Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

Trump reportedly wanted to join the rioters

I don't think we have sufficiently weighty RSs to add this to the article, but its in the media and I wanted to note them for followup later. Politico had this scoop, which has spawned (of course) a cascade of other media stories based on the original Politco piece. Apparently a secret service agent, Trumps lead guy, gave closed (not public testimony). The committee hasn't disclosed it. So what we have here is he said..... he heard it from a friend.....that the other person told a bunch of people..... stuff (Politico heard it from a source that the agent testified to the panel.) This is why I don't think the report has enough WEIGHT to be added to the article. But it sure is interesting. Even as the violence was happening, Trump was tryhing to talk his detail into taking him down to the capitol. Instead they took him to the White House. At least, if the report is accurate.

Imagine if Secret Service had really taken Pence to Andrews and Trump got to the capitol.....

Anyway, the other part of this story that we might be able to use if the committee discloses the agent's testimony is commentary from Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who studies fascism and coups, and opined that "“If you’re having a coup and summoned everybody, and aim to be anointed as the head of a new illegitimate government, you have to be there,” I'm sure there's a weightier RS than HuffPost but for now,

References

Renaming page for greater accuracy

Should be page be renamed to Republican attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? The page is explicitly clear that it is only about efforts by the Republican Party and Donald Trump. Saying "Attempts" is less specific and can also suggest that non-Republican groups attempted to overturn the election, which is not covered by this page. This would be in line with the naming convention in Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. BootsED (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There were never any attempts to “overturn” the election. The entire concept is a lie. “Overturn” implies that the election was concluded and Biden had won, and someone was trying to invalidate that result. But there was no official result until the process concluded on January 6.

In fact, what happened was that Trump and others were trying to *change the outcome*, using (arguably) legal means.

It should be renamed, “Republican attempts to change the outcome of the 2020. …”

But no one cares about accuracy. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The election was concluded. Biden won. Trump and his J6ers tried to prevent the certification of the electoral vote with a riot. We care about accuracy. You care about maintaining the narrative you've been fed. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect: the election was not concluded until the House vote on Jan. 6.

The fact that you do not understand this fact is good evidence that the title is misleading. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Objections were raised and dismissed. Then they stormed the Capitol chanting "hang Mike Pence". Not legal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That has literally nothing to do with what I said. Come back when you learn English. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We base our articles on reliable sources, which generally describe activity after the election's outcome was clear but before January 6 as attempting to overturn it. See the contents of the "attributed to multiple references" citation bundle, most of which cover that timeframe. Just from a linguistic standpoint, there's no particular reason why someone couldn't attempt to "overturn" an outcome that is seen as having already been functionally decided even before the final steps in the formal process have been completed; but either way, if you disagree with how sources covered it you'd have to present other sources that have covered it differently. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Brevity is key in article titles, and we can't assume that everyone who stormed the Capitol is or was a Republican. They can be MAGAs unaffiliated with the GOP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The title is incorrect. Brevity does not trump correctness. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's not incorrect? We cover all attempts to overturn the election (or at least every one that got significant coverage.) The fact that the attempts were virtually all by Republicans, or at least aimed to overturn it in favor of the Republican candidate, is true but isn't really something that needs to be in the title. It would only be incorrect if there were other significant attempts that we omitted, and in that case it would probably make more sense to just add them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The title is correct, and the incorrect move was my engaging with this IP. For BootsED, the policy is WP:CONCISE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Very long

This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As of 14 October 2024, its readable prose size was 20,872 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.

Word count	What to do
this article 20,872 words	Definitely should be divided or trimmed
> 15,000 words	Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
> 9,000 words	Probably should be divided or trimmed.

— Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)—

Do you have any suggestion on how to reduce it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

2022 leaked audio from Bannon about Trump's plan

In 2022, audio of Steve Bannon saying that Trump planned to declare victory on election night even if he was losing was leaked. This was reported on by several reliable sources (The Washington Post, The Guardian, Business Insider etc). Should there be a mention of this in the article? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really as he did in fact declare victory, no one made him. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I've restored my comment back to how it read as an IP had edited it and put "framed to look like they" between the words "was" and "planned".

I just thought this information would lead more credence to the fact the election fraud claim was a lie. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What, a claim by Bannon? Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)