Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (2)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to make this change. Proponents said that it would be slightly more precise, whereas opponents said that it casts unwarranted doubt. Neither camp did a detailed analysis of sources. Some have suggested that a compromise such as "declared the winner" may be preferable, but I don't see a clear consensus for that either. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change the term "defeated" to "has been projected to defeat". 72.80.52.183 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. Prcc27 (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No. Not sure why we would do that. Gsquaredxc (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. We follow reliable sources and the consensus of reliable sources say that Biden has defeated Trump. The article needs to reflect that. Herbfur (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, news organizations usually say something along the lines of "we project Biden will defeat Trump", so the proposal actually seems to be in line with what reliable sources say. I think the distinction that it is a projected win is important because it makes it clearer that the results aren't certified yet, despite Biden being the clear winner. Prcc27 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are some examples of news organizations noting that it is a projected defeat for Trump: [1][2] Prcc27 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You just conceded "Biden is the clear winner". We don't wait for formalities like certification or the EC vote. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Biden being the clear winner, and Biden being the projected winner is not a mutually exclusive statement. Trumps defeat is based on projections pending official certification. Would it kill us to clarify the electoral process to the readers? Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Except it doesn't do that, it introduces the suggestion that it is illegitimate. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually it clarifies that Biden winning is only projected. Sources use "projected", WP should too. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The fact that it's projected is just a formality, as a Trump victory is essentially mathematically impossible at this point (hence why outlets have called the race). Herbfur (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Herbfur: Those networks always note that them "calling" the race is based on their projections. Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Like I said, it's really a formality, calling the race means that the victor has essentially won, even disregarding the certification of the vote and later processes. At this point, "projected winner" and "winner" are pretty much synonymous. From the work of the outlets, a Trump victory is mathematically impossible. Herbfur (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Herbfur: If a candidate is not certified the winner, they can't legally take office. The currently wording seems to insinuate that the process has already been completed. Anyways, I proposed different wording below. Prcc27 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WMSR (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: I already provided reliable sources that support the change: [3][4] Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose this wording, it puts a level of doubt into the results that is not reflected in the sources. Perhaps the sentence needs to be reworded somewhat, but this proposed change is not better than what we currently have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the IP was intending to propose something with a doubtful tone, but I certainly am not trying to cast doubt on the outcome. I just think we need to make it clear that the process is not over and that we are waiting for formalities to play out for Biden to officially be elected. Could we change the sentence to "The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris were declared the winners of the election by major media organizations, defeating the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence.×" Sidenote: The last two sentences in the lead should probably be consolidated into another paragraph. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27: If we add in sentences making it clear that the reason media outlets declared Biden the winner was because their analysis finds that a Trump victory is a mathematical impossibility, then I do not oppose your proposal. Herbfur (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm okay with explaining that projections make a Trump victory extremely mathematically improbable. Although I do have some reservations about adding that sentence to the first paragraph, and would prefer that we add that specific sentence to the third paragraph. Prcc27 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Support The sources do indeed refer to Biden as the "projected" winner. Not sure why other editors are trying to claim the sources do not use this language since they clearly do and sources have been provided multiple times. Stating the winner as fait-accompli is false and does not align to sources. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It is true that they do specifically say "projected". So in that case, I would change the sentence to "the Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris were projected the winners of the election by major media organizations, defeating the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence."Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are we so worried about this? Our article currently says "When inaugurated, Harris will be the first woman, first African-American, and first Asian-American vice president of the United States". Shouldn't we consider the possibility Trump will convince Pence to resign, then convince the Senate to confirm Ajit Pai in his place, then get Ajit Pai to resign and get the Senate to confirm Kanye West then get Kanye West to resign and get the Senate to confirm Ivanka Trump, then get Ivanka Trump to resign and get the Senate to confirm Nikki Haley, then get Nikki Haley to resign and get the Senate to fight over which one of Diamond and Silk to confirm. So our commas and wording will be all wrong! Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

So this is your "joke above"! I kept rereading your block below, thinking I just wasn't getting your idea of humour, what a relief. Seriously though, "when" can be read as conditional upon reaching such a time, much like "if", that one's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we go by what the reliable sources tell us. And those sources say that Biden is projected to defeat Trump. Prcc27 (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRYSTAL. Prcc27 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Thank you for conceding this thread is pointless. Most sources say Biden won. It is WP:CRYSTAL to claim Biden didn't win because you can come up with absurd scenarios unsupported by a majority of sources of how Biden didn'twin. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

From my reading, Prcc27 doesn't want the article to say Biden and Harris didn't win, but that they've been projected to win. Those really aren't opposites. It just seems that way when they're pitted against each other in an either-or discussion like this. In the lead, that duality doesn't/won't exist. Both are verifiable standalone options, one's just more precise. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: You've misunderstood my point. The vast majority of sources say Biden won in some fashion, generally by calling him president-elect [5]/[6] [7]/[8] [9]/[10] [11]/[12] [13]/[14] [15]/[16] [17]/[18] [19] [20] [21] [22].

Even sources which call it a projection also often simply call him president elect in the same source [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and sometimes don't even bother to mention anything about a projection (we already saw the New York Times) but still call him president-elect [28] [29] [30].

Heck this one [31] says apparent win by President-elect Joe Biden and then later mentions the projection part. So it's saying it's an apparent win and projection, but then simply calls him president-elect.

This source was possibly the only one I came across which talked about the result [32] without mentioning Joe Biden as the winner (instead simply saying he was declared) although it's possible I closed some early on as I wasn't initially planning to spend a long time. And to be clear I simply searched for Joe Biden rather than Joe Biden president-elect or something, although cannot rule out an unconscious bias in selection from the snippets.

It is therefore WP:CRYSTALballing on the part of the OP to claim Biden didn't win but instead is only a projected winner, which goes against what sources say, because the OP can come up with absurd scenarios, unsupported by a majority of sources of how Biden didn't win. We go by sources the majority of which treat the victory as done deal so it's perfectly fine to say in the lead that Biden won but mention that Trump is disputing it. The body provides details on how it is at the moment based on projections based on interim results.

For better or worse, that is how Wikipedia works. We go by what sources say, not what individual editors claim is more precise when sources have rejected that.

Note that my joke above clearly has a serious message. If you look around, I'm sure you'll find sources which use wording which makes clear that it's not guaranteed that Kamala Harris will be any of those things when inaugurated. Do we need to make this clear? No.

We trust readers to understand the text, especially in the lead, is a simplification of based on how things are at the moment with some background understanding explained in the body of our article where necessary, and further background explained in other articles. (I mean putting aside the different scenario where Harris isn't made Biden's first VP, it's not like it's always possible in all political systems for someone else to be VP. Even in the US historically it wasn't possible.)

Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody proposed writing anything like "only". If you or others are reading between the lines, that's on you. Of course you'll find more general claims of "winning", it's simpler to not explain the nuances, goes for anything with layers of truth. But quite a few sources do elaborate on how right now, winning is shorthand for being projected as such by news. Neither is false, one just suggests Democrats can't possibly yet lose the whole remaining election, which is false. Also, Prcc27 and the OP are apparently different people, not sure you saw that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care who the OP is. Prcc27 is arguing for a change unsupported by sources so I will oppose. I apologise for using the word only. I should not have done so. My point was that that Prcc27 is arguing we should emphasise it's a projection in the lead even though sources do not support such an emphasis, and this is clearly wrong. (The lead is a summary of important details, so everything contained there is an emphasis.) We go by sources and the vast majority of them do not say anything about it being a projection. Even those which mention it being a projection are often schizophrenic and say it's a projection in one breath and then simply call him president-elect in another. IIRC, they do not elaborate e.g. say 'we call him president elect because....'. instead they provide conflicting information. Only one didn't do so. The others, they persist in calling him president-elect but then mention his win is only a projection. The CNBC quote I highlighted is the worse example of this. If you argue that this is because they're expecting readers can read between the lines and understand when they keep calling him president-elect in the same source, but at some stage mention his win is only a projection, what they're saying is 'we think he's president-elect, but nothing is definite'; then the same applies to our readers. They should be able to understand the lead, which is intended to be a summary, does not convey every single possible detail about the situation. And so when it says he won, there may be some further info which further explains what this means in the body, which there is. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking from my personal viewpoint, it felt clear that the position Prcc27 was taking is that we should be say something like 'major US news organizations projected that Biden won, defeating Trump' as it is more accurate and neutral. The reason we are saying that Biden won is because he was projected to win Pennsylvania by various media organizations and would therefore have enough Electoral Votes to beat Trump. To me, it feel like you are misunderstanding the specific wording. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

But that's the point. The vast majority of sources do not say Biden is projected to win or anything of that sort. They simply say he won, or he is president elect etc. There is no reason why we need to be more precise in the lead than the sources. If sources are treating this as a done deal, then so do we. We can provide addition clarification in the body as we already do. In the same way, we do not say "If no other person is made vice-president and who is either a woman, African-American, or Asia-American first, then Harris will be". I'm sure some sources say something similar, and it may be more precise but we do not need such level of precision when most sources do not use such a level of precision. (Okay the simpler thing would be to just say Harris is expected or projected to be, which is most likely what sources which aim for precision actually say.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I've said a lot in this discussion so this will be my final comment. One reason why I consider this proposal unwarranted is because the US election process is so weird from the PoV of much of the world anyway. Even when the results are certified, what does 'Biden won' actually mean? All it means is that a 270 or more electoral college electors that were selected by his ticket to vote for him, will or have been appointed by the various states in accordance with their existing laws, based on the final outcome of results in their states. Someone else came up with a fantastical scenario above, which doesn't seem to have been a joke like my Harris one, for how things could end up different. As I understand it, it's probably not untrue that that it is theoretically possible states could change their laws and appoint different electors, no matter what the results are. You come up with other scenarios for how certification doesn't mean Biden is elected by the EC. You can definitely find sources which do elaborate on the complexities of what 'Biden won' actually means. Do we need to elaborate on this in the lead? No. Biden won is always a simplification of the complex process, which remains a complex process even after he is inaugurated. (The fact he was inaugurated doesn't change all that had to happen for him to be president.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Two words of precision wouldn't kill us, lot of readers don't understand the stages of winning a US election, we can trim two entirely useless words to maintain lead bloat. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried implementing the change, but a user reverted it saying that we go by what the reliable sources say, and that there isn't consensus here. How is there not consensus..? Only a few users are against changing the wording (most here support it and/or are at least open to changing it) and reliable sources have already been provided.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. But I can't understand or explain why it happened. Maybe Cpotisch can. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Support per Prcc27 and Fizzbuzz306. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment Precedent in past U.S. elections was to post a winner using projections and before all states certified their votes. What is the rationale for departing from that this time, and would this be an exception or a new precedent for handling all future elections?—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am not saying that Biden isn't the winner. I am saying that we should clarify that he is the winner, because the media projected that he will win (pending official certification). I don't really think this departs from what we did in the past- it just explains why Biden is considered the winner. Regardless, consensus can change. Prcc27 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  - To be clear, are you supporting this for all elections going forward? No prob if CCC. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
    - Yes. In future elections, if reliable sources note that they project a candidate will win, we too should also note that it is a projected win. Prcc27 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
      - ... if reliable sources note that they project a candidate will win ...: Is the proposal to add "has been projected" this year because of perceived difference in wording from reliable sources compared to prior elections, or is it because the states have not all certified their results yet, irrespective of what source say?—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
        I think it was proposed because of the fact that we are waiting on official certification. I don't think this election is fundamentally different, when compared to past elections, with regards to projections and official certification. Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
        OK. I'll see if others comment further on their rationale, or agree with your's, before coming up with my own opinion. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I embrace that WP:CCC on how we handle non-certified winners, but it would raise too many WP:NPOV concerns to change course mid-election and go against past precedents, especially after it was unconditionally stated that Biden won on the Main Page. The proposed wording could be mistakely viewed that Biden's chances of winning have decreased, when they have not. Or they can be interpretted as a concession to claims from the Trump camp, which have widely been called false by reliable sources. Lacking further explanation from the supporters, it seems the main difference this year is that the declared loser has not given the traditional concession speech, which would anyways be non-binding. No prejudice to revisiting the handling of non-certified results for future election, when there is also less chance of WP:RECENTISM clouding the decision. Perhaps consider using "declared the winner" or rely more on terms like "President-elect". Historically, the US public has relied heavily on its elections being called by the media.[33]—Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: "Declared the winner" is definitely more accurate, and could be a good compromise. It also sounds less POV than the current wording. I would definitely want to revisit this issue for future elections if we don't settle it this time. My views on this issue have nothing to do with Trump refusing to concede. Even if he had conceded, I would have been opposed to the current wording. Prcc27 (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  Prcc27: Understood. For reference, the lead in 2016 also said "defeated" in November.[34] Interestingly, the Main Page briefly read "becomes the president-elect of the United States" before settling on plain "wins" the election[35] based on discussion here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. First off, I made the edit since this discussion has only been open for a couple days and was only at “support” +2. Now it’s at +1. Reliable sources refer to the election pretty much exclusively as being won by Joe Biden. They call him the president-elect. They also say that his lawsuits will not change the outcome. Softening it with a “projected” does not accurately represent what sources are saying, it lends legitimacy to Trump’s antics (which again, will not change the outcome), and it is inconsistent with other WP articles and consensus that has been reached. Cpotisch (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Cpotisch: Herbfur said they were not opposed to my wording, and Devonian Wombat said they didn't support the IP's wording, but that they were open to changing the wording in the lead. Not sure how you counted them in the !votes.. For the record, I am fine with saying Biden is the president-elect. We could say something like: "The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris were projected the winners of the election by major media organizations. This means they are the president-elect and vice president-elect respectfully, since they have defeated the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence." Several reliable sources have been provided here that use the term "projected", so it is inaccurate for you to say that news organizations almost exclusively don't use that term. Prcc27 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Casts unnecessary doubt Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose- I appreciate that every 4 or 8 years, we go through these disputes, because of the Electoral College. But honestly, sometimes we take this "accuracy" bit, too far. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC: What sources should be used for calling states?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC was archived before being formally closed. Consequently, I will close it by summarizing the gist of the consensus achieved here. The consensus on this RfC was originally split between the AP option and the 3+ sources option. After election day, a compromise proposal to update only when the sources unanimously project a state, seemed to get consensus. However, the criteria for adding a state to the map and infobox will likely have to be revisited in 2024, especially since a separate RfC with regards to Georgia was started; it challenged the consensus achieved here, but the discussion there became obselete before resolution. (non-admin closure) Prcc27 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What sources should be used for calling states? Below are three of the (consensus) options from the section above.

The Associated Press, which is used by many other news sources
The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP
The AP and a couple of other sources that do rely on the AP
Don't call anything

Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Responses

AP only, as the AP is considered the gold standard of calling elections. Many other news sources use the AP, as well as HRC's campaign in 2016. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP. ~~Preferably 2 other sources who DO rely on the AP but this RfC does not have that as an option~~. I would like to have a broader catch of RS consensus than just the AP, and/or a show of faith in a call by the AP from other RS. Failing that, would prefer only AP to not calling anything until there is a clear and distinct winner because I feel that the infobox should be updated with as reliable as information as can be garnered. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I've added that as an option now. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I have changed my mind and I do support my original statement. I misunderstood the options, my apologies. Up to you if you want to keep that option, but I no longer need it. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP We are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. It's best to rely on multiple sources in case AP turns out to be incorrect; in other words, better safer than sorry. Zoozaz1 talk 02:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll also add that there is a dispute whether to show the overall electoral tally according to AP or according to the called state races on Wikipedia, which themselves are the subject of this discussion, so maybe you could work that into the rfc? Zoozaz1 talk 03:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I support attempting to include all of this in the RfC seeing as the election is literally tomorrow. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

AP only. They've been accurately and properly calling elections since 1848 and I think they're the most reliable source when it comes to this.Herbfur (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
AP only, the second (and possibly third) option has WP:VERIFY issues as well as borderline WP:SYNTH concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
For information purposes only: Twitter will "consider a result official" when at least two of the following have made the call: ABC News, AP, CBS News, CNN, DecisionDeskHQ, Fox News, NBC News. My personal opinion is that you're not going to get the 3 reliable sources that you talked about above if you're only going to accept AP. Risker checklist (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (Note this is an alternate account of mine - Risker (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC))
Option 2. I like the idea of relying on any two sources from a predetermined list of high-quality news organizations (including the AP), sort of like what Risker mentioned Twitter is doing. Per Zoozaz1, we should also specify that the sources should be independently reporting, not, say, the AP saying "X has won" and another source saying "The AP has called the race for X". GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Option 2, as I have said previously, relying only on the AP is a bad idea, since that organisation is by no means infallible. We should instead have a predetermined list of reliable organisations, and since the clear consensus we had was buried among endless procrastinating, we should follow Twitter's lead as a last resort. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- No projection is infallible, that's why it's called a projection. In 2018, most news outlets projected a House candidate for the wrong candidate, so option 2 doesn't necessarily ensure complete accuracy either. Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, with 15 minutes to polls closing, Google has put up a map, and it says that they use the AP only. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a little late to be holding a RfC on this question. I mean by this time tomorrow, the voting will be over on the West Coast and the counting will be continuing. This RfC probably should have been done in September, not the night before the election. You can't hold an RfC for 12 hours and consider it definitive or say it's "the consensus". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good point. Since we probably won't come to a consensus by tomorrow- it looks like we are going to have to hold off on updating the infobox and map altogether. And most people at the noticeboard actually said they preferred not updating the map and infobox. So it looks like that will be the consensus by default. Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
ALL of the results that will be released on November 3-4 will be provisional. None of them will have been certified by the end of November 4. Some states will have projected winners, but most news outlets have indicated they will be very conservative in "calling" races this year, so it is quite possible that there will still be many states without projected winners by the end of November 4. I think it is wise to hold off on the infobox/map updating until then, and insist that any state results also meet the same standard of a minimum of 2 or 3 reliable sources for projected winners. Risker checklist (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. If we are going to hold off on updating, we should either update once 1 source (i.e. the AP) has projected all states and districts or we should wait until all states and districts have been unanimously projected by every major media outlet. Your proposal has WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 even though it seems like consensus won't be reached in the next 12 hours, I think that relying on just AP will give us less of a headache of each result being subject to interpretation. Sidenote: @Prcc27: do you know which other news sources rely on AP? I know at least NPR and some NBC local affiliates do but I can't find a definitive list. Sixula^Talk 13:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think the New York Times and Bloomberg also rely on them? Prcc27 (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Option 2 per GW. I'd separately support not calling any states until 0600 UTC, when the final polls close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

On the map, GorillaWarfare said that "results should not be added until 12h after polls close at minimum." I want to clarify that this was the possible consensus for the popular vote tally only. The electoral vote consensus was to either update the map immediately or hold off on it indefinitely. The 12 hour suggestion wasn't really every proposed for the map. The only reason we haven't updated the map is because consensus is still split. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

AP only: The AP is the most reliable single source for this, and I think relying on multiple sources at the same time would quickly get very complicated. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
AP only. We are lucky to have them. Used by PBS. P.S. Thanks to Nate Silver for link to AP criteria. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
AP only. Although I feel that WP:SYNTH does not apply (as "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" is not the case), the AP has long been held to be the leader in calling elections. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Option 2*. AP made a mistake when they called Arizona for Biden way too soon. Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment 0.3 percent is close but Biden won Arizona. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 Per above. VZkN9 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
AP only given their long track record, and the fact that most RS are using their data (many of them using it unchanged). We write reliable, verifiable stuff to be useful to the readers. For US election results, that's AP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Post Election day discussion

Given that we were unable to update the map and infobox on election night, due to a split consensus- we now need to decide when we will add states to the map and infobox. I think we should hold off on adding states until all major media organizations have projected a winner for every single state and district (where applicable) race. However, I would be open to adding states/districts with unanimous projections by the media right this second, even though some states are outstanding. But I would prefer that we ultimately hold off on updating it until every state and ME-2 has been projected- even if we get an overall projected winner beforehand. Prcc27 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 19:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thirded. Nojus R (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it is safe to color in some called states. AZ, MI and WI should probably be left alone for now, but I think some have obvious winners. Possibly all states with a 5% or higher lead? Lsw2472 (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to color in states/districts with unanimous projections by the media right now, but would not be opposed to a consensus for waiting until every state/ME-2 has unanimously been projected if that is where consensus goes, which is where it seems to be going. Przemysl15 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with adding unanimous calls to the page. Nixinova T C 00:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nixinova: Could you please clarify whether you support waiting until all races are called before adding them or whether you support adding them right now? Prcc27 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I support adding them now if they have been unanimously called. Nixinova T C 01:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Support updating page to reflect states that have been called unanimously. (At this point, I believe this would leave AZ, GA, ME-02, NV, NC, and PA. Whackyasshackysack (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
~~Technically Opposed~~ I think that if all sources say X won a state, then we should be able to include it in the article as long as it isn't controversial. (Basically agreeing with Lsw2472 and Nixinova) I can say that the 5% or higher lead by Lsw2472 is a good cutoff, but I do want to suggest a second cutoff on percentage of expected votes in. Something like 85%, 90%, or 95+% should be good in my opinion if others agree. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
(Amended) Support adding File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg to the article. It has the states that are unanimous and further discussions can be held later as to if something needs to be added or removed. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(Amended again) The 5% higher lead ended up being redundant as states ended up being updated at the Commons file when all listed sources called a state. Additionally, there would have been problems doing so because of the Arizona count, along with the Georgia and Pennsylvania counts had my 85% suggestion been discussed as at one point Trump lede both by 10+ points. I am noting this and striking out part of my comment in case this RFC ends up being brought up on the 2024 article. I will also note for this article that we should continue to wait until all sources call a state for the same candidate, which currently only applies to Georgia. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Support. If all or most media outlets have called a state, it meets WP:RS. This is a good summary of the calls that have been made. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Support including those states called by the AP. Both the AP and Fox News(!) have called Wisconsin and Arizona for Biden and have displayed 264/214 for about 18 hours now. Fox News viewers are unhappy with their favorite channel for doing that. The only states not called by the AP are Alaska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. CNN is more conservative and not counting Arizona yet. AP EXPLAINER: States still in play and what makes them that way -- Valjean (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'd caution against including Arizona at this point; it's been called only by Fox News and AP (which I believe are using a different exit polling system than everyone else) and there's been a lot of commentary even in the mainstream media about whether the call was appropriate. Since reliable sources disagree, it should either be excluded or be colored differently to indicate that there's not consensus among the media organizations about it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Support. There are numerous states that have been called and are not in question at all. I would prefer that the AP projections are added as well, but would advocate for the addition of unanimously-called states since that seems to be a matter of some contention. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I think we have consensus for adding all states/districts minus AK, AZ, GA, ME-02, NV, NC, and PA, as every other state/district has been unanimously called. I cant figure out how to mess with the map but I think we should be able to update the map at this point. Przemysl15 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Edit: Added Alaska per comment underneath.
- At this point AK hasn't been called either, but ME-2 has been called for Trump by most but not all media outlets. See [36]. FYI, the image already exists at File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I still prefer waiting until we can fill in the entire map before adding it, rather than uploading an incomplete map right now. Quite a few users did say they agreed with me, but of course, this isn't a vote, and consensus seems to be shifting towards updating the map with states that have been unanimously called ASAP. That being said, I feel like we should wait at least 24 hours before updating the map, to give those users and other users time to weigh in. I know how to update the map and could do so tomorrow, if consensus doesn't change. We can't use the file that Antony-22 provided because ME-2 has not been unanimously called. Nonetheless, would we also update the infobox with a projected electoral vote tally too? Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course we should wait 24 hours, just wanted to start discussion on how to move forward now that this has been up a bit and weve got some responses. Also, I presume we would update the infobox with EVs as well. Przemysl15 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Support, this is obviously what we should do. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Devonian Wombat: Can you please clarify if you support updating the map/infobox soon vs. updating the map once we can fill every state and district in. Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  - I support updating right this second. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    - Thank you for clarifying. Prcc27 (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Not just AP – Wiki should have more than one major media source for calling the election. I suggest we wait at least for NYT', and ideally also for the WX Post. I say this as one who has tremendous respect for the Associated Press – and one who once actually worked for the AP as a news writer. – Sca (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sca: I don't think only using the AP is being supported by many users anymore now that we are post election day. Most people here seem to support adding a state only if it is unanimously projected by major media organizations. But we still need to decide if we want to update the map now, or if we want to wait for every state (and ME-2) to be called before updating the map. The consensus seems to be leaning significantly towards the former. Prcc27 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah. 10-4 and thanks. – Sca (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Update immediately, with caveats. We should include all calls by any major network, even when not unanimous, but should use some different color, pattern, shade, or indicator when there is a split decision or when only some major networks have made a call. In a situation like this, we should absolutely note stuff like the AP + Fox calls, because they are major parts of the story, and because failing to note them at all will cause confusion from readers who follow those sources; but we also need to absolutely make it clear that it's just a those two rather than a unanimous call. During an election, we should also revise the table of called states in order to list calls by major networks instead of the current breakdown by party (which seems useless to readers - at the moment it is almost entirely empty, with just a ton of wasted space.) Something like Politico's graph of network calls would be more useful; just have each cell colored by the network's call, and list the total at the bottom. In practice implementing this mid-election-count would be tricky (and unnecessary since it seems like this will be over in a few hours anyway), but for future elections we should go with a system like this because otherwise we run into this debate over which calls to use every single time, even if this time was particularly stark, and because given how significant this is it's important to keep our maps, tables, etc. as up to date as possible with as much accurate information as possible. This means both unambiguously registering all "partial" calls, and making it clear somehow, at a glance, that they are not yet unanimous - ignoring them entirely and presenting them identically to unanimous calls both strike me as unworkable options. (Also, of course all unanimous calls for individual states need to be added immediately - failing to do so is just absurd and serves no purpose.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fully agree. One of our important functions is to document the flow of history, not just document that A moved to G. We should document how A got to G. -- Valjean (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Information about the so-called red and blue mirages should be included in this article in order to explain why the vote counts were changed and the result of the election was not immediately clear. I think these details are relevant because they explain why the vote went a certain way in the states that we are discussing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lshane23 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support updating immediately and either 1) only coloring on consensus across all sources, or 2) Aquillion's proposal to use a different color to indicate how many RS have called the state, with preference for option 2. We may have a lack of consensus for a while, so not showing anything is't really helpful. Chris vLS (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: although this discussion may be of interest with respect to future elections, it is now moot with respect to this one. All states and voting jurisdictions have now been uniformly called by all of the requisite media outlets. BD2412 T 01:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Time to color in Georgia

A discussion on when to add Georgia was already taking place in one of the RfCs above. Prcc27 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

It is time to color in Georgia as the recount is officially done and shows that Biden won by 12,284 votes. Jon698 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-georgia-elections-1a2ea5e8df69614f4e09b47fea581a09 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-20/biden-maintains-his-lead-over-trump-as-georgia-recount-ends https://twitter.com/CharlieGileNBC/status/1329582350947266560

@Jon698: Feel free to comment in the above huge RfC: #RfC on adding Georgia. Please look over the talk page to see if there is already a discussion relevant to your suggestion before starting a new section. Thanks. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, I believe Georgia certifies its results tomorrow, so the RfC will be rendered moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, that's beside my point. If that's the case and the RfC is mooted, then that should be stated in the existing discussion (perhaps under a level 3 heading), not put in a new discussion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Georgia's Secretary of State has confirmed Biden as the winner, so it's definitely appropriate to color it. I'm unable to do so myself. — theZcuber (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The AP has called it as well. https://twitter.com/AP/status/1329590804835414019 134.3.255.212 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the IP, the gravamen of the discussion above is that Georgia should be filled in when it has been called by the remaining news services - which has now happened. BD2412 T 01:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much unanimously been called at this point. Dpm12 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Also called by Fox News and The Guardian. BD2412 T 01:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is Georgia not coloured in?

( SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SweetMilkTea13, it is now. You may have to clear your browser's cache for the new version of the map to load. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been clearing the cache for 20 minutes now, and Georgia's still gray Dpm12 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Dpm12, well, it's been colored in (you can check the file history), so that is a problem on your end. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

controversy

There is no mention of the massive voter machine fraud - which is being reported on local news. See https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/michigan-antrim-county-election-results-trump-biden-blue/6162541002/ Why is that? --Massintel (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Massintel: Because that is a fringe theory not supported by reliable sources. Furthermore, your source describes an "apparent glitch" that "could add a few thousand votes to the tallies", not "massive voter machine fraud". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thousands of reliable sources, can I post them here? This is one example, there are many - only on local news. https://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/election_headquarters/possible-voter-fraud-in-chandler-area-after-woman-asks-to-take-peoples-ballots/article_9dc88e54-14d3-11eb-b15d-7fdb0ac0a4ec.html --Massintel (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"Possible" fraud is not fraud or evidence of fraud. Anything is "possible". It's still a fringe theory, sorry. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump seems to consider any vote that is not for him as fraudulent, keep that in mind. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The four or five thousand sketchy ones here were for Trump and Republican Senate loser John E. James. I have no idea if Trump ghostwrites for the Detroit Free Press in order to hurt his own party, but haven't read anything suggesting he might. The "fringe theory" in the Arizona story originated from the Chandler Police Department, which may or may not be captained by a Russian trollbot, but is known to investigate and eventually disclose evidence of suspected criminal activity in open court. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Massintel, yes, you can post them here. Thousands may be overkill, but dozens might make the vastness of the alleged fraud clearer. If you put the URL in single brackets, like this, more can fit easier. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

https://westphaliantimes.com/nevada-poll-worker-whistleblower-claims-poll-workers-fabricated-proof-of-residence-data-potentially-creating-illegal-voters/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/chinese-parts-hidden-ownership-growing-scrutiny-inside-america-s-biggest-n1104516

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/it-defies-logic-scientist-finds-telltale-signs-election-fraud-after-analyzing-mail-ballot

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ten-attorneys-general-join-supreme-court-case-against-pennsylvania-mail-ballot-deadline

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/michigan-usps-insider-delivers-testimony-of-shady-postmark-scheme-to/

https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/05/the-2020-election-fuckery-is-afoot/

Yes, the media is blocking fact based results and 'fact checking' the truth in an attempt to twist reality into a blue state. The media is involved in aiding and abetting - no winner has been declared in the election. If you read the rules (Federal Law) we are in the early stages of the process:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2020-11-09/us-presidential-election-not-over-heres-where-things-stand-right-now

Everyone needs to take a step back and understand how the actual election process occurs based on federal law, not media reporting.

1) The election occurs in early November.

2) Votes are tallied while officials from both parties (Democrat and GOP) are present.

3) Provided officials from both parties are present during the vote tallies and there are:

No credible accusations of fraud. No software glitches. Then the vote tallies are ratified.

4) If the vote margin between winner and loser is 0.5% or smaller, an automatic recount is required.

5) If the margin between the winner and loser is larger than 0.5%, but either candidate (or a 3rd candidate for that matter) wants to dispute the results, he or she can pay to have a recount performed. The cost if roughly $3 million per state.

6) Once the recount is completed, or if a recount is not necessary, the individual states formally declare the winner on December 14th when they officially cast their electoral college votes for him or her.

7) Then, in early January of the next year, the new congress meets to count the electoral college votes and formally declare the winner.

8) The new President is sworn into office on January 20th.

This is how Presidential elections work in the U.S. under normal circumstances. Massintel (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ZeroHedge is not a reliable source, it's an anonymous blog. Project Veritas is a discredited smear factory. Westphalian Times is a random website. Monster Hunter Nation is a random blog. None are of any use to us on Wikipedia.

Recount rules actually vary widely by state - not all have automatic recount thresholds. And vote tallies may be ratified whether or not anyone has made "accusations" of fraud, credible or not. There is no requirement that literally everyone agree to certify a vote count. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Westphalian Times is a reasonable byproduct of the mainstream press' traditional partnership with corporate-sponsored governments on both sides of the left-right divide. I'm sold on considering it, maybe trusting it. It's not "random" in the slightest, regardless of who's with me on this. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Is "Fox News" also "Fake News" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nevada-voter-fraud-election-2020-ingraham-angle-exclusive

How about US Courts?

https://globalintelhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/gov.uscourts.miwd_.99598.1.2.pdf

https://globalintelhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/gov.uscourts.miwd_.99598.1.3.pdf

https://globalintelhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/gov.uscourts.miwd_.99598.1.4.pdf

https://globalintelhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/gov.uscourts.miwd_.99598.1.5.pdf

Massintel (talk) 01:13, November 12, 2020‎ (UTC)

No, that's not the right term, but it's close. They are spreaders of disinformation. For political content, we shy away from Fox News and use more reliable sources.

globalintelhub.com is not a RS. -- Valjean (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We have now learned that Hopkins, the USPS "whistleblower" in Pennsylvania, is working with Project Veritas, so we may see more of the same false claims made elsewhere and tied to them. -- Valjean (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox is fine, only a certain segment of editors have agreed to shy away, but there are actual rules against interpreting primary documents (regardless of webhost), the broader "we" much prefer secondary coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I don't think it's just a "certain segment of editors", nor are such editors who say this misinterpreting application. There's an established way to interpret consensus on those types of outcomes at RSN. Fox is fine, for uncontroversial content, but is generally discouraged for anything related to politics or science. This doesn't mean Fox can't be used in those topic areas, but it shouldn't be used to support any extraordinary and/or controversial claims. If it is used, it has to be attributed-- and additional considerations apply (due, weight, context, et cetera). For ordinary and/or non-controversial claims in those areas, it's fine for use as a supporting source... when it isn't the only reliable source that's reporting on the matter. But if it's just a supporting source, what's the point of using it all, when there are much more reliable sources available? This isn't an application particular to just Fox, but is generally how such an RfC outcome has historically been applied. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't buy into it, sorry. As long as NPOV is about sharing all reliably published viewpoints, the idea of tuning one party's cable channel out in favour of the competition in an area that only has two mainstream sides seems too obviously biased toward letting CNN's politics dominate wherever it conflicts with Fox. They both get things right and wrong, I've seen it as a neutral Canadian. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to "buy into". And besides, the characterization of CNN and FOX is much more nuanced than that, which I think you know. In terms of both political leanings and/or affiliations, and in terms of how they mix reporting and political opinion. And of course they both "get things right and wrong", but it's more about the extent, and the saturation thereof of political commentary in reporting. And providing an outlet for fringe views, as of late. But I won't get into that on this page, since its not pertinent to improving the article, and its a bit forum-y in this venue. This isn't RSN. And Hulk, while I'm sure you're Canadian, you make no secret of your political opinions (I saw a recent invitation you made to an SPA editor to discuss what you called the "leftist scamdemic", on their talk page). That's neither here nor there, nor does it matter. I do have to say though, you have one of the most creative usernames I've seen on here. It's pretty cool. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy into this agreement to avoid Fox for facts about politics. And I have a wide range of opinions. You might see my willingness to hear a conspiracy theory as right-wing, but someone else might see my year-long nudge for Harris as president as left-wing. You have no idea who I've voted for or why, and you've never seen my biases bleed through into any article. I like your name, too, take that as you will. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S., "leftist scamdemic" was what the IP called the thing he allegedly wanted to discuss, I only referred to it as such because that's (still) all I know about whatever it was supposed to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In this case, are any of Fox's facts contested by the other side, or was it just automatically deemed controversial because it's Fox talking politics in a "controversy" section? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Since MassIntel was proposing to use Laura Ingraham as a source, yes. That's not news, and per the RfC, the opinion shows are specifically singled out as something that can't be used as a source for any "factual" claims. Definitely not for this article, unless we were just citing her opinions, which isn't due in terms of this edit request. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece, and it's not from Laura Ingraham. It's a straight report by Angelica Stabile about what someone on Ingraham's show said happened in Clark County. Maybe the claims are disputed by pro-Democrat reports, maybe not, that's what I'm asking. If you want to change the subject instead of trying to answer, at least base your diversion in reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the azfamily.com source posted above at 14:19, 8 November. That article is from Oct 22. Without looking at the other sources, I caution that WP editors cannot perform original research and draw a conclusion of "massive voter machine fraud". Reliable sources will need to make the wider observation, not us. For example, we wouldn't say there's a massive outbreak of car accidents just by finding individual accidents across the country. I also note that we rely on reliable sources, and a source is not necessarily reliable merely by being on the internet.—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As the sole source you've selected to highlight and weigh is clearly about a lone woman's alleged fraud, of course it can't singlehandedly support anything about alleged massive and/or machine fraud, per strawman argument. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for massive fraud. I only did an analysis of the first of "thousands of reliable sources" that was listed above. That one didn't support the supposed massive scale.—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I know you weren't, I can read, you were arguing that a source not addressing it should be disregarded for its date. I just added that not addressing the topic made it irrelevant, to boot. You're right about the other reminders of general rules, too, most editors already know this. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Any sources at all yet disputing Stabile's story? Or any of the hard news presented? Does this section need a new title, absent actual controversy? Is anyone here honestly trying to discuss incorporating reliably-sourced material about election fraud (possible, apparent, alleged, reported or otherwise)? Or has it sufficiently morphed into a conversation about which news is fake instead? These are not hypothetical questions. Where do we go from here? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)