article should be what's true and supported by evidence, not what some percentage of Republicans happen to believe or would like to believe. One survey showed that 50% of Republicans believe ANTIFA, not Trump supporters, were behind the riot at the Capitol (https://www.newsweek.com/thirty-nine-percent-republicans-say-theyd-support-americans-using-political-violence-1568624). Another survey showed that most Republicans believe QAnon conspiracy theories (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/02/majority-of-republicans-believe-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-partly-or-mostly-true-survey-finds/?sh=34ba213e5231). Another survey showed that 44% of Republicans believe Bill Gates is behind a conspiracy to put microchips in people using vaccines. The fact that a lot of people with a particular political affiliation believe some ridiculous ideas doesn't make those ideas not ridiculous. The disconnect between those beliefs and an objective evaluation of the facts shows a problem with the beliefs, not with objective evaluation of the facts. Let's flip the scenario around: Imagine 40% of Democrats believed Ted Cruz was the Zodiac killer. It wouldn't be "right wing bias" for the wiki article on the Zodiac killer not to treat that belief as a legitimate theory. 23.242.198.189 (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You know that the entirety of the article could be described as 'something that some percentage of Democrats happen to believe or would like to believe'. It shows in what the editors seem to consider 'reliable and objective sources', which is news sources that heavily lean left as everyone can tell immediately when watching them. --212.35.8.114 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean "things that are true and not the delusional ramblings of Trump cultists"? You're damn right it is. We deal in facts. --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

TheBTMANIAC1990, please provide reliable sources to support your assertions. soibangla (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased articles I've read. "then-incumbent Donald Trump, as well as his campaign and his proxies, pursued an aggressive, unprecedented[5] effort to deny and overturn the election." The word aggressive should never be used, that's downright weasel words. Even the title is biased. This is ridiculous. The title should be 'Allegations of Election Fraud in the 2020 Election'. I'm not saying either side is right, but this is definitely being written with a bias. 2603:300B:6DD:C800:9529:7968:591:3EAB (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how the title is biased. If it's the "overturn" part that's at issue, Trump himself tweeted about how he was trying to overturn the results, that's his own wording. - Aoidh (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Fabricated or Unsubstantiated?

Personally I believe fabricated is too much of a stretch since their is affidavits that reported and confirmed irregularities in the voting process although that does not mean their was electoral fraud it does mean that the word “Fabricated” would not be the proper word, I support the word unsubstantiated to better suit the infobox for this article. BigRed606 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither is optimal IMO, so I changed it to "false." soibangla (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me BigRed606 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

How about 'unproven'. --212.35.8.114 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Unproven" implies uncertainty. It's not just that they haven't been proven, it's that they've been thoroughly disproven. I agree with Soibangla that false is best. Builder018 (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Disproven" might be better. It explicitly states the claims of fraud are false while also reinforcing the fact that people did check whether they might have been true. IDontHaveAnAccountYet (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Title of the article

It should read 'Attempts to ensure integrity of the 2020 United States presidential election'. And why is the first thing this article does is quoting Brian Stelter, of all people? --212.35.8.114 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The election was fair. Biden won and Trump lost. There was no massive fraud. "Ensuring integrity" is Orwellian speak for overturning the result that you don't like. Why shouldn't we quote Brian Stelter? He's reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Ensuring the integrity" of the election is literally the exact opposite of what the article is about. I recognize that many Trump supporters genuinely believe that the election was stolen. But no matter how hard they believe that, it still isn't true. That's according to every mainstream news source, every expert, Trump's own handpicked Attorney General, Trump's own handpicked election officials, etc. There is no legitimate debate on this issue. Biden was heavily favored to win the election in every major poll, and he did exactly what he was expected to do: won by a considerable margin. The people who insist that the election was stolen are doing so based on emotion, not on evidence. An encyclopedia article, on the other hand, should be based on evidence, not on emotion. Misinformation is a huge problem in our society. Let's be part of the solution. 23.242.198.189 (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's actually a different, but related, subject worthy of its own article. That article would document how the efforts to ensure a fair and secure election succeeded. Part of those efforts were the successful prevention of Trump's efforts to rig and steal the election, which is the subject of this article. -- Valjean (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Would "Attempt by Trump to remain in office after 2020 United States presidential election" be a better title? --Bdrasin (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. To me, that sounds like a more verbose, less straightforward way of saying the same thing. 23.242.195.76 (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

ToC too far down

Is there some way we could split off some of those huge four paragraphs into another section so that the TOC will appear at first glance? WakandaQT (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If the lead kept the fine details for the body and was limited to a much shorter summary, that would solve this "problem". -- Valjean (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Audit by Arizona Senate Republicans

I disagree with this edit. The article here is about attempts to overturn the election. For this purpose, what's important about the Arizona process is not the substantive criticism of it, but rather how it fits in with overturning. The discussion here should say that overturning the whole election was not a stated purpose of the Republicans who ordered the audit, but that other pro-Trump people have seized on the audit as helping that goal. For the rest, the wikilink to the relevant discussion elsewhere -- audit of the presidential ballots -- is the best approach.

Trying to summarize that discussion here invites unnecessary problems. The edit I criticize includes some of "what RS say about it" but is of course incomplete. It omits some of the criticisms of the audit, and completely fails to present the pro-audit side.

We have no reason to try to undertake the crafting of a suitable short summary. The version that I wrote tells the reader that the audit is a Republican project. Anyone who wants more detail can follow the wikilink. JamesMLane t c 22:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No one has disagreed with my suggestion, so I've made the edit. All the information from the passages removed from this article can be found in the main discussion, which is wikilinked here. The Arizona events are ongoing. Further developments concerning the audit itself should be covered in the other article. If, as many people expect, the audit comes out with a totally pro-Trump report, and that report is used as the basis for an attempt to reverse the 2020 certification of the Arizona electors, then that development would merit reporting here. JamesMLane t c 10:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

Due to multiple Republican controlled state legislatures recounting ballots, I would suggest that you change the length of the attempt to overturn the results of the election to “ongoing” or “current”. 2600:1006:B00D:B2F5:4021:D11:747C:3501 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of Arizona

I disagree with this edit. In the section about the Arizona audit, the edit removed information about developments in June, with the edit note "this happened in June, maybe it belongs in article, but not here". It's true that, as of now, the article is organized chronologically, with a section for each month, but it would not make sense to split up information about a particular subject just because different relevant events occurred in different months. For example, the Gohmert v. Pence lawsuit was filed in December but decided in January. We currently have it in the January section. To me, putting everything in the month it started is simpler, but the main point is to have everything about that suit in one section. By the same token, the Arizona audit was voted on in March, there was litigation in April, the counting took a hiatus and then resumed in May, and the reactions at issue in this comment occurred in June. This information should not be in four separate sections of the article. JamesMLane t c 17:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the dilemma posed by a chronological format. So I stand by the edit unless a decision is made to reformat the article. I'd certainly agree with you if we go that way, but it would be a daunting endeavor. soibangla (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggested change to the opening sentence.

I have a suggestion for the opening sentence to make it more direct and concise.

• After Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump pursued an aggressive and unprecedented effort to deny and overturn the results.

Is anyone else in favor of trimming the opening sentence's wording or is the current revision preferred? Bluerules (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current opening sentence? I think we're fine just where we are. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see you actually made a specific proposal. The sentence seems succinct to me. soibangla (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

First, I want to say that I'm not a republican. I don't believe that Trump got cheated. I do believe that Biden won the election fair and square and that he is the legitimate President of the United States.

However, we are supposed to give due weight to all significant points of view, if they are supported by reliable sources. Republican voters are about 25% of the American population. According to polls, 80 to 90 percent of Republicans believe that the election was stolen from Trump. Therefore roughly 20% of Americans believe that Trump is the legitimate President. Certainly that's a significant point of view.

As for reliable sources, what about, say, Fox News? The vast majority of Wikipedian editors believe Fox is unreliable but where is the evidence? From the point of view of the 20%, they are reliable and CNN and ABC News are not. You can't say that Fox is not a world-wide news operation, along with the Wall Street Journal and The Times of London.

And how about the roughly 40% of the Senators and House Members who say that Trump is right. To say nothing the 20 or 30 percent of the state legislatures? What? Politicians don't count as potential reliable sources? Then thousands of "news-oriented" articles that quote a politician will have to delete that quote.

I agree that the Trump base uses a different definition of "evidence". They say you can't look at evidence solely from a legal, precedent-binding point of view. If you did that, virtually all religious articles would have to be rewritten. Is the King James Bible a reliable source, under modern rules of evidence? Certainly some of the "Trump-flavored" sources are reliable. Aren't we Wikipedians living to an extent in an echo chamber?

Imagine an article like this one but devoted to the "Stop the Steal", Republican-led viewpoint. Imagine the editors working just as hard, tracking down reliable sources. Now imagine the Wikipedia article that everyone sees being composed of 90% of the current stuff and 10% of the Trump stuff.

For example, how would you merge the following first sentences in the article:

After the 2020 United States presidential election in which Joe Biden prevailed, then-incumbent Donald Trump, ...pursued an aggressive and unprecedented effort to deny and overturn the election.

and

After the 2020 United States presidential election, Donald Trump pursued an aggressive and unprecedented effort to deny and overturn the election saying that Joe Biden had "rigged" the election and democracy was in danger.

Personally, I think it would be lousy, devoting five or ten percent of the article (and other ones like it) to Trump base's viewpoint. But how else are we supposed to represent a neutral point of view. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

what about, say, Fox News? Per WP:RSP it is dubious for political news, and this tophc is as politically contentious as they come. soibangla (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith, as you have acknowledged, we give due weight to all significant points of view supported by RS. None of Trump's claims are even remotely supported by RS, so the current state of this article is not a WP:WEIGHT issue. You have suggested that Fox News is reliable. Unfortunately, consensus is against you there; see WP:FOXNEWS. There is consensus to treat Fox's talk shows (the only place the election lies were propagated on the network) as generally unreliable. It does not matter that Fox News is the preferred news source of large swaths of the country, that is not how we assess sources' reliability on Wikipedia. We analyze their editorial practices and reputations for fact-checking and accuracy; see WP:REPUTABLE. You will have to start an RfC at WP:RSN if you want to change this. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I second Tartan357. Cannot be said any better than this. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I agree with all of you. But that leads to a problem. We're expected to analyze our sources for "editorial practices and reputations for fact-checking and accuracy". But 20% of Americans don't believe in "fact-checking", at least not in the sense used currently by Wikipedia. Are we supposed to ignore them? They have their sources and we have ours so screw them???

Roughly 90% of all Republican Congress Members and 23 Republican states (both governor and legislature) say that Trump is right. In general, are we expected to NOT trust them on other matters? Then what makes Trump so special? Forgetting Wikipedia, all reliable sources come down to someone (or many someones) who you trust. If I live in a state in which the Governor and 90% of the Congressmen and Legislators believe in Trump, should I believe in Wikipedia? Why?

I guess what I'm saying is that Wikipedia's policies on evidence, fact-checking, accuracy and reliability are becoming less and less relevant as we dig deeper and deeper into partisanship and the lore of Trump. I haven't looked it up but I'd bet that there are less people who believe in Wikipedia now than believed in Wikipedia five year ago. Are we going to do anything about this? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It really doesn’t matter how many people believe that the election was rigged. That claim is completely untrue, as untrue as saying that unicorns are real. It’s not about being neutral, it’s about being factual. I understand wanting to appeal to both sides, but that can only go so far when one side is blatantly wrong. As for the Republican congressmen…Trump’s popularity with Republicans, and his subsequent grip on the Party as a whole, is well-documented. Those who came to believe in Trump’s lies will either have to accept that they were duped or live the rest of their lives in denial. So yes, the 20% who don’t believe in “fact checking” should be ignored, because pandering to them would be detrimental for our use of RS and actual facts. - (talk) 9:02 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The Big Lie Makes Big Money?

FWIW - seems relevant here as well - should be *entirely* ok of course - as a further way of attempting to overturn the 2020 USA presidential election - and, possibly, future USA presidential elections as well - Comments Welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied from "Talk:Big lie#The Big Lie Makes Big Money?":

Should this very recent New York Times news report be added, in some way, to the "The Big Lie" article - as perhaps another reason, besides pursuing political power, in the near term and/or later, to continue promoting "The Big Lie"? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: The NYT source is not directly related to the topic of the article. And WP:OR says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." --Renat 14:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: (and others) - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - more direct WP:RS may be helpful re the issue - several such direct references may include The New York Times, NBC News and Yahoo News - there may be more direct references (perhaps many more) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Besides making Big Money from The Big Lie during the current go-round in 2020-2021 - others are funding the Big Lie with their own Big Money - all in all - Money seems to be a very Big Part of the Big Lie - in one form or another - and, perhaps, should be part of The Big Lie article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Trump didnt say he was going to be reinstated in august

https://www.businessinsider.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-rejects-trump-reinstatement-conspiracy-theory-2021-7

As you can see trump didnt start saying this people who supported trump. I do not like how this may portray trump to people as this is a lie.

Changed to Trump has reportedly told associates he could be “reinstated” soibangla (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

He actually did make such a statement, that even a local Fox station (not a reliable source as it doesn't pass Wikipedia's RS list, but it goes to show) admitted it, but here is the proof. We are not trying to put words in Trump's mouth, we're documenting everything Trump told the world via reliable sources (sources that are approved by the community, see here for the full list). Nothing wrong here. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This article has a huge problem with keeping neutral with both sides

First of all, if Wikipedia wants to keep their credibility as being fair, the least they could do is re-title the article (Trump called for an investigation when he made the lawsuits, his intent was never to just "overturn" results based on nothing), and this article could use a re-write more importantly. For example: 'Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss' should be fairer, we believe there was some dishonesty in how states that went for Biden counted ballots. RepublicanJones1952 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe that butterscotch pudding is the finest food ever devised by man, but that is not a reasonable basis upon which to edit a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump himself tweeted to "overturn" the election, that was his own wording and intent. - Aoidh (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

RepublicanJones1952, neutrality means neutral to the sources, not a WP:FALSEBALANCE where we present both sides with equal weight as though it's unclear which side is correct. It is clear that Trump and his allies attempted to overthrow the election. The letter from Jeffrey Clark that was recently released helps to confirm what was already known. You may believe there was "dishonesty", but there is zero evidence of any, aside from a few isolated incidents, like the two people in Pennsylvania who attempted to vote for Trump twice. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

RepublicanJones1952, you wrote: "his intent was never to just "overturn" results based on nothing." Actually, that's not true. While unsupported and debunked accusations of election fraud by Democrats were added to the list of reasons to overturn the election, Trump was perfectly willing to try to muscle his way through by getting allies to overturn it "based on nothing". He demanded that the DOJ "declare that the election was corrupt even though they had found no instances of widespread fraud": Trump Pressed Justice Dept. to Declare Election Results Corrupt, Notes Show: “Leave the rest to me” and to congressional allies, the former president is said to have told top law enforcement officials. He also tried another tactic in Georgia: A newly released letter tells us more about Trump’s last-ditch push to steal the election: "It was, in other words, a road map to overthrowing the will of voters. The amount of detail given to the mechanism for handing the electors to Trump was matched by the dearth of specificity about the alleged “irregularities” in the state." Trump's lawyers have suffered loss after loss. Here's another loss: Lawyers sanctioned over 'fantastical' suit alleging 2020 U.S. election was stolen

Trump uses the Big Lie technique a whole lot. During a 2018 interview, television personality Billy Bush recounted a conversation he'd had with Trump years earlier in which he refuted Trump's repeated false claims that The Apprentice was the top-rated television program in America. Bush recalled Trump responding, "Billy, look, you just tell them and they believe it. That's it: you just tell them and they believe. They just do."[6]

Here's an interesting article about Trump's use of the Big lie propaganda technique: Donald Trump just accidentally told the truth about his disinformation strategy.

See also Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election -- Valjean (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Coup attempt details now revealed?

Seems new detailed information about the actual coup attempt has now been more fully described in a "Washington Post" news report, based largely on material from the 2021 book "Peril" by American journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa - seems relevant and worthy to include in the main article - nonetheless - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is prominently categorized as opinion, and so must be used with care, if at all. Do you have a specific proposal as to what you would like to see included? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Thank you for your comments - and question - no - not at this time - flexible with this, and *entirely* ok with someone presenting relevant material to the main article in an ok way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Since this opinion piece is derivative of the the book, we should actually base ourselves on the book. This kind of coverage is only indicative of which parts of the book gained particular traction in the media. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Thank you for the above comments - other news reports, by "CNN News", (not Opinion essays like the earlier "Washington Post" reference noted above), further describes the details of the attempted coup attempt - "my own related earlier comments" - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Maricopa audit

I submit the 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit is a continuation of Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, so the infobox should reflect that continuation to "present" rather than having ended January 7th. What say you? soibangla (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. So long as the audit and similar investigations are ongoing, I believe it's sufficient to say the efforts are ongoing. Builder018 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. These "audits" are poorly disguised attempts to steal the election from Biden. -- Valjean (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:FACTS

This article makes claims that are unsubstantiated. Namely, "Trump and his allies promoted numerous false claims and conspiracy theories that the election was stolen..."

This is impossible to prove. Many of the claims, such as Mike Lindell's claim that the election was rigged, has vetted data and theories which are formidable. To outright state these are false is not possible due to the complexities of the issues involved.

Rathalos420 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is just silly sophistry. Your claims ("has vetted data and theories which are formidable", "not possible due to the complexities of the issues involved") don't actually say *anything*. That aside, Lindell's claims have been disproven in extreme detail. Even if they hadn't, plenty of other "false claims and conspiracy theories" that "Trump and his allies promoted" have, meaning the phrase you are so strongly opposed to still stands. Isn't it striking that your comment is based entirely on hand waving and (deliberate?) vagueness? 82.176.221.176 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

The language used in this Wikipedia entry under the title “Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States Presidential Election” are subjective, mostly false, and a creation from one’s imagination. The language bears no truth or facts, only one’s subjective thoughts on the event. This is just another example of how people with no objective reasoning skills or experiences are allowed to manage public information that is a product of self-proclaimed truths. My suggestion is to rework this entry and leave your emotions outside whilst you do it. 47.211.223.167 (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is absolutely stuffed to the gills with reliable sources. What you got? soibangla (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

A cite error is being caused by the ref name "BG-20120927" being used twice. One of the refnames should be renamed. Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue has been fixed. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error (2)

There is an undefined refname in the Post-election voter suppression efforts section. The refname was copied from the main article without the corresponding reference.

The following:
     <ref name="NYT-practices"/>

should be replaced with:
     <ref name="NYT-practices">{{Cite web|last1=Corisaniti|first1=Nick|last2=Epstein|first2=Reid J.|date=March 23, 2021|title=G.O.P. and Allies Draft 'Best Practices' for Restricting Voting|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/23/us/politics/republican-voter-laws.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article|url-status=live|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Solved by switching to transclusion. Thank you. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error (3)

There is an undefined refname in the "Trump won" section. The reference was removed by this edit while the refname was still in use elsewhere.

The following:
     <ref name="REU-20210924"/>

should be replaced with:
     <ref name="REU-20210924">{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizona-republicans-release-findings-widely-panned-election-audit-2021-09-24/|title='Truth is truth': Trump dealt blow as Republican-led Arizona audit reaffirms Biden win|first1=David|last1=Schwartz|first2=Nathan|last2=Layne|date=September 27, 2021|via=www.reuters.com}}</ref>

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again 89.241.33.89 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

For other attempts...

The links at the top are not attempts to overthrow elections, but rather attempted coups. Referring to them as "other attempts" thus carries some implication that this article refers to an attempted coup, which is a claim the article otherwise avoids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WKALT (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah these links belong in a 'See Also' section if anything, not at the top of the article. That's unusual. I'll go ahead and move them. TocMan (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

End of attempts

The other day I changed the end date of of these attempts from January 7 to "present." I see it has now been reversed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1051120513

My reasoning is that the audits continue and some people think audits could reverse the election (Trump said the AZ audit would get him reinstated by August) and now some people are talking about a movement to decertify elections based on audits. So even if what some people think can happen can't actually happen, their attempts to overturn continue. And that's the title of the article. What say others? soibangla (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• 100% agree. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• I would also support keeping the end date as "present" for the time being. As long as entire state legislatures undertake efforts like this (even if those efforts are ridiculous virtue-signalling) it's appropriate to say efforts to overturn the election are ongoing. --Tserton (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• The audit in Arizona did not lead to Trump being reinstated nor did it led to the state’s results being overturned or decertified as several of his supporters were hoping. Ducey rejected calls for the state’s election results to be decertified or overturned following the audit. Even Fann said that the audit wasn’t intended to overturn or decertify the state’s election despite calls from several of Trump’s supporters to do so. Biden would have been at 270 even without Arizona. The audit in Pennsylvania is on hold, Jake Corman said that the legislature has no authority to overturn the election, Josh Shapiro will do everything to prevent the audit from happening, and a similar effort by Doug Mastriano has failed. The election can’t and won’t be overturned by audits, and in fact, there is no mechanism to overturn it. I would say keep it as it and not change it to “present”. I added several of this stuff to the article. --Neocon1 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Neocon1, would you like to comment? soibangla (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: @Tserton: The audit in Arizona did not lead to Trump being reinstated nor did it led to the state’s results being overturned or decertified as several of his supporters were hoping. Ducey rejected calls for the state’s election results to be decertified or overturned following the audit. Even Fann said that the audit wasn’t intended to overturn or decertify the state’s election despite calls from several of Trump’s supporters to do so. Biden would have been at 270 even without Arizona. The audit in Pennsylvania is on hold, Jake Corman said that the legislature has no authority to overturn the election, Josh Shapiro will do everything to prevent the audit from happening, and a similar effort by Doug Mastriano has failed. The election can’t and won’t be overturned by audits, and in fact, there is no mechanism to overturn it. I would say keep it as it and not change it to “present”. I added several of this stuff to the article. —Neocon1 (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Soibangla. This is open-ended as Trump and the GOP keep up with their attempts, and it's spreading to more and more GOP states, if not all by now. The insurrection is out in the open, and satire about Trump just going directly to taking power, without any real reelection campaign, seems to reflect the GOP's wet dream. Even if a campaign and voting end up happening, GOP states will just replace electors with Trump electors and thus hand him the election, the will of the majority of voters be damned. -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation and or Clarification needed

The following statement indicates some kind of "failure of Texas". This statement needs further clarification and possibly a reference as it is not clear what Texas fail in doing. Is this failure of Trump's lawyer's in the Texas courts? Did the state of Texas (governor, Texas' Senate, and/or Texas' House of Representatives) fail at assisting Trump's attempted coup? I looked in the two references, but did not notice anything about a Texas failure.

"After the failure of Texas, Trump reportedly considered additional options, including military intervention, seizing voting machines and another appeal to the Supreme Court, as well as challenging the congressional counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021.[57][58]" Thanks, DaveD1954 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Texas is italicized and refers to the court case Texas v. Pennsylvania from the preceding paragraph. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla. Thanks for this explanation! I found this wiki extremely helpful and easy to read right up until that statement, "After the failure of Texas...", which completely confused me as I didn't make that connection that you point out. When I first read this, I searched the article for "Texas" and anything suggesting a Texas failure (and also googled Texas failures), but still didn't make a connection to that "the Supreme Court declined to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania" as the this specific Texas "failure". I'm certain there will be others who also won't make this connection. I'd respectfully suggest adding a tiny bit more clarity and maybe add that same link (to the Texas v. Pennsylvania wikipedia page) to that italized Texas or maybe change "After the failure of Texas,..." to "After the failure of the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit,...".

I would do the above myself, but I am a complete noob here and will leave it up to those more experienced. Thanks. DaveD1954 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We don’t double link within the same passage, so that’s not really an option here. One could expand it to the full name of the lawsuit, but then it starts sounding redundant. An italicized abbreviation is a extremely common when referring to cases like this, so I think that it’s fine as is. Cpotisch (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's add "...the results of" to the lead

Our lead sentence currently says Trump et al worked to deny the election ("...pursued an aggressive and unprecedented effort to deny and overturn the election"). "Deny the election" doesn't really make sense; it suggests that perhaps they denied that the election took place. Instead, they worked to deny the results of the election, and the lead ought to say so. PRRfan (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh, Weird

WP:NOTFORUM antics

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. Not surprised that I'm surprised there's not much about people trying to hurt the 2016 United States presidential election or to even things out enough to understand the unfairness obsessed hatred unfairness toward somewhat unnecessary hate against Trump. Surely Wikipedia would be unbiased, right? lol dont sue me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52c0:3079:b7d1:2fbc:9ccf (talk) 17:42, December 3, 2021 (UTC) Since there were no attempts to overturn the 2016 election, there is no article about said nonexistent attempts. Trump and Trump supporters did attempt to overturn the 2020 election, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC) That assumption doesn't change the fact showing there's tons of hate, lies, and violence/threats like from many Dems and other Trump opposers have commited. I can promise you, you cannot say with 100% certainty that there were no attempts to overturn the 2016 election. Lastly Trump is not and never is solely responsible for the riot, etc. And no, I'm not a Trumpanzee, dear reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52c0:3079:b7d1:2fbc:9ccf (talk • contribs) 18:15, December 3, 2021 (UTC) Please don't edit a post that somebody has already responded to. It's not "opinion" that there was no attempt to overturn the 2016 election or that there was an attempt to overturn it in 2020. And nobody has said Trump was solely responsible for it. I have no idea what violence or threats you're referring to. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC) I was editing only because I can't reply and I find myself needing to rectify my comments. Also, by "opinion" I mean it would indeed depend on the details of the statements (I should have been more clear and less vague). The elections kinda did receive hostile ATTEMPTS. Mind you, I agree they weren't rigged. But broadly speaking, in a way it was stolen: as someone puts it, by four years of unrelenting, deliberately dishonest attacks on President Donald Trump. As for your last two comments, you should really recheck and research that (xd). For the first part, I'm referring how people are over blaming him. We do need to understand the motive and objective, including that both sides and treating each other unfair - adding fuel to the fire. I'm not trying to get off-topic, just saying. If you want to go down that line of reasoning, then in a similar way, Trump's win in 2016 was also stolen due to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Trump made it worse by confirming himself to be a puppet of Putin in the 2018 Russia–United States summit, which flabbergasted even his ardent supporters. And all of this is off-topic for this talk page. If you have specific suggestions to improve this article, make them. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC) You've took my statements way out of context as I've expected. It's not the same thinking so slow down. First of all Russian interference hasn't been proven. Second, despite any possible harm, Trump would have won either way. Third, the US has interfered WAY MORE all around the globe, just don't forget that. People only call Trump (and others) things like "being a puppet" just to throw up dirt simply because they don't support him and would do anything to make up such pathetic lies, especially since they want an excuse and it fits their ally. Let's not pretend the media is innocent. Taking these things not seriously is exactly what causes them. As for the article, we need the article less biased, that's my suggestion. Russian interference hasn't been proven. Are you aware that American, British and Dutch intelligence hacked into the GRU network and watched them interfering in real time? They even hacked the security cameras and photographed the hackers. Are you aware the CIA had a top-level mole in the Kremlin who told them Putin had ordered and orchestrated the interference?[7] Just askin'. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC) I still don't see how that made Trump win (to be fair), because it didn't. Oh wait, interference and rigging don't have to be the same thing (I think I'm referring to something slightly different but still important). And maybe Russia was just generally against Clinton and Biden. Election interfering isn't a new thing and it's not without fraud from BOTH sides. Yet remember, we shouldn't believe everything we see and read. But here's the (at least one big main) point, this still pales into comparison of other occurrences. Like I said, a bigger problem was the 4 years of unrelenting, deliberately dishonest attacks on the President, but don't take that out of context (although it would also be very useful to be able to distinguish the behavior and the policies). Again, as for the article, you can't talk about the 2020 election without the 2016 one. So... Wikipedia is so bias towards far-left terrorism it is truly unbelievable. Y’all don’t know y’all’s asses from a hole in the ground, do you? It’s a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B113:B815:C158:3A5F:578D:8D6F (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2022 (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.

The contents of this article should be deleted and replaced

What I noticed is that this article shows many obvious bias regarding the attempts to overturn the election. 1) Both sides have made presented evidence as to whether or not the election was stolen for example:

  In Trump's case, sworn affidavits were provided talking of widespread fraud
  In his opponents' cases, multiple recounts were done.
  
  Despite this, the claims and allegations made by Trump and his allies are described as "false". A more unbiased way of describing them would just be not describing them as stuff like "false". While there could be explanations regarding the evidence that the Trump team provided, in the meantime, it would be very irresponsible to just described the entirety of the claims and allegations as "false".

2) This article appears to leave out pertinent information, for example the court cases. There were some court cases in which the ruling was in favor of Trump. Furthermore, it leaves out how the court cases that were unsuccessful were unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, not just merit. For example the big case in which Texas was the plaintiff was unsuccessful for a reason completely irrelevant to the merits of the allegations. In the article there was only one mention of the "lack of standing" reasoning. This was one of multiple cases in which the Trump team was not even given the opportunity to present evidence to the respective court. It would be irresponsible to leave out the fact of there being a variety of reasons for the court cases being unsuccessful beyond lacking merit and to leave out that fact would be to imply that it was pretty much just because of lacking merit.

3) Regarding January 6, this article seems intentionally try painting Trump in a bad light. For example "He then encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol building, which they attacked" appears to imply that the attack was done from Trump encouraging them when Trump EXPLICITLY said "peacefully" when encouraging his supporters to march to the Capitol building. This article also overexaggerate the events when it says "which was widely described as an attempted coup d'état" despite the fact that no evidence shown by the FBI nor any other provenly reputable source supports the description of January 6th as being an attempted coup d'état (nor insurrection, for that matter, but this article fortunately does not try describing it as an insurrection).

Furthermore, the creator of Wikipedia had come out and said that he has noticed a left-winged bias on many Wikipedia articles relating to politics, so due to the topic this article is covering, it is definitely possible that it could contain a bias.

For me, this is not about politics or my opinions regarding that election. This is about the fact that this article using loaded and blatantly biased language describing its topic that would (intentional or not) result in future readers being given a one-sided view of this topic where both sides can and have made convincing arguments. All I am recommending is that due to the amount of loaded and bias language within this article, that its contents be deleted and redone in a largely unbiased and less one-sided manner.Teddythebear01 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Tone?

The tone of the article is not dispassionate. The Washington Post and Newsweek have lengthy series on the 2020 election and the tumultuous aftermath: they show their emotions towards the subject much less. Imo, it accomplishes little to write this article the way it is written—sorta like an op-ed column. Possibly, look at the articles 1876 United States presidential election and 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida for how other contentious elections have been handled by Wikipedia. I wish somebody would go through the article and cut out rhetorically-heated adjectives, at least.

The article would presumably benefit from international viewpoints as well.162.211.38.126 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Please cite examples of rhetorically-heated adjectives. soibangla (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is an adverb not an adjective: the completely in completely baseless. I'd like to see "baseless"—or maybe better, "meritless" or even "frivolous." Aggressive and unprecedented is a phrase I see in reporting. I'm not sure it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Instances are passim but these are two helping to produce the dispassionate tone.162.211.38.126 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we talking about WP:WEASEL? DN (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with the IP editor that "completely baseless" should be changed to just "baseless". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I do as well so I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.105.69.34 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Purely a procedural notification of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Given the number of people who've edited this article, I do not propose notifying everyone individually. Note that this is not a deletion discussion for this article, but a discussion of whether to retain a malformed attempt to start a deletion discussion for this article. ‑ Iridescent 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've closed this MfD discussion as "Delete" as no one has supported or put forth an argument to keep this AFD proposal and there has been an overwhelming consensus to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"verified gossip?"

Martindo removed the longstanding content about Trump's attorney diGenova saying Krebs should be executed, comparing it to a comedian pulling a dumb stunt (an analogy I find ludicrous) and characterizing the diGenova matter as "verified gossip." My google of diGenova Krebs shows the attorney's words were covered by numerous major reliable sources. It is highly notable that an attorney for the President of the United States called for the execution of a man who told the truth. Those sorts of words, coming from that sort of person, under those sorts of circumstances, matter. I recommend the content be restored. soibangla (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. "Just joking" isn't really a defence against inclusion in an article; and it was widely covered. But the challenge against it being in the lede is valid. I would reinstate it, but I haven't taken the time to figure out where in the article it really should go. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Not in the lead, but maybe in the last section. Content that is covered by multiple RS is not to be considered trivia. The RS coverage has settled that question. Trivia is short coverage only in tabloids like National Enquirer and unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I follow what Not in the lead, but maybe in the last section means. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It's already in the article, in the "Threats of violence by Trump supporters" section. I agree that it should be removed from the lead, pending consensus here. User:Martindo has removed it three times and it has been restored each time; that is appropriate for longstanding content until consensus says to remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Body follows lead, "Threats of violence by Trump supporters" is six paragraphs long, yet the lead makes no mention of threats of violence without the diGenova matter, which is the most prominent example. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead is nine paragraphs long, and while I absolutely applaud the efforts thus-far, perhaps the next best step would be to discuss how to go about paring it down via WP:MOSLEAD. DN (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring the article to reduce the lead is probably a good idea. However, that should be done based on what is best for the article, not based on what snips of content individual editors like or dislike. The content that was deleted in this case was 10 words of text; hardly enough to make a dent in the overall size of a 9-paragraph lead. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is long, but I've re-read it till my eyes bleed and can't find much to take out, apart from the cost of the Trump efforts, but I don't see a suitable place for that in the body. Maybe it should just be removed altogether? soibangla (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

2000 Mules

This is a new conspiracy theory film by Dinesh D'Souza. There's a huge number of unreliable sources that are covering it. Please be on the lookout in case any reliable sources decide to report on it or debunk it. I think this would be a useful addition to the article if the proper sourcing could be found. Thanks. Baxter329 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Electoral College vote and alternate electors Section

Regarding this dif [8], I think this [9] citation may help if the current one isn't already clear... DN (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

How's this?[10] soibangla (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Too Long Didnt Read LOL

Wikipedia views itself as a generally unreliable source while considering the Washington Times as generally reliable source. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/28/joe-biden-got-255000-excess-votes-fraud-tainted-sw/ "That was where allegations of mischief occurred in Fulton in 2020, with a burst water pipe causing removal of poll watchers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:9D17:C69F:F152:961B (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead section too large

Imo the lead section is too large and I have added a banner to indicate that. A lot of prevalent details are unnecessary for the lead which reads almost like a mini timeline than a summary of the article/subject. Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe everyone is aware, & agrees on this, so this section may serve best as a sort of suggestion board. Considering this is an unprecedented and developing topic it's important to exercise patience. MOS:LEAD will help the community break down what should go where and which aspects carry the most WP:WEIGHT. DN (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a "developing" topic. It's about events that occurred over a year ago, and the current media focus seems to be more about restricting voting rights in the 2022 elections to circumvent the past failures to overturn elections in 2020. I do agree that the lead could be made more concise, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe the January 6th commission is still underway and will be bringing more to light with regards to this topic. The media is capable of focusing on more than one thing at a time as far as I'm aware. Correct me if I'm wrong. DN (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

They'll only show what they want to show, never the full truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:834:BA0C:70BB:DAF4 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The work of the January 6 congressional committee is still actively investigating and interviewing witnesses, not to mention issuing subpoenas and working with legal professionals to federally prosecute those who fail to comply with those subpoenas. It doesn't matter, therefore, that the attack occurred a year ago. As long as there is an active investigation and people being charged for failing to appear or comply, this is a current issue for which the coverage thereof is most certainly germaine and relevant for a Wikipedia topic, and details an ongoing current event. The people who contend the attack was a year ago, and should not receive additional coverage seem to be the type of people that want the nation to sweep the domestic terror act under the rug and to let America move on. When congressional representatives and the process of a peaceful transition of power is threatened in any way, and when there are active investigations of those incidents, there is a valid reason to cover all of that as an ongoing current event. Congress is not just sweeping this under the rug, and neither should Wikipedia. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wisconsin nursing homes conspiracy theory

A new conspiracy theory is claiming that many nursing homes in Wisconsin had voter turnouts between 95% and 100%, and that relatives of many of these patients say they were too sick to vote, and too sick to request an absentee ballot. The conspiracy theory also includes videos of some of these patients, showing that they can't speak, write, or get out of bed, and yet somehow, they were allegedly able to request absentee ballots and vote in the election. There are plenty of non-reliable sources that have reported on this conspiracy theory, but no reliable sources have reported on it. The conspiracy theory definitely exists. Where it is true or false has not been addressed by any of the reliable fact checking sources. I am hoping these reliable sources will carry out fact checking on this conspiracy theory. 54mmkds (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

we need reliable sources to tell us this nutty theory is notable enough to mention. without them, we can't include it EvergreenFir (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have been searching extensively. I did find this Politico article: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/01/wisconsin-republicans-embrace-election-decertification-00012793

The Politico article does not mention the claim of 95% to 100% voter turnout at Wisconsin nursing homes. However, it does include this link: https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/22/brandtjen/media/1552/osc-second-interim-report.pdf

At that link, on page 90, it does mention the claim of 95% to 100% voter turnout at Wisconsin nursing homes.

I'm pretty sure that Politico is a reliable source. The fact that they linked to the claim of 95% to 100% proves that the claim has been made. It does not prove that the claim is true. It does prove that the conspiracy theory exists. It does not prove if the conspiracy theory is true or false.

54mmkds (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This New York Times article includes the same link to the same report as the Politico article. The New York Times article is called, "Wisconsin Republicans’ Election Report Endorses Debunked Legal Theories." The New York Times article does not mention the claim of 95% to 100%. In the entire internet, I cannot find any reliably sourced debunking of the claim of 95% to 100%. Furthermore, the report and the New York Times article are both dated March 1, 2022. The report is 136 pages long. I wonder if the author of the New York Times article even read the report before writing that it was "debunked." Because the New York Times article is behind a paywall, I am posting a link to an archived version, which is free: https://web.archive.org/web/20220301194131/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/wisconsin-republicans-election-report.html

I am by no means an expert when it comes to determining what is and is not a reliable source. The link to the report is for an official government website. Does that make the report a reliable source, or not? Does the report, along with the report being linked to by both the New York Times and Politico, mean that we can mention the claim of 95% to 100%, or is that not the case? I do not know the answers to these questions, and I am hoping that others here can offer some answers or other kind of feedback. I appreciate any help and clarification on this issue.

54mmkds (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/2/wisconsin-probe-finds-2020-election-riddled-nursin/ 173.25.44.181 (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is from the Wisconsin State Journal, which, according to its own wikipedia article, is the second largest circulation newspaper in Wisconsin. It specifically mentions, and debunks, the claim that a large number of nursing homes in Wisconsin had voter turnouts between 95% and 100%. It also includes an embedded video of interviews with some of the nursing home patients who allegely voted despite being allegedly too sick to vote or request an absentee ballot. I think this source could be cited, but I'm not going to add it without first seeing if others here think it's a good idea:

https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/michael-gablemans-numbers-on-wisconsin-nursing-home-votes-dont-add-up/article_7ea4b755-b2f7-53d2-aa73-66b8fe497b94.html

54mmkds (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This is my proposed addition to the article:

In March 2022, the Wisconsin State Journal reported on, and debunked, a report that had been commissioned by the Republican speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly and written by a conservative former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, and which claimed that a large number of Wisconsin nursing homes had voter turnouts between 95% and 100%. The online article by the Wisconsin State Journal also included video of nursing home patients who had allegedly voted, despite allegedly being too sick to vote or request an absentee ballot. The New York Times and Politico both posted a link to the report, and both said the claims in the report were false.

54mmkds (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

“Frabicated claim” seems not neutral, biased against trump.

I think that whether it is really frabicated claim, big lie is debatable, it is just not enough evidence to prove that Trump is correct, but it doesn't mean that Trump claim is 100% false(just quite likely to be false by current evidence）, so it should be changed to "unjusted claim instead", "probable lie". Noted i just have a neutral attitude, not Pro-trump at all, but instead i think the article is way too biased and look like a democrats propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.119.174.202 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The contents of this article are drawn from reliable secondary sources, the consensus of which describe Trump's claims as baseless, false, etc. This topic has been covered in much detail on this Talk page's archive. We can only write articles about the evidence and sources that exist currently, not hedge and speculate about hypothetical future evidence. Your personal assessment that "there is room for doubt", etc. would constitute original research if incorporated into the article and is in general not how Wikipedia operates. If you have secondary sources which you would like to have incorporated into the article, please feel free to propose their inclusion. 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Its kind of a shame that the courts have in fact found them to be baseless and indeed vexatious. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. The current text of the page is well-supported by Reliable Sources. Feoffer (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead still longer than neccessary

I think if we took a good look at each paragraph and parsed it down to the most important aspects we could get this fixed. For example, in the last two paragraphs...

By December 30, 2020, multiple Republican members of the House and Senate indicated they would try to force both chambers to debate whether to certify the Electoral College results. Mike Pence, who as vice president would preside over the proceedings, signaled his endorsement of the effort, stating on January 4, "I promise you, come this Wednesday, we will have our day in Congress." Additionally, Trump and some supporters promoted a false "Pence card" theory that, even if Congress were to certify the results, the vice president had the authority to reject them. After the vote certification, some Republicans changed their positions to acknowledge Biden's victory, while others continued to support Trump's claims. As of April 2022, Trump has publicly continued to insist that the election was stolen, although he admitted his loss to a group of historians in mid-2021, saying, "We had a deal all set [until the election was lost and] the deal went away." Trump supporters continue attempts to overturn the results, pushing for state legislature resolutions and new lawsuits, raising concerns among legal experts that public confidence in democracy is being undermined to lay the groundwork for baselessly challenging future elections.

What if we took out most of the "details", which should already be in the body, and tried this...

By December 30, 2020, some Republican members of the House and Senate wanted a debate whether or not to certify the Electoral College results. Trump and some supporters promoted a false "Pence card" theory that, even if Congress were to certify the results, the vice president had the authority to reject them. After the vote certification, some Republicans changed their positions to acknowledge Biden's victory, while others continued to support Trump's claims. Trump supporters continued to attempt to overturn the results, pushing for state legislature resolutions and new lawsuits.

...Any thoughts?...DN (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Coup vs Self-Coup

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since I'm seeing sources arguing if the right word is "coup" or "self-coup" I started a thread where we can talk about that elsewhere. Per MULTI please add any comments at the original thread Talk:List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts#Coup_vs_Self-coup. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Too long

See WP:SIZESPLIT, which says article with more than 60k of "readable prose" should probably be split, and over 100K almost certainly. Ours now has more than 130K of readable prose. I tried to shorten it by deleting the long paragraphs describing Trumps work as a "coup" even before Jan 6, but was reverted. Any other ideas for making it shorter? Reorganize? Sub articles? Maybe try to make an WP:OUTLINE? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The length of the lede is an issue, but blanking out that much cited content without consensus and getting reverted is fairly predictable as far as BRD, not that anyone thinks you aren't acting in good faith, so I hope that much is clear. Another thing to consider is that the Jan 6th event is still kind of fluid and ongoing as new info comes out, so some things may need to be added or changed. Focusing on a few specific lines or sections at a time and seeking consensus may be somewhat slow, but has been somewhat more effective. Make suggestions, some will be enacted, while others will not. The point being, patience and simplicity will help you get consensus much more efficiently IMO. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There are two other places covering this topic: Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Contemporary analysis and terminology which is excerpted in 2021 United States Capitol attack. The content could be merged there (much of it is probably already there) rather than outright deleting it, and simply summarize it here with a {{main}} hatnote link to that article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems like it might be reasonable. If there are no compelling reasons or objections against that, I will add my support, given enough time for other editors to chime in either for or against it. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, Anachronist. I only noticed use of "excerpt" templates after our delete-revert cycle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

question about Template:Excerpt If a source paragraph contains named references, does the template also import those ref names, so the target article can those ref names for citations outside of the excerpted section? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible RS to use for third hearing

• The 16 most compelling lines from today's January 6 committee hearing - CNNPolitics

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems fairly cut and dry, I bet there will be plenty of other RS to show consensus coming shortly. Ugh, what a mess this whole subject is. DN (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Amen, is there a social media place to do the chat and forum stuff with other editors? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Like an offsite web-cafe for Wikipedians? Not that I'm aware, as far as I know talk pages are the best for that in order to maintain transparency. I do not communicate with other editors outside of talk pages for that reason, but if I had to guess, old.reddit is the preferred choice. DN (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear... I meant an approved place for us here ON wiki, since user/article talk pages aren't considered appropriate for lots of chat like that.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

(same) Sorry I wasn't clear either...I meant user-talk-pages. (edit) I thought user tp was ok to go off topic as long as the user consents? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think its enforced much but I think I saw somewhere we have to keep that in modest doses. Anyway, nevermind, thanks for input.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

We can use wikivoice if and when most secondary sources say stuff. However, using primary sources to make statement in wikivoice is deeply problematic. Secondary sources are plentiful on this subject, and the language they use is no accident. If they change course, then my objection disappears, but until then there is no deadline and no urgency to get ahead of the secondary sources. It’s not our job to assume certain judges or think tanks are right about something. They may be right, maybe not, but they are primary sources. “A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.” Lots of educated people are currently having trouble figuring out what to make of Trump and January 6. He left office peacefully on January 21, he explicitly called on his supporters to be peaceful on January 6, he was receiving advice from a then-reputable legal scholar saying Pence had more power than Pence actually had, and he may have really thought the election was stolen. Some primary sources may say Trump was a coup plotter, but we have to wait for secondary sourcing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Have...you read the actual article and the included sources? PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant, please grab a version number from version history, and using that version point out any place you find where we use WIKIVOICE on the basis of a primary source? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is currently careful not to say in wikivoice that there was a coup or coup attempt. I hope it stays that way. I hope you will support keeping it that way, not just at this article but also at articles linking this one, such as List of coups and coup attempts. My understanding is that you have argued for using judicial opinions and think tank analyses despite what secovdary sources say. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

A massive complaint paragraph about a nonexistent problem? I'm fairly patient but about ready to ANI/AE for your US Politics Tban, lifted less than 30 days ago, to be reinstated for WP:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You asked me to come here.[11] Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not for drama. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

When I said we should wait to call 1/6 a coup attempt in wikivoice, you said we are “already there” based on primary sources.[12]. And you said to come here to discuss it.[13] I think it’s contrary to Wikipedia policy that you continue to insist upon listing this 1/6 event at List of coups and coup attempts while preventing clarification of that list’s scope.[14] I am through with this so-called discussion to which you invited me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You left out the most important part of what I said and thereby changed its meaning. Please leave me alone unless you have RS or P*G issues on article content to discuss NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what part you’re referring to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, if it comes up at ANI I'll explain but instead this is a good time to WP:DROPTHESTICK on the personal bickering everywhere please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If by “P*G” you mean policies & guidelines, it took me a long time to figure that out, maybe spell it out so people will understand. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC about coups and coup attempts

An RFC has started related to this matter. See Talk:List of coups and coup attempts#RFC: How should we deal with alleged coups and alleged coup attempts?. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Dominion (voting machine company) libel suit against Fox News

Are we covering this somewhere? Here is a potentially big development re: Murdoch's and potential "actual malice" (in legal sense). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

When and if three is an actual court ruling about capability, yes. Otherewise no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not? BLP policy under WP:WELLKNOWN seems to encourage reporting of allegations against well known public figures. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Becuse we do not have to have it, and I think it is better to leave it until there is a result. We are not a newspaper. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Too late, I just found a long list of civil lawsuits Dominion_Voting_Systems#Corporate_lawsuit NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, just want to chip in and say what we're talking about is a denial of a motion to dismiss; the judge has not said there was actual malice, only that there's enough of a suggestion that a finder of fact should reach the question. It does seem to be widely reported, but it's really an interstitial step--I think we're better off waiting for more finality, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

More like the judge said Dominion didn't screw up the alleged claims when they filed suit. There could additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. Still, seems like an important factoid that its not just against Fox News Corp in the defendants chair... its going forward against the parent company, the Murdoch's Fox Corp, too. I suppose there will plenty of time to add later developments. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure we'll be seeing other motions to dismiss, as the only grounds would be jurisdiction/venue/process, and those seem unlikely, but I am often wrong. Motions for summary judgment, however, are a near certainty. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)