Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pence Card: Can we call it a "scheme"?

This article has an existing section header: False "Pence Card" theory

The June 2022 public hearings of the House committee help establish that no one actually believed this "theory." Everyone knew it was a lie and that their own actions were criminal. It was a scheme, or a pressure campaign — not a real legal theory.

I mean, the heading already calls it a "False...theory", and given the newly publicized evidence that everyone always knew it was false, that makes it...never a real theory at all. It was only ever a rationalization for illegal actions.

I realize there are simultaneous discussions about how to use the word "coup." I'm not following those discussions, so I apologize if my suggestion here is somehow redundant. My point remains, though, even if the illegal actions aren't termed a full-fledged coup attempt. A deliberately fake rationalization for something illegal (coup or not) isn't a real theory.

There is a redirect in place. The "Pence_Card" article redirects to this section. Hence, the section header might be important. Readers type or click "Pence Card," and they're informed that it's a "false theory", so we might want to examine the term. I'd vote for changing this section header to "Pence Card" scheme.

Tuckerlieberman (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

In real, proper English, as spoken in England, scheme means plan or project, without devious connotations. But the Pence Card was a scheme in either sense. soibangla (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(A) No, WP:WIKIVOICE probably should not say "scheme"

(B) IMO, headings all across our articles should match as close as possible the wording of what the Committee says is Trumps 7-part plan. It may take a bit of wordsmithing to keep it NPOV. In this case, see bullet number 3. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"Pressure on Pence to refuse to certify..." would match the language of the 3rd bullet. Something like that, then? But there is already a Subheading 1 "Pressure on Pence", and I'm talking about the Subheading 2 under it: "False "Pence Card" theory". Possibly the Subheading 2 isn't needed at all, then...insofar as the "theory" is identical with the pressure applied to persuade or strongarm him. Or, instead of "theory," the neutral word "argument" might be useful, since arguments can be good/bad, sincere/insincere. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Right now (article version #1094224028) the section headings are

• Pressure on Pence

• False "Pence Card" theory
• December timeline

Text under "Pressure on Pence" says there were "multiple theories". But the only one we really talked about was the "false 'Pence card' theory".

PROPOSAL First, delete subheading "False 'Pence card' theory". Second, change "Pressure on Pence" to "Pressure on Pence to reject electoral college votes"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That proposal makes sense to me, thanks.

To reiterate, though -- FYI, there is a redirect in place. "Pence Card" is going directly to that subheading "False 'Pence card' theory". I'm not sure how redirects are done (on a technical level), but we probably don't want to lose it. — Tuckerlieberman (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"Makes no sense" = [[WP:IDONTLIKE]], unless you elaborate on whatever you find confusing. Don't worry about the redirect. Once there is a consensus on structure we can deal with the redirect accordingly. So what about my idea is unclear? [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 21:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)struck by me see below NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It's clear to me! Sorry if something I said was unclear. — Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Omigosh, I'm sorry. I totally read that wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Independent State Legislature Doctrine

Somewhere around the "Supreme Court petitions" part of the article, there should be mention of and link to the Independent State Legislature Doctrine article. This was the basis of objections to Biden's win that were based not on direct vote fraud claims but on claims of supposedly unconstitutional procedures that some states had in place in 2020 due to Covid. The courts didn't buy these claims either but a full description should cover them. 69.112.179.67 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Separate page for fake electors

I would like to start a separate page to address the fake electors attempts. I'm thinking of calling it 2020 United States fake electors attempts. Any comments before I create it? If somebody else wants to start the page instead that would be totally fine with me. If nobody creates it by tomorrow I'll create it. SnappingTurtle (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Good idea but let's go further. Eventually I think we'll need seven separate articles corresponding to the Jan 6 committee's assertion that Trump and team were executing a 7-part plan. The article you are proposing might be called "Evidence of Trump's 2020 attempt to use fake electors" to track with Part #5 (see prior link). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Include somewhere the new phenomena of GOP primary candidates challenging their own results?

Recently, the new behaviors of GOP candidates challenging their own primary losses has become more common (The Wrestler in Nevada as well as Dr. Oz declaring victory before all recount efforts ended). Perhaps some analysis of delegitimizing democratic elections spreading to primary elections could be included, briefly? Tyrone (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

First find high quality RSs that discuss this. Then compile notes about what they say in your sandbox (example). By the time you're done you'll have a good tool to guide the next step. IF you find that these challenges are legally frivolous and there are enough to be called a phenomena, one relevant article might be democratic backsliding, but you'd need an RS that connects the dots rather than your own WP:OR. On the other hand, if they are increasing but are not legally frivolous, in a nation of laws everyone is entitled to take their gripe to court and live by the result. Chairman Thompson said exactly that in one of the Jan 6 hearings. Either way, I agree with Slatersteven, it isn't relevant here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Interruption of proceedings

How long was that interruption of the certification process? It would be nice to include that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Calculation based on Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack:

• 2:13 p.m.: Vice President Pence is removed from the Senate chamber to a nearby office by his lead Secret Service agent, Tim Giebels. The Senate is gaveled into recess.
• 2:20 p.m.: The House is gaveled into recess and starts to evacuate.
• 8:06 p.m.: The Senate reconvenes, with Vice President Pence presiding, to continue debating the objection to the Arizona electoral count.

Proceedings interrupted from 2:13 to 8:06 = 5hr 53min

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

In "Supreme Court petitions", add a "see also" to Independent state legislature doctrine. And is in news now again. See this for example https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/30/supreme-court-gop-independent-legislature-theory-reshape-elections-00043471 and for use in 2020. 69.112.179.67 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is retrospective, about events that happened specifically in the 2020 election. We now have an abundance of reporting available about prospective matters of future elections, including the Independent state legislature doctrine, and I have argued we need a new article about all that, but I don't seem to be garnering any interest in it. It's a very big deal. It's sneaking up behind us and it would be a shame if we documented it only after it's a fait accompli. soibangla (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree its vital stuff. I'd suggest overhauling Democratic backsliding in the United States, and so that it introduces in summary fashion the various techniques which also include Gerrymandering in the United States, Voter suppression in the United States and all the rest. But I don't see any compelling reason to include one of the practices in our see also but not others, nor do I see a reason to itemize them all. Instead, it would be better to steer readers to a single well-done intro/navigation article.

-br-

BTW, This article has a subsection "continuing subversion tactics". Many sources describe 2020 as practice and report on efforts to address the various points of resistance that stood up to the 2020 attempt, and bring them to heel so next time it will more likely work. I agree this article should stay primarily focused on 2020, but would support 2-3 sentences and some wikilinks about how 2020 is really still happening for 2024. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like the "see also", how about after "alleging a variety of unconstitutional actions in their presidential balloting,", adding "some of which relied on independent state legislature doctrine". This will make clear there were some objections which did not rely on fraud claims (even if the proposed remedy was unwarranted). 69.112.179.67 (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

1-3 sentences containing the wikilink and describing how the doctrine formed the basis of the 2020 effort to use "Alternate electors" would fit nicely in the subsection of that title. Sample RS (see about 2/3 the way down) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a consensus. 69.112.179.67 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

spin-off of "alternate electors" to new article

As "alternate electors" developments increase apace, I propose spinning off the the bulk of Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Electoral College vote and "alternate" electors to a new article:

Trump alternate electors controversy

Please take a look at my draft proposal. soibangla (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Support and transclude some or all of the lead back to this article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Collins as source for announcement

@Andrevan: Greetings! Regarding this revert...Susan Collins is one of the two people actually making the announcement. The cited page is the announcement, in one form, and it has links to one-page summaries from the authors, and to the full text of the legislation. It has a lot more detail than any of the news pieces I could find. I'm not sure how any of this could be unreliable on the subject of itself, so I'm curious what was your concern? -- Beland (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beland, thanks, for the note. I guess that would qualify as a primary source, but it would be better if you had a secondary source for this. I guess I will be ok with it if you really do not, but it seems weird to me to link to a Congressperson's website instead of a news article. What about WP:BUNDLING and linking to both? Andrevan@ 18:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: So bundled! I did another search to see if there were better secondary sources. Some have come out, but are just summaries of the announcement. I did manage to track down the bill numbers and added primary source citations for those as well, for readers who wish to track progress through Congress. -- Beland (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice, thank you! Andrevan@ 22:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Big Lie vs Fake News

When Trump won the 2016 election he co-opted the term “Fake News”, conveniently so he could attack news sources he disagreed with. It should be no surprise that virtually all of these sources would pass our RS standards.

After he lost the 2020, his opponents labeled Trump’s supporters as propagating the “Big Lie”. Once again he stole that term and used it for self aggrandizing purposes. Have you any sources which contrast the two terms? Artificial Nagger (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote

The current hatnote to the Jan. 6th committee hearing violates WP:RELATED. Hatnotes are for disambiguation purposes- to get users who may have reached this page unintentionally but are actually seeking something else. I don't see how a user could be seeking information on the hearings but reach this article instead. Having what is essentially a "See also" or "For further information" hatnote is a problem, because it's difficult to determine what to include. It would seem January 6 United States Capitol attack is more closely related to this article than the hearings about the attack (and properly does not include a hatnote to this article), so again unclear why we are making a specific point to link to the hearings. If there are no legitimate reasons for this hatnote, it should be removed. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

HEAVILY biased article

long rambling forum-y thread that was started by an WP:SPA using SCARE ALLCAPS Dronebogus (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I look at the language used in this article and I can see a heavy bias. A short term solution would be removing the bias language (like calling the allegations "allegations" instead of "false allegations"). Furthermore, there has been evidence, like sworn affidavits, that show that the election was not exactly secure. Did the fraud change the outcome, maybe or maybe not. However, since there is evidence of fraud, it should be presented. On the topic of all the lawsuits, the article makes it seem like all of the lawsuits were dismissed due to merit, but a number of them were dismissed for reasons other than merit, and so in multiple of the cases, the Trump legal team were never given the chance to present their evidence in court. Another thing, mail-in voting and Dominion have not been the most secure. As recent as 2018, there was a bipartisan concern about the security of Dominion. Mail-in voting has been known to be susceptible to fraud. While these issues could possibly have been resolved before the 2020 election, they don't exactly have histories of being secure methods of voting. This article makes it seem like Trump and his team just pulled all these allegations out of thin air, but they didn't. They were based on sworn affidavits and history, among other things. This article kind of presents the 2020 election as there being no fraud whatsoever, but this election did not appear to be secure and without problems. A long term solution would be to change it into a more neutral one and make it about the contesting of the election instead of an attempted overturning. Teddythebear01 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC) OK, what evidence was accepted in court, and won? Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Sworn affidavits" are not "evidence". Not calling these allegations "false" increases bias by reducing accuracy. It's been almost two full years since the 2020 election. Get over it. Take the L. Move on. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Apologies for being picky, but this is something of a bugaboo for me: affidavits are in fact evidence, it's just that in and of themselves they may not be particularly compelling evidence. I once saw a sworn and notarized affidavit in which the affiant claimed to be a reincarnation of both the Buddha and Moses. I did not find it to be particularly compelling evidence for that proposition. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I oversimplified in my comment, yes. These particular affidavits are especially meaningless, as noted here and many other places. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC) No dispute with that. I just get a certain bee in my bonnet about the modern (largely online) tendency to conflate "evidence" with "proof." Sorry you ended up on the receiving end! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Which of course is what we mean by false, as in without proof. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I'm no legal expert so totally fine with corrections on points like that. What I do know is that the only reported cases of fraud from 2020 are a couple of individuals in Pennsylvania who voted for Trump twice, a few cases from The Villages in Florida, and some other isolated incidents here and there. In Arizona, they inspected potential fraud in 198 cases. (Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes.) Voter fraud did not impact the results of the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC) It's not that the article is biased, it's that it neglects to mention the role left-wing media and social media played in what many consider a dirty conspiracy to suppress information. I've tried to create a section about Hunter Biden's laptop, and how if left-wing media and social media hadn't suppressed the details (and silenced the New York Post), the impact may have swayed the election. The problem is, nearly all the sources I've found to support the arguement are blacklisted at WP:RSP. I'm still looking though. This fact (yes, it's a fact, not a big lie) has led many on the right to feel big media conspired to steal the election. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Well Hunter Biden's laptop has nothing to do with attempts to overturn the 2020 election, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What you're thinking of is more relevant to October surprise, and how media responded to it. That you are relying on blacklisted sources should tell you something about the credibility of the allegations. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC) What has Hunter Bidens lap top got to do with the attempt to overturn the result of the election? As far as I know there is nothing in law that says the media in the US must be unbiased, as such a such a claim would have no standing in lawSlatersteven (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC) After the FCC fairness doctrine was abolished no, there's nothing that I'm aware of that says media has to do anything of the sort. - Aoidh (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC) The FCC fairness doctrine? Um sure. And the New York Post blacklisted while the New York Times is reliable...oh please. I'm just saying that not all Trump supporters believe the cockamamie narrative about voting irregularities, but many do feel that biased media and social media helped throw the election (that's maybe why they apologized), and that feeling contributed to their desire for attempting a coup d'état!!! (yes, a coup d'état! Don't believe me? Look at second sentence of the article). It's even supported by this unbiased book which "draws a parallel between Adolf Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923 and the events of the Capitol insurrection". Jesus. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC) With all due respect, you are nearing WP:NOTAFORUM territory here. Just a word to the wise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Many do feel" is the WP:WEASELiest language. We want facts, not feelings. Feelings don't justify an attempted coup. Trump's laid the groundwork for overturning the election predated the NY Post story on the laptop, as the article shows. And thanks for invoking Godwin's law for no particular reason. That author did call Trump's efforts a self-coup, which is illegal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Hitler" is mentioned an astonishing four times in the article: once in the body, once in a footnote, and twice in the sources. I didn't start this Muboshgu. And it was Obama who laid the groundwork for Trump, but that's a different narrative. The article is filled with cherrypicked sources, and reads like a DNC press release. I have half the nerve to put a cleanup tag at the top. We can do better for our readers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Obama has nothing to do with Trump trying to overthrow the 2020 election. If you have reliable sources (as in not blacklisted) to present for inclusion, please share them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Sheesh louise, this thread has everything: Hitler, Obama, Hunter Biden's laptop, I just need Hillary Clinton's emails to complete my bingo card. Seriously, for all of those who think that Wikipedia is left-wing and biased, maybe you need to consider whether it's actually that you have been consuming mostly right-wing biased media with factual accuracy issues, and Wikipedia has strict rules about reporting only on verifiable reliable info. Andre🚐 21:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC) You think? Left-wing sources seem to have been cherrypicked on this one. I often use this chart to sort out media bias. Look how often these left-wing sources are cited in the article: Vox - three times. Buzzfeed - four times. Daily Beast - four times. Huffpost - six times. Mother Jones - two times. Slate - two times. None of the media outlets listed as "right" are even used in the article (most have been outlawed). However, Newsmax is listed there, and is mentioned in the article with a caution to readers: "They were promoted by Trump and other individuals, and were heavily pushed and expanded on by far-right news organizations such as One America News Network (OANN), Newsmax, and The Gateway Pundit, as well as by Sean Hannity and some other Fox News commentators." But look at the free pass for the equally far left Slate: "Joshua Keating similarly argued in Slate". I've been editing these US political articles a long time. I get it. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC) No, that chart is not RS. Please refer to WP:RSP. Thanks. Andre🚐 22:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC) That's my point. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Do you mean that is your WP:POINT? Because going around questioning apparently reliable sources (Slate) while pushing for fringe narratives sounds like WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. This article is not biased. There were many attempts by Trump to overturn the 2020 election, and 60 failed court challenges did not substantiate any claim of election fraud or irregularity in any state. Your claim that there is a left-wing media conspiracy to steal the election is WP:RGW and WP:SOAPBOX advocacy. Andre🚐 22:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure which chart you're referring to because there's two very contradicting charts there, but in the first one Fox News is listed as solidly right; it's used in this article six times, so when you say None of the media outlets listed as "right" are even used in the article that's just not correct. The Adfontes chart right below the first one, however, very much contradicts the top chart; CNN is barely past NPR on "skews left" on that chart whereas the Epoch Times, which the first chart calls a modest "lean right" is listed as hyper-partisan right and well into the propaganda territory. Every "skews left" source you listed that I could find on the Adfontes chart ranks as high or higher than Fox News on reliability, so unless you're suggesting we start chopping at the bottom in terms of reliability and get rid of Fox News per your own chart, I'm not really sure what you're suggesting, because when you look at your second chart (which isn't a partially user-generated simple "left v right" chart like the top one and is based on reliable data points) it takes reliability into account as well which paints a clearer picture of why certain sources aren't used. I'm sure if you tried to put the chart's OAN left-equivalent Occupy Democrats (which sits at about the same spot on the chart just in the opposite direction) in the article as a source it would be reverted, and rightfully so. It's not just about left or right, it's about reliability, and unfortunately most of the sources that are at or approach hyper-partisan right just aren't as reliable, just like the sources that are at or approach hyper-partisan left just aren't as reliable, but we aren't using those sources either. - Aoidh (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Nice expert logical skewering there, but of course, WP:ADFONTES, WP:ALLSIDES, WP:MBFC, etc shouldn't be used for this anyway, even if it did make sense. Andre🚐 01:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Oh to be clear I'm not suggesting we rely on either of those charts for anything, but I just wanted to point out that even their own supporting example supports the exclusion of certain sources and explains quite clearly why they aren't used; per the page Magnolia677 uses "quite often" those sources just aren't reliable. (I do stand by the Occupy Democrats example though, it lines on up that chart conveniently well but even outside of the Adfontes chart it is an absolute garbage of a source). - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Indeed - community agrees that Occupy Dems is generally unreliable. Andre🚐 01:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC) "many do feel that biased media" I don't get it. We have an article on Media bias in the United States, but I don't see a direct connection to the overturning attempts. And the bias article points out that the Republicans weren't even listening to the media before the election: "Shortly before the 2020 election, the Gallup poll showed that confidence in the mass media has continued to decline among Republicans and independent voters, to 10% and 36%, respectively. Among Democratic voters, confidence rose to 73%. A Gallup poll released in October 2021 showed 68% of Democrats, 31% of independents, and just 11% of Republicans trust the media a great deal or fair amount." Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC) What is unfortunate is the a consensus of editors continues to find most conservative media outlets to be unreliable. This indeed makes "getting it" more difficult. Let me circle back to my original point. The article states: "Trump and his allies promoted a 'big lie' of numerous false claims and conspiracy theories claiming that the election was stolen by means of rigged voting machines, electoral fraud and an international communist conspiracy." This sort of hyperbole is great reading on CNNs webpage, but neglects the legitimate and encyclopedic complaints from conservatives that the Democrats engaged in underhanded practices, and this is what has led many to feel the election was stolen. Forgive me for referring to a forbidden source on Wikipedia (the 4th largest US paper, founded by Alexander Hamilton): "Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling, which was tossed down the Orwellian 'memory hole' by both Twitter and all non-conservative media outlets; to boot, 50 former intelligence officials baselessly claimed that the Hunter Files was Russian disinformation." "The collusion between Big Tech and biased legacy media prevented the public from learning more about a candidate who largely spent 2020 in hiding. In this way, the anti-Trump forces did help stage an election that was, in a sense, rigged against the incumbent.... There's nothing wrong with getting more people to vote, as long as the votes are legal. But there is something profoundly wrong with a system in which Silicon Valley oligarchs, big business, union bosses and lefty agitators can effectively shut down free discourse and freedom of the press during a presidential election in order to ensure their candidate wins." The conservative polling company McLaughlin & Associates stated that "36 percent of Biden voters were NOT aware of the evidence linking Joe Biden to corrupt financial dealings with China through his son Hunter. Thirteen percent of these voters (or 4.6% of Biden’s total vote) say that had they known these facts, they would not have voted for the former Vice President." In other words, Trump would have won. If we truly want to balance the perspectives in this article, we need to move beyond the "big lie" narrative and acknowledge that conservatives have legitimate reasons to feel the election was stolen. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) What has this to do with "Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election"? Even if this were true, it could not be used to overturn the result. it might have changed it. But that is not overturning it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Yeah, this continues to be not germane to the topic and no, the New York Post is not usable, it's a tabloid and owned by Rupert Murdoch. It's not valid. Please drop this. " In other words, Trump would have won." That's just absolutely ridiculous editorializing. Andre🚐 14:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC) conservatives have legitimate reasons to feel the election was stolen - like what? Other than Trump priming that pump all of 2020? And so what if they do "feel the election was stolen"? What does that matter, beyond the January 6 United States Capitol attack? "36 percent of Biden voters were NOT aware of the evidence linking Joe Biden to corrupt financial dealings with China There is no such evidence that Joe Biden is "linked" to his son's deals. McLaughlin is a terrible pollster as that question they asked demonstrates. This whole thread is a waste of time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC) "Other than Trump priming that pump all of 2020" Since Donald himself is not a reliable source, whatever he says is irrelevant. Dimadick (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Since what he said about "rigged elections" throughout 2020 was extensively covered by the press, was taken as gospel by the MAGAs, and led directly into "Stop the Steal" and January 6, we do have to include it here, which we do. But we do not have to pretend that there was any legitimacy to what he was saying. We should, and do, note the ways in which he was inaccurate in what he was saying. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Stolen election conspiracy theory" is a general thing

I see there's been lots of disagreement among editors, and even discretionary sanctions created, in this topic area. However, I believe it should be non-controversial that a Stolen election conspiracy theory is an actual general thing, that probably has emerged many times in history of elections in the United States and elsewhere (surely there have been actually stolen elections and also allegations of such). Recently, that term was redirected to the "Stop the Steal" section of this article (which is only about alleged steal of one U.S. election). The redirection was implemented on 12 January 2021 with edit summary "there is consensus for the merge, if you wish to have another standalone, you need to get consensus for this too" apparently to implement a consensus decision to merge material from there to this article. I think all the material there was in fact only about this one U.S. election. I dunno where all the merger discussion took place. There was a merger discussion here, since archived at Talk:Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_1#Merger_discussion which was closed 30 December 2020, and that referenced a different merger discussion at Talk:Stop the Steal (which was supposed to have been finished only a day before, but i immediately find only Talk:Stop_the_Steal/Archive_1#Merge, which closed 28 November 2020). Whatever, I am not questioning any of those decisions.

What I want to do now, and probably will boldly do, is to redirect the general, world-wide, topic to an appropriate place in the general article Conspiracy theory, as this seems self-evidently to be a type of that. Honestly I am not sure whether Wikipedians have agreed, or not, that a group of assertions around the U.S. 2020 election amounted to a conspiracy theory, but either way, it should be possible to state non-controversially that it has been said (widely) that there was/is a stolen election conspiracy theory about that election.

In the future it may be appropriate for Stolen election conspiracy theory to be split out into a separate article covering other cases. I mean this posting to be a non-controversial notification, just to be polite to all of the editors who have been concerned in this area. --Doncram (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want to redirect this page to Conspiracy theory? Because I object to that. I'm not clear on what you're asking about but merge discussions that are nearly two years old may not be so relevant any more. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to redirect this page (Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election), but rather to re-redirect Stolen election conspiracy theory now to Conspiracy theory#Stolen election conspiracy theory, which i have gone ahead and done. Thank you for asking a clarifying question. --Doncram (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a good change. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"What I want to do now..." So you're the one in charge of the truth? auto-proclaimed? 89.3.212.183 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where things happen by consensus and are undone when there are objections. There are no objections to this particular change. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This article

If you’re going to allow an article like this, you should do one on the fake Steele dossier and Peter Strozk’s attempt to oust Donald Trump from power. 2603:6011:5702:4903:F060:5C76:B874:399E (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Lots of weird behavior on both sides, hopefully things get back to normal. But it would be helpful if you would point out what you think is the most egregious mistake in this article, so we could focus on it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

We already have an article on the Steele dossier. We also have another article on Peter Strzok, but I have heard nothing on any effort to remove the illegitimate president from power. Dimadick (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Biden's election was certified by the Electoral College and Congress, which makes him the legitimate President. That is according to the US Constitution. 68.129.151.208 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

We're not dealing with the certification of Mr Biden as President. The unsupported claim is that Trump didn't concede. He left the White House on schedule without fanfare and did not make any attempts to remain past inauguration day. His core argument was to repeat what the Democrats had warned of a year, until the day before the election, that there were opportunities for fraud. Trump and his team asked for investigations, but no judge would give them standing to present their case. Such wholesale stonewalling gives rise to conspiracy theories; not all theories are false. DeknMike (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Democrats, as far as I could tell, leading up to the election only expressed concern of voter suppression efforts. Such as the apparent efforts to sabotage the US Postal Service's speed by DeJoy, perhaps to hamper mail-in balloting. Warning of suppressed votes is very distinct from warning of fraudulent results.

Additionally, him leaving the White House was not conceding that he had lost the election itself. SecretName101 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Care to provide any sources (not even RS) for the claim Peter Strozk’s attempted to oust Donald Trump from power? Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Off topic, and this soap rant post should be archived per the WP:TPGNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal/Condensation of Frivolous or only Rhetorically Related

The Article 'Attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election' would be best if focused on the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This article is certain to be difficult because the subject is both contentious and new information is still developing.

I propose eliminating the subheading 'Trump's 2012 accusations of electoral fraud' because it is concerned with 1. the Emmys, and 2. not the Attempt to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The majority of that section is concerned with Trump's behavior before becoming a political figure. If any portion of the section is relevant, it is Trump's claims about the aftermath of the 2012 Presidential Election. Almost an entirely frivolous section.

The subheading 'Uncertainty over Trump accepting an electoral loss in 2016' is related to the 'Attempt to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election' but in an ancillary way. This section speaks more to Trump's political character rather than the 'Attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.' The subheading 'Uncertainty over Trump accepting an electoral loss in 2020' is much more appropriate, and much better sets the background for the following section 'Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss.' I do believe both sections have more quotes than necessary, but I will not be the arbiter in that regard. (Unless these proposals are well received)

In 'Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss' paragraph 4, the claims about Mike Pence are both irrelevant and irreverent. The linked citations for the claim that Mike Pence "endorsed the effort" to "debate whether to certify the electoral college" is so political in that you can extrapolate whatever you want from ambiguous quotes from a politician's staff. Mike Pence said "He welcomes the efforts of members of the House and Senate to use the authority they have under the law to raise objections and bring forward evidence before the Congress and the American people on Jan. 6th." This quote can be interpreted as Mike Pence endorsing both the Rule of Law and the Overturning the 2020 election. Because of the ambiguity and overall ineffectiveness of this paragraph at explaining the 'Attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election', the quotes should be removed from this paragraph at minimum.

The section 'Stop the Steal' should become a subheading under the heading 'Conspiracy theories' as the 'Stop the Steal' described is a conspiracy theory. Although, it seems that the 'Stop the Steal' has the volume to become its own article.

I was thinking of writing more, but then I really started to comprehend the length of this article. Yikes.

I propose this general structure: Trump's uncertainty of accepting 2020 election > 2020 election night and results > December 2020 > January 6 > Subsequent investigation and Arrests

Eliminate quotes from pundits only, eliminate/move information about lawsuits which were summarily dismissed, this article would be much better if it were '[material] Attempts to Overturn the 2020 election.' Right now the article is '[material and rhetorical] Attempts to Overturn the 2020 election' I am a Leaf (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter election interference

Yesterday's bombshell release of internal communications showing collusion between Twitter executives and Democratic Party officials to censor free speech and interfere in the 2020 election means that the entire tone of this article needs to be changed. Trump and others are vindicated in saying that illegal meddling by Democrats and other actors unlawfully influenced the 2020 election. It's going to take some work to get this article fixed, but let's get started. 152.130.15.6 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a source that says that it is illegal in the US for media organizations to be politically biased. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Censoring American citizens, at the direction of the U.S. government, is a violation of the First Amendment. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The Democrat party is not the US government. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how I predicted this two months ago. At some point we're going to have to edit this article so it stops labeling the millions of people who feel someone had their finger on the scale prior to the election "conspiracy theorists". If only Wikipedia considered the New York Post (this third largest newspaper in the United States)...a reliable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, so name one thing that could be used to overturn the election result this data release shows. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You missed my point. It's ok. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I assumed it was about how we can improve this article, which is about attempts to overturn the election, so I assumed your point was about that. This is wp:notaforum for general discusion about the 2020 election. So if no one can provide any evidence that this has any relevance to the subject of the article this needs to be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey friend, let's say you go to the butcher to buy yourself a nice cut of steak. You pay your $100 and as you're walking back to your new Tesla, another customer stops you and says, "that butcher had his finger on the scale when he weighed your steaks. I saw it!" You storm back into the butcher shop because you feel you've been cheated, and he starts calling you names like "alt right" and "conspiracy theorist". Anyway, a year-and-a-half later the butcher goes broke, and the new owner looks at all the surveillance tape, and guess what it shows? That's my point. The article appears to have cherrypicked sources to support only one narrative. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Then provide a source that contradicts what we say, not based upon wp:or or WP:SYNTHESIS, that actually says that these new revelations could have been used to change the election result. Unless you do that I will not bother to reply again. As that is all that matters, attempts to OVERTURN the election result, and if this could not have done so its irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory. Trump lost 60+ times in court. The article explains it fine. Nobody cheated in the 2020 election. To suggest otherwise is contrary to RS. Andre🚐 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As this is now wp:soapbox territory with a smattering of wp:forum this needs closing unless someone can suggest some kind of substantive edit request. Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Remarkable that nobody has offered any source for this discussion. Where is it? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Here's a couple of sources:[1], [2], [3]. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not top drawer sources, to be charitable. soibangla (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP all are unreliable sources Andre🚐 23:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Please go to WP:RSP and show me where you see this. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Washington Times is there listed on the board, you have to use the search to find the discussions for Free Beacon Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Using_The_Washington_Free_Beacon_in_politically_related_BLPs_-_is_it_an_RS? but it is unreliable. And the first one is labeled an opinion page Andre🚐 00:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Please point to the consensus that determined these sources are "unreliable". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

They already provided the discussion on Free Bacon which has a clear consensus, they said Washington Times is at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Washington Times, and they said Tipp Insights is an WP:OPED. So yes, all are unreliable. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As yet there is no bombshell or vindication. For starters: "in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored.[4] me (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Please add link to 1776 Returns in "See also" section

Hello, please add a wikilink to 1776 Returns in the "See also" section. Thank you! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

State of coverage of Trump's investigations

I'd like to talk about how Trump's investigations have been split up on Wikipedia and what we can do to improve their coverage better. There are currently four articles surrounding the same topic: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents, FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, and Smith special counsel investigation. It's clear what's occurred here; the article on FBI search of Mar-a-Lago began out of surprise. As further details progressed regarding the raid, the article on FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents began to cover the topic in greater detail. The article on the Smith special counsel investigation was created following Merrick Garland's announcement. I'm not sure why an article on Donald Trump v. United States of America was necessary, but it appears to have significant coverage.

These are all equally notable topics, and I fear that the topic itself is getting muddied with similar edits occurring on all of these articles. I have studied this topic since the earliest reports of the FBI searching Mar-a-Lago, and I believe there is justification to create an article on these topics, but we need to assess how this topic is being treated and consider merging sections into pages. The article for the FBI's search should not become the de facto article when we could use the article for the FBI's investigation as easily.

Because this is a large issue, I will be bringing in several editors with a known connection to these articles to work out a solution. Muboshgu, Tuckerlieberman, Valjean, Phillip Samuel, Space4Time3Continuum2x, The void century, Drbogdan. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and then there's United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. This promises to be the mother of all merges and I haven't been looking forward to it. My first take is to merge FBI search of Mar-a-Lago into FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents and thence into Smith special counsel investigation, then delete the first two articles. Because DOJ still handles Trump fake electors plot, mention that in United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and link to the primary article from there. soibangla (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense to have the articles about the FBI's role in the classified docs investigation merged into one. I concur with Soibangla's idea to merge the two FBI articles as well as the Donald J. Trump v. United States of America case into one page. I believe however the Smith special counsel investigation page should be kept separate. There is already a precedent set for splitting the Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) and Mueller special counsel investigation (which took over the FBI investigation) to separate pages. Considering that the United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the FBI docs investigation both started months before Smith was appointed, it doesn't makes sense to combine those three investigations into one page. Since the Smith investigation is tasked with taking over both investigations, any new news/info should be put on that page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right: merge the two FBI articles and keep it, then mention and link to it from Smith, and do likewise for the DOJ article, as well as fake electors article, so going forward we have only Smith and fake electors to work on. Did I get you right? soibangla (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, simply put:

One merged page for: FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents, Donald J. Trump v. United States of America

One page for: United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election

- mention and link the Trump fake electors plot page

One page for: Smith special counsel investigation

- mention and link to FBI docs investigation and DOJ investigation pages.

Since the Smith investigation is the main one, any new news/info about FBI/DOJ investigate steps should be put on there. Any new revelations about the fake electors plot should be put on the fake electors page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI, there's also Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information which mentions the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago at the end.

There's also Legal affairs of Donald Trump as a broad overview. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A Venn diagram would help. Find the center/mother and then split off (summary style) the logical daughter articles. (Another problem is still our lack of a Durham investigation article.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Durham is still putting final spin on his report: "CNN has reported that Durham's investigation is now in its final stages as his team finishes up its written report, which will be sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland. The attorney general and other top Justice Department officials will decide how much of the report to make public. Garland has previously said he wants to release 'as much as possible.'" If the investigation is split off, is there enough meat left in Russia investigation origins counter-narrative? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is this discussion taking place on a personal talk page? This needs to be discussed on the talk pages of each of the mentioned articles. ElijahPepe, Soibangla, Phillip Samuel, FYI: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America was split off from FBI search of Mar-a-Lago following this discussion. The article deals with one specific lawsuit Trump filed to stop/impede/hinder/drag out (take your pick) the DOJ investigation of him having kept government records after the end of his tenure. The case was dismissed, so there won't be any new developments there but it's a remarkable lawsuit that editors felt should be preserved. As for the other articles, it would have been better if the second article on the FBI search (FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents) hadn't been created a week after the first one (FBI search of Mar-a-Lago), but here we are. Special counsel Jack Smith, BTW, is overseeing two separate investigations, the one into the documents Trump was hoarding at Mar-a-Lago and the one on examining Trump's role in events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack, so the current title Smith special counsel investigation is incorrect. I, for one, think that FBI search of Mar-a-Lago should probably stay as a separate article and be summarized in the eventual article on the special counsel investigation of Trump's documents case. We will probably have to wait a while for any news, doesn't seem like the kind of investigation that will generate any leaks to the press. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Echoing your observation that Smith is overseeing two separate investigations into government document theft (Mar-a-Lago) and attempts to overturn the election (January 6). This makes it a little tricky to organize articles, since we (the public) don't yet know what's in the stolen documents at Mar-a-Lago. Presumably some documents were election-related, and thus the investigations would intertwine. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

soibangla (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A short explanation may be in order here: this is a discussion that was started on Soibangla’s talk page about various articles covering the government documents found at Mar-a-Lago. The investigation into the Capitol riot was added as an afterthought. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggest making an WP:OUTLINE article, perhaps Outline of investigations and court cases involving Donald J. Trump, and include introductory text that defines inclusion criteria, for example, no entries lacking their own article or subsection. If you're thinking such a criteria would be a self-reference to Wikipedia you're right, however self-refences for inclusion criteria are an allowed exception to the general rule barring self-references to Wikipedia. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd support that outline article.

Here's my current thinking on the documents articles (I don't know about the election-related articles):

• Keep all the existing documents articles. All of these topics are notable enough to garner their own coverage, and if we merge too many of them, it would create a monolith article with a lot of distractions and side-shows.
• Merge some of the info from FBI search of Mar-a-Lago into FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents. Then slim down the search article so it's more focused on the search itself, with a short summary linking to the main investigation article.
• Spin-off any other side-show events to other articles, or shorten the summaries, so the investigation article is focused on the investigation.
• Any further developments in the investigation should be added to the Smith special counsel investigation article instead of the FBI documents article, and have a short summary and link from the FBI documents article to the Smith article, and vice versa.
• The one thing I'm unsure of is how to organize the Smith special counsel article. Since it's focused on two different investigations (election and documents), it might need to be split into multiple articles, but it's too early to make a decision on that.

The void century (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, I too would support that outline article. Great idea! One could use the leads from each article as a section in the outline article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Created at Outline of investigations and court cases involving Donald Trump. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Capital was broken in before Trumps speech ended.

The break in of the Capital occurred before his speech was completed. 2600:8804:6788:1800:E16E:F903:4DEC:A029 (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

By 9 minutes, yes. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

source? I'm aware that the first police line on the grounds was breached, but I did not think the building was breached until later. I am willing to be educated differently, but require sources to change my mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Trump asked protesters to leave peacefully.

Trump made 2 speeches requesting people leave peacefully. Twitter and other MSN censored the speeches, including tweets that are know Ava island on twitter after Musk andcTwitter reinstated his account. 2600:8804:6788:1800:E16E:F903:4DEC:A029 (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Source? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A look at the /64 range contributions for this IP is instructive. 13:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you provide a reliable source for this? LostKlaus (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)LostKlaus

From my understanding, Trump incited the insurrection from his reckless tweets: ""These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!" He called them "great patriots" and in a video, he was literally smiling which obviously shows he was enjoying the moment only because he refused to accept that he lost and move on. The OP's claim to me is nothing but bull! LostKlaus (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Corporate campaign donations to election deniers

I propose a new section under "Reactions" summarizing these stories:

1. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-04-19/corporations-pledge-donations-politicians-opposed-election-certification-biden
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/us/politics/congress-corporate-donations-2020-election-overturn.html
3. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/15/jan-6-lobbying-companies-election-00008827
4. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-14/at-t-comcast-amazon-among-companies-giving-to-election-deniers-again

Sandizer (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

MAybe you would like to summerise them here? Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

They are about corporations that pledged to stop supporting election deniers, but eventually returned to doing so. Sandizer (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Amd? Why do we need to know this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The journalist authors documented the claims and reversals. It's pertinent to the topic and points to long-term consequences. Sandizer (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Add section for "breaches of voting machine data"

I suggest incorporating the section on "Trump operatives breach Coffee County, Georgia election system" into a new section that expands coverage of similar indictments in multiple states, including:

• Insider breaches
  • CO: People of the State of Colorado v. Tina Peters and Belinda Knisley (see March 9, 2022 in Tina Peters' chronology)
  • PA: County of Fulton et al. v. Secretary of the Commonwealth
• Outsider breaches
  • GA: The State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
  • MI: People of the State of Michigan v. Matthew DePerno, Daire Rendon, Stefanie Lambert Junttila (Oakland County, Sixth Judicial Circuit Court)

rootsmusic (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean It's difficult because this page is chronological and my suggestion is topical. For example, attempt to seize voting machines in Michigan was November 2020 and Trump operatives breach Coffee County, Georgia election system was January 2021. rootsmusic (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Idea for shortening the article

You don’t need to put conspiracy theory and falsely in the same sentence. Adding falsely basically doesn’t change anything.

In the “Stop The Steal” section, it says “Stop the Steal is a far-right and conservative campaign and protest movement in the United States promoting the conspiracy theory that falsely posits that widespread electoral fraud occurred during the 2020 presidential election to deny incumbent President Donald Trump victory over former vice president Joe Biden.” FireBoy211 (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why your heading mentions "shortening". Otherwise, the exact wording is backed by multiple RS and is factual. There is nothing wrong with it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Spin-off "Stop the Steal" section

I have another idea for shortening the article. The "Stop the Steal" heading should be spun off to its own article (WP:SPINOFF, WP:SPINOUT). I'll hold off placing the template for splitting off that section until there is a full consensus. Nebulous2357 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, the stop the steal movement is to large to be covered only inside another article. Oliver Dattilo (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That is, it should have its own article, because it is such a large subject. I think that was phrased poorly. Oliver Dattilo (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I like Nebulous2357's idea, noting that the Stop the steal sub-section includes Ali Alexander's LLC. I further suggest combining the subsequent sub-section on Conspiracy theories with the sub-section on Conspiracy allegations (in November 2020). rootsmusic (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The "audits phase" could be broken off

The "audits phase" of this article might be better as a separate article. It's a real enough story but seems like a somewhat weak echo of the immediate post-election events, especially through Jan. 6. Or maybe inauguration day might be a break point, or maybe after the Senate didn't convict? Utahredrock (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this article should cutoff after Biden's inauguration, because an inaugurated president couldn't possibly be removed without an impeachment. I also agree with splitting (WP:Splitting) off the partisan "election audits", which were the goal of the plan to seize voting machines and voting machine breaches. rootsmusic (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that probably makes sense but before we split the article - updated infobox to just say "Nov 4 - January 20" even though the source used seems to imply the 7th as the date, though the Supreme Court didn't rule on Pennsylvania until later...thoughts? Superb Owl (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Superb Owl This article is too long, and one reason is its inclusive scope that includes both attempts and the aftermath of those attempts. It tries to serve too many purposes, with the primary one being a detailed chronology of newsworthy events. The other purpose is a narrative explainer, which quotes too much from transcluded articles that are the main articles for those topics. (For example: Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election should be the main article for federal lawsuits.)

As a chronology of events organized by month, this article fails to present the larger picture (which isn't the natural purpose of a chronology) because the focus is on the sequencing of events. Unfortunately, the next generation of readers will struggle to connect this chronology's events in multiple states, across multiple months. For example: the national plan to seize voting machines (December 2020) prompted voting machine breaches (e.g. Coffee County, GA in January 2021) in order to falsify evidence of major fraud that could legitimize a need for post-inaugural "election audits" under the control of partisans. rootsmusic (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Kept the dates as-is (given they had sourcing) and went with 'post-certification' instead of 'post-inauguration'. That all makes sense to me about trying to find ways to simplify and reduce redundancies with other articles. Superb Owl (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, no quibble because Presidential transition of Joe Biden cover some of the later developments. Pennsylvania's and other cases are covered in Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election and Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack. rootsmusic (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think a brief WP:SUMMARYSTYLE summary of the audits would be enough here, with the details spun off onto another article. (After all, they all more or less reached the same results.) Really, there is a lot of blow-by-blow here that could be spun off into other articles. --Aquillion (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Reduce the use of quotations?

Out of 22,500 words of readable prose, there are 354 quotations. Perhaps we can review WP:Quotations and look for opportunities to make the article more readable and concise by trimming or removing quotes for the less important or controversial material that can be summarized neutrally? Superb Owl (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl "Reactions" section is definitely too long. rootsmusic (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

ok, I agree but not sure we should cut the corporate donations paragraph and main article link - that seems notable. I like the idea of excerpting like you did with Security Concerns over March 4, 2021 Superb Owl (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl Due to the WP:SIZERULE, this article should try to offload sections that are already covered directly in other articles. There's already an article about 2021 United States Electoral College vote count.

The corporations were responding to public pressure on corporate donations to the Sedition Caucus, which was the principal actor in the Electoral College vote count. So that section is more directly covered in Sedition Caucus#Effect on political donations. Moreover, the list is outdated because almost all of those corporations have resumed donating to the Sedition Caucus. Also note the section is controversial:

AllegedlyHuman, are you trying to say that this article, with lists of names of living people and a "dynamic list" of companies implicated in the blowback, is a WP:DICDEF? That sounds like a good WP:AFD argument in favor of deletion. Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The corporate list was added by a user today relating to a separate deletion discussion, and I disagree with its inclusion. And you're as free as anyone else to take your points to the AFD rather than here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sedition_Caucus#Contested_deletion

rootsmusic (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rootsmusic, unsure about the controversy and would prefer to excerpt a section somewhere else if it's better covered there but at the very least, I'd love to see a link (which could've been there but I didn't see one) that directs readers to that article Superb Owl (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)