Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29

Bolding of "states carried" in infobox

Once Wikipedia recognizes the election result in Georgia, what should be done about the bolding of the "states carried" section?

Option 1) Bold Biden's 25 + DC + NE-02: Biden won 25 states, a congressional district, and DC, whereas Trump won 25 states and a congressional district but not DC, therefore Biden won more.

Option 2) No bolding- as both candidates carried 25 states each. Ignoring DC and congressional districts, and focusing solely on states.

I'm tentatively in favour of Option 1 (bold it), but am open to hearing arguments otherwise. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on the following articles, we bold only the text which shows the candidate that won more states and do not bold either when they tie: 1976, 1960, 1880, 1848. Given the intent of that section, I would say Option 1 is acceptable as Biden did win 27 locations and Trump won 26. (Additionally, I would also believe that Option 1 should occur in the future when the candidates tie, but the losing candidate wins more location.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're being technical, Biden won two congressional districts (ME-01 and NE-01) and Trump got 3 (NE-1, NE-3, ME-2) and Biden won DC, so they both got the same number of locations. Nojus R (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what we consider a "state". I don't think the congressional districts should be a factor, since they obviously are not states. But one could argue that D.C. is practically the same as a state with regards to the electoral college. If we consider D.C. a "state", we would bold Biden (once Georgia is called). Prcc27 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

DC is a totally different juristiction though not part of any other state... the congressional districts are parts of states therefore already "counted" once... I think you could do 25 + DC for biden and just 25 for trump, that would make the most sense. Its "states carried" not "Voting Districts carried" 94.18.243.163 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a technical question given that we highlight the candidate who won the popular vote and the states carried, but yes I was incorrect. {{Infobox election}} doesn't say much, except that the parameter should not appear until the election is finished. (Whoops.) Maybe we should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums for their thoughts? (If we do, we might want to inform them on the RfC being held above since their page is only showing this talk page with one. If we don't, I would now say Option 2 is the most correct.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: Congressional districts only exist within states that have already been won at-large by a candidate and counted in their tally. We should not elevate congressional districts or DC to the level of states. The above comment by Nojus R illustrates how that approach is flawed. The label in the infobox says "States carried", and they will have both carried the same number of states if Biden carries GA, so there should be no bolding. If Trump carries Georgia, we should bold his state count. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

DC isnt part of any state, its a seperate juristiction but the congressional districts are. thats the difference that matters imo 152.115.83.242 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: - as DC is the tie-breaker. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: - Please read the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution: "... they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State". We don't need to elevate DC to the level of a state when DC, for all intents and purposes, is considered a state when it comes to presidential elections. Nihlus 01:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus, although I stand by my initial position, I agree that the case for DC being a tie-breaker is stronger than for the congressional districts. And Trump got 3 congressional districts to Biden's two, anyway. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Tartan357, I don't think the congressional districts should be considered. The two electoral votes that are given based on the state-wide vote are really all the should matter when considering who won the state. Nihlus 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus, that's what I'm saying. And I know you didn't argue for them to count, but I expect others will. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: The electoral college allocates electoral votes to 51 territories. The territories decide how the vote is split. That's how NE and ME split their votes. But DC is allocated electoral votes on a federal level. That's more than enough to qualify as a tiebreaker. Admanny (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - this really should be an RfC. Consider? Admanny (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Admanny, yes, it should. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Admanny: I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums should be involved a bit more, but I do support an RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. Prcc27 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Biden won more contests. 25 + 1 CD vs 25 + 1 CD + DC... DC breaks the tie. --CoryJosh (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @CoryJosh: Actually, Biden won 2 CDs (ME-1 & NE-2) and Trump won 3 CDs (ME-2, NE-1, and NE-3). I definitely don't think a congressional district should count as a "state" though, whereas I think D.C. should count as a "state". Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that you didn't already know that, but just want to make sure we're clear on who won what. Prcc27 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That is a technicality. If DC counted as a state, we would write 26 states under the states carried category. But we don't and never have. Counting DC as a state now would completely defeat the purpose of writing +DC. Thematrix92498 (talk 19:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Biden won 26 of the 51 entities represented in the Electoral College. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Super Goku V and Tartan357. Since the parameter is about states, we should consider only the states; as much as I wish D.C. was one, it is not. Unless there is consensus from reliable sources that Biden won more states, which I do not think will happen since congressional districts are not states and D.C. is the capital city and not a U.S. state but they may consider it as a tie-breaker, we should not bold it, as the parameter is referring only to U.S. states. I suppose we can still bold it as Biden technically won more locations, but my understanding is that the parameter is referring only to U.S. states and we should bold it only for the candidate that won more U.S. states, not for the candidate who won most locations. Davide King (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think it should be clarified what it is meant by States carried in the infobox and parameter. Does it mean U.S. states only? Or does it mean all states contributing to the Electoral College? If it is the latter, then I agree option 1 is actually correct because D.C. is considered a state in that sense while congressional districts are not states in either definition. Either way, it would be helpful to see what reliable sources say. Davide King (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I imagine states carried means U.S. states only, otherwise we'd write 26 and not 25+DC. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 20:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per the 23rd Amendment, DC is on par with the states in the Electoral College. That Maine and Nebraska split their EC votes is a different issue; maybe note that with an end note, but the core number to consider is 51. Carter (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per the above, the count we care about is 51. Biden won 26 of the "state equivalences" in the Electoral College. The "Maine/Nebraska splitting the vote" thing is a quirk, but does not affect the count of states won.--Jayron32 13:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: The number of contests won is of no significance, but Biden's side should be bolded because he won the electoral college. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Well we're there, Georgia is now unanimously called and it's time to bold Biden's side. He won more contests than Trump, no way around it. — Red XIV ^(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - this parameter shouldn't be in the infobox. The reality is too complex for the "at a glance" nature of infoboxes. If we take the label literally, the data will be simplified to the point of uselessness while if we try to force the details in it becomes unweildy. --Khajidha (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Insofar as the number of contests won is of any significance, it seems clear that DC is relevant to the count and the number of congressional districts won is not. ⁠— Stuart98 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - summary so far is 12 editors in favour of bolding versus 2 opposed to it. I think this seems like a strong enough consensus to go ahead and do it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Technically, they won an even number of jurisdictions, as Biden won 25 states, NE-02, ME-01, and DC, while Trump won 25 states, NE-01, NE-03, and ME-02, which is 28 jurisdictions each. That leads to an exact tie, so no bolding.Herbfur (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - The 23rd Amendment provisions are irrelevant, the category is states carried. We write 25 + DC or 25 + NE-02. We do not write 26 states and leave it at that, counting DC as a state. As such, neither should be bolded. This is blatantly breaking precedent established by the articles on the 1848 and 1880 elections.Thematrix92498 (talk 19:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The District of Columbia didn't participate in the 1848 and 1880 elections. So I don't think any "precedent" is being broken. The reason why it says "25+D.C.", and not "26" is because D.C. is usually not considered a "state", especially for non-electoral college purposes. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thematrix92498, they are not irrelevant. The category of "states carried" means "how many jurisdictions, established by the constitution, were carried by the candidate". There are 51 jurisdictions; however, we simplify the meaning of it by separating out DC since it is not considered a state in anything but the election. However, since it is considered a state in the election, it should be included when considering how many "states" were won. Nihlus 20:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The bolding in every info box on United States elections is based on a majority, yes? The same rule would apply to states carried. In terms of states (not territories or jurisdictions), Trump and Biden both won 25. The bolding is lost on me for this reason. Unless DC is now considered a state, something those advocating for DC statehood would be excited to hear, both tallies should be left unbolded.Thematrix92498 (talk 15:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus That is a rather liberal reading of a category that is literally called states carried. If what you say is true, that the category references the total jurisdictions carried by each candidate, I propose we change the name to jurisdictions carried or territories carried.Thematrix92498 (talk 15:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Nihlus. But I also think Naddruf makes a good point that Biden's should likely be bolded anyway, although if Biden didn't win the majority of states (including DC) that is likely a bit confusing. We have included this "states won" parameter before, but Khajidha is correct that it is a bit misleading as electoral college votes (not states) decide the election.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Bias in wording of information

This article states that Trump is making false claims of fraud. Maybe the claims are false or maybe they aren’t, but either way, it is not the job of Wikipedia to determine whether the claims are false or not. This page should objectively state information about a candidate, not determine whether a candidates claims are true or false, and another thing, since when did Trump refuse to commit to a peaceful transfer of power? That is blatantly false and that claim should be removed from this article. Jay72091(2) (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Many sources they say Trump claims are false. Do you have any sources that support Trump's claims? GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No reliable sources seem to have been present at nor covered legislative hearings where evidence has been presented. The reliable sources may not be at all reliable on this novel problem. The only truly reliable sources are the witnesses. That search for truth is still underway. 67.6.79.176 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Until the claims have been vetted in court, I don't think there is grounds for either side to say they are true or that they are false. We should just report that critics are saying the claims are false, not agreeing with them or speaking in their words. WakandaQT (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are outright calling these "false", not the usual "alleged". We apply due WP:WEIGHT based on what sources say. —Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I came to this article trying to find out more info but this article seems incredibly biased to me. We shouldn't really call the accusations true or false because they haven't been proven true or false, and that "just because every major media outlet is differing from the accusations" is still not justifiable. This is a really important matter and we should not be declaring accusations as true or false. I am an anonymous viewer of the page without a Wikipedia account. 12:45, 4 December 2020.

Trump is making claims that differ from what every major media outlet is reporting, the outlets we depend on as reliable sources. He is providing no new, independent evidence for those claims. He has made statements suggesting he will not accept the result of the election. He has made no statements saying he will. I see nothing wrong with the wording we are using. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"US President Donald Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses November's election. "Well, we'll have to see what happens," the president told a news conference at the White House. "You know that." If you think we need different examples, just searching "Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power" gives examples from CNN, New York Times, Business Insider, CNBC, USA Today, etc. The BBC is a more Worldwide source, so I believe that is why it was picked. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jay72091(2): We even have this today from CBS News' Twitter that says CBS News has learned that President Trump does not plan to concede even if Joe Biden declares victory in the coming days. I know that per WP:TWITTER it is difficult to use a source on Twitter, but we can do so using {{Twitter}} or {{Cite tweet}} if we must and if we follow all of the instruction to do so. (Though I would imagine that CBS News will make an article within 24 hours.) Jay72091(2), I ask that you provide a source for the changes that you want to make. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User HiLo48 the determination of whether a claim of fraud is true or false in the public sphere does not belong to media outlets which are owned by investors and whose purpose is to make money and may have ulterior motives for their determination of true or false. This determination is usually left up to the courts who as they say 'do not have a dog in the race'. As I believe there are court cases in process in regards to several irregularities that occurred during the vote and during the count and the courts have yet to complete their deliberation so effectively the word 'false' is premature and should probably be removed until the cases are complete and the courts have made their findings.

As to the peaceful transfer of power argument again the issue is premature for Wikipedia to have an opinion on the matter for while trump is refusing to concede the election at this point in time, there is sufficient possibility that he may still win if the courts find in his favour sufficiently to cancel enough votes for biden that things flip (this was one very close race after all) that only trump conceding at this point is a guarantee of biden winning. that said and conceding the point that at this time if nothing changes sufficiently biden does win. There is still both the court cases and the certification of the votes to occur before a winner is final and power would be expected to be handed over. At this point trump has refused to concede, he hasn't refused to hand over power, there is a difference. Anyway here is a reference and if you read it properly you may note the important word "commit" in the phrase 'refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.14.36 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an opinion on the matter; it summarizes what independent reliable sources are saying. Reliable sources do not need to wait for a court determination in order to report something. If you disagree with what reliable sources say, you should take that up with them. Note that you are free to believe as you wish- Wikipedia is, again, just summarizing sources. Wikipedia does not make claims about truthfulness. The court cases have been getting almost literally laughed out of court, so they are unlikely to change anything. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Building on what has been said, there are also reliable sources saying that the Trump administration is interfering in the transition to the point that there have been calls from Trump's party to give Biden's transitional administration access to intelligence briefings. (Vox, CNN, Politico, The Hill) If something changes with regards to a court case, the certification, the Electoral College, or another matter, then we will deal with it when reliable sources report on it. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Might I ask you to name these so called "reliable sources" of yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I already linked to them last week. See the (Vox, CNN, Politico, The Hill) portion above. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that WIkipedia, which claims to be an online encyclopedia (aka a neutral arbiter of information), is now effectively admitting that it does nothing but repeat verbatim what media outlets say and gives said outlets ultimate priority over what is said on its articles. Media outlets, no matter how objective they claim to be, will always have some biases and agenda, whatever those may be, largely depending on who owns them. Declaring any media outlet %100 reliable and never to be questioned, let alone giving their word priority over other sources like professionals/experts in particular fields, agencies, and/or officials is dangerous and outright stupid. If certain agencies and/or officials are generally considered by most people and/or experts to be extremely unreliable or have a provable history of lying/deliberately spreading false information, then don't trust a thing they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

EPicmAx4 Wikipedia is in essence a content aggregator; it is not a "neutral arbiter of information". Any bias in reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as everyone and everything has biases. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to any bias. You are free to visit(or start) any other encyclopedia project that fits with your worldview and media bubble. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Super Goku V all of those are known left-wing anti-trump outlets. EPicmAx4 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As already mentioned, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Per WP:REPUTABLE, reliable sources should be reliable, independent, published, accurate, and have fact-checking. Sources that users do not believe to meet these requirements can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. If a number of discussion have occurred on a specific source, they are listed at WP:RSP. Per WP:RSP, the four sources listed above have been in a combined 30 discussions with all four have a rating of "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise", reflecting that the four are considered generally reliable. I will mention that consensus can change as there have been sources downgraded from No consensus after four discussion to Deprecated after a Request for Comment discussion.

Given that none of these have a "No consensus" or below rating, I believe that extensive proof would be needed that WP:REPUTABLE has not been met to downgrade any of the four sources. If you have a serious complaint on any or all of the sources, I would recommend reviewing WP:RSPIMPROVE. Given the perceived reliability of the four sources listed in this thread, which included myself believing all four are reliable, I would recommend at a minimum to considered the issue of if WP:REPUTABLE has not been met or a different issue that you believe warrants consideration for a number of days. Then, I would recommend checking the other discussion at WP:RSPSOURCES to see how a source was marked as unreliable or blacklisted, before gathering any supposed sources, articles, or other evidence that you believe proves that they are unreliable. After that, I would recommend thinking about the situation once more for a few days, before deciding to post a thread as noted in the instructions at WP:RSPIMPROVE or to withdraw consideration. Regardless, I hope that this helps you understand why these sources are considered generally reliable. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I came to this article trying to find out more info but this article seems incredibly biased to me. We shouldn't really call the accusations true or false because they haven't been proven true or false, and that "just because every major media outlet is differing from the accusations" is still not justifiable. This is a really important matter and we should not be declaring accusations as true or false. I am an anonymous viewer of the page without a Wikipedia account. 12:45, 4 December 2020.

A lawsuit claims that out of the 900 military ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, 100% went for Biden

A lawsuit claims that out of the 900 military ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, 100% went for Biden.

It's on page 79 of this PDF:

https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf

I can't find any mainstream sources that reported on this. But the claim certainly deserves attention. It seems to me that it should be very easy for the mainstream media to check this out to see if the claim is true or false. The lawsuit itself is a public record.

Reliable source fan (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone makes a claim in a lawsuit does not mean the claim is true. People can make any claim they want to, unless and until it has been investigated, it has no truth value assigned to it; and as such, is not relevant to be included in the article. --Jayron32 16:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source fan So if I make a "claim" that Trump is a space alien from Mars in a lawsuit, should that be in the article as well? 331dot (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

900 from a heavily Democratic county doesn't seem unreasonable to me, assuming it is true. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It would certainly be unreasonable if all of the ballots went to Biden. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem odd to me. 900 people overseas voting against their current commander on chief seems eminently reasonable.--Khajidha (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a real lawsuit, it would belong in Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, how would they know that they were "military ballots"? Don't they have secret voting in that county? Probably that kind of absurdity is why no mainstream sources have chosen to report this claim. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Military forces overseas vote by mail. Those ballots would be clearly marked as to their point of origin. --Khajidha (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Other citizens reside outside of the country besides military personnel. Also, once a ballot is separated from its envelope to be counted, the ability to discern which ballots belong to whom, is gone. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Other people's mail isn't routed through APOs and FPOs. Mail from military bases would likely be kept separate until counting. Look at records from previous elections. There are always counts for in person, early voting, ordinary mail voting, general overseas voting, and military mail in votes. --Khajidha (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What Corvid said. Yes, the ballots from overseas military personnel and overseas American citizens arrive in distinctive envelopes and are accepted much later than domestic ballots.[1] But they are not segregated and counted separately in such a way that the vote can be traced back to the sender. They are counted like any other "secret ballot". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it, notice that the Trump lawyers' claim said "supposedly:" the election boards were asked to invalidate "all 900 military ballots in Fulton county that supposedly were 100% for Joe Biden." That's the actual wording in the lawsuit: "supposedly". [2] I think we are done here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

See https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2020/11/05/military-absentee-ballots-are-still-coming-in-to-battleground-states/ Obviously overseas ballots are kept in separate batches from general mail in vote. This may be because of stricter verification or longer periods of acceptance or several other reasons. However, this does not affect anonymity to an unreasonable degree. It is still impossible to tell which vote came from which particular voter, only that it came from a particular country (for civilian overseas voters) or military unit (for military voters). This is no more of a violation of anonymity than knowing which votes came from which precinct. --Khajidha (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

a neutral viewpoint requires you change "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" to "conspiracy theories allege fraud"

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.

---

I thought the lead paragraphs were all right, except when discussing Trump's position.

In my opinion, Wikipedia's policy of a neutral viewpoint requires that you change "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" to "conspiracy theories allege fraud" (i.e. remove the word falsely). This is because Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth.

As it stands now, the judgment that it is false in that sentence is attributable to wikipedia rather than any group of people, so you should change the sentence to attribute the view to someone or some group.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Marvinmarsupial (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marvinmarsupial: Q3/A3 in the above FAQ likely answers your request, —PaleoNeonate – 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marvinmarsupial: Many independent reliable sources state the claims are false, which is why we do. It is not Wikipedia making the judgement. If you disagree with what the sources state, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Q3/A3 is incorrect, shown with an example of a false claim

Paleo and 331dot, thank you for your responses. In my opinion, the Q3/A3 misinterprets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

If you are willing to think about something that is the opposite of your political point of view (a basic requirement of "neutrality") you can see how to write with a neutral point of view. A May 15th fact check about Trump's claims of a covid vaccine being available before the end of the year found:

“ "Experts say that the development, testing and production of a vaccine for the public is still at least 12 to 18 months off, and that anything less would be a medical miracle," NBC News wrote May 15 in a "fact check". ”

If a vaccine becomes available in December, which of these sentences would be appropriate to appear in Wikipedia after that date:

• [A] An NBC News fact check falsely claimed that a vaccine by the end of 2020 would take a medical miracle.
• [B] The vaccine became available in December 2020, which was a medical miracle.
• [C] In May 2020, Trump announced that the vaccine would be available by the end of the year, about which the media reported that experts said it would take "a medical miracle"; the vaccine became available in December of 2020.

The answer is that only C is correct. A and B are opposites, (A says that it's a false claim to call it a medical miracle, B calls it a medical miracle, so A and B are opposites). But although they are opposite statements, neither A nor B is a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is C. Wikipedia shouldn't report it either as a false claim nor as a miraculous fact. Neither expression reflects a neutral point of view. Instead, the view should be attributed rather than made by Wikipedia. I hope this example helps you understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and the difference between Wikipedia making a statement and attributing a statement. The article should be amended to follow Wikipedia's policy. Q3/A3 misinterprets this policy, in my opinion. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have a source saying that NBC was false with its fact check, it is not a violation of policy to state that a source says NBC was false. Many sources, including the ones in this article, state that Trump's claims are false. That's all we are saying. If you have reliable sources stating that Trump's claims are true or that a court has determined that they are true, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You could say that a source says NBC was false, but you still wouldn't write the words "NBC falsely claimed". So you got it. That's neutrality. You don't write the words "falsely claimed" you write that a source says it was false. Otherwise it's Wikipedia saying it. For neutrality, just apply what you just said to the article. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead does state that various sources call the claims false(officials in 50 states, Attorney General Barr). So I don't see the issue here. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For me the issue is in the sentence "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud", since that is not attributed. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Six sources are presented at the end of that sentence. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

the sentence should be rewritten to attribute the finding to those sources. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are saying that the sources do not call the claims false, then yes. If they call the claims false, then we do, too. This is not hard. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"If they call the claims false, then we do, too." - if they call the claims false, then we say they call the claims false. okay? Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's what we are doing. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Which version does it better: "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" or "conspiracy theories which all news sources report as false allege fraud"? Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The former. If all news sources call the statements false, then there is no need to qualify the statement. If the sources do not say that that the claims are false, then that line should be removed outright. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT is a helpful guideline on when and how to provide attribution.—Bagumba (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, thanks for the link. Based on the link, what is the best form for the phrase I asked about? ("conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" or "conspiracy theories which all news sources report as false allege fraud" or some other form.)Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot, the "all sources" is not needed. It is implied. If you take the INTEXT example, "The sun sets in the west each evening" doesn't need to say "all source say" or "everyone agrees that".—Bagumba (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There's an important difference between "all news sources" and "everyone". According to reuters 79% of republicans and 30% of democrats say they believe the vote was fraudulent. (I was pretty surprised by the latter figure). You don't think the view should be attributed even in such a case? Marvinmarsupial (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we're in asked and answered territory at this point, and it's time to move on. You can't keep making the same point over and over, expecting a different result. ValarianB (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)}}

Except for one minor case involving the distance of poll watchers from poll workers, Trump has lost every legal case with many judges saying the cases lack legal merit and even any evidence at all. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to inclusion of these facts as you've presented them (assuming they're cited, which shouldn't be hard). I just object to the word "falsely" in "conspiracy theories falsely allege fraud" since that is not attributed. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We present the WP:WEIGHT of viewpoints of reliable sources. In the case of the vaccine, as sources change, Wikipedia can reflect those changes. For the election, it's not a matter of being bland and neutral to never be proven wrong in the future. If the majority of reliable sources turn out to be wrong, Wikipedia, relying on them, will be "wrong" in that sense, but "correct" in that it reflected the sources at the time.—Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, which is why I made this whole thread. If you present Trump's view, rather than stick the word "falsely" in front of it so that it's Wikipedia making the claim, instead, as you write, you reflect the sources at the time. In other words, "falsely claimed" is incorrect but "which reputable sources consider false" is correct, according to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I don't think we're in disagreement about anything. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia making the claim, it is Wikipedia summarizing the sources. That's what all articles do. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I ask an uninvolved party to restore the closure of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Marvin is absolutely correct in asserting that there is a clear bias here. "Falsely claimed" is the incorrect wording and has an opinionated feel. Rather "reputable sources consider false" is much better. --2603:9000:7B02:D510:D020:F439:2C6F:B19A (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, we do not WP:CENSOR the truth in order to satisfy someone's built-up fantasy. If someone is dissatisfied with reality, that is their problem. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I notice a couple of different editors started censoring these talk pages. This is inappropriate Wikipedia conduct.

I noticed that a couple of different editors have started censoring these talk pages. I've reverted the censorship.

These talk pages are the places to discuss things freely. There is no length limit, and the talk pages are not particularly long. Please cease attempting to censor them and allow people to discuss them freely. If I see further attempts at censorship I will escalate the process. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstand what talk pages are for. They are not for unlimited, unrestrained discussion about any topic. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I would ask that you restore the closure of the discussion and move on from this topic. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So you are doing what you are arguing against. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing a section isn't censorship. I've done it as a compromise. I would ask that you also move on. Marvinmarsupial (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither is a closure. The discussion remained for all to see. I ask you to reverse the concealment of my comments. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:FREESPEECH. It is not "censorship" to remove, collapse ("hat"), or archive off-topic discussions or ones that raise questions that have already been discussed ad nauseum. From the relevant guideline, Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. However, it is disruptive to partially collapse discussions as you've done here, so I've undone that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of hatting the entire thing, as the continuous complaining about an established FAQ entry is not going to go anywhere productive. If someone other than "Marvinmarsupial" wishes to undo that, feel free, but it feels like a timesink at this point. ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional Maps

Once every state certifies their results, do we plan on adding some cartograms? The 2016 United States Presidential Election article also includes a table detailing the vote breakdown by various demographic subgroups, which would be useful here. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020 (2)

"Polls showed that 58% to 68% of Asian American and Pacific Island voters (AAPI voters) supported Biden-Harris while 28% to 40% supported Trump-Pence."

I suspect this section was written to create an impression of stronger Asian/AAPI support for Trump than actually existed. I believe the 58-40 number is specifically for Asian voters in Nevada (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-americans-are-growing-fastest-nevada-here-s-how-they-n1247323), while the 68-28 numbers are from one of the various exit polls that attempted to break down the voting patterns for different Asian subgroups. For comparison, the national AP exit poll had Asian voters at 70-28 Biden, while the NBC/Edison exit poll had the overall Asian vote at 63-31. I find it noteworthy that the exit polls that claimed to provide representative breakdowns of the nationwide Asian American electorate all had Biden winning 65-70% of Asian voters.

Either 1) change the quoted line to "61 to 70% of Asian American and Pacific Island voters (AAPI voters) supported Biden-Harris", or 2) cite a source/exit poll showing that Biden-Harris won 58% of the nationwide AAPI vote. Psyche da mike24 (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Per the source, In the critical swing state of Nevada, AAPI voters supported Biden 58 percent to 40 percent. And in a national election poll fielded by Asian American Decisions, Latino Decisions, and the African American Research Collaborative in the two weeks leading up to the election, 68 percent of AAPI voters said they were supporting Biden while 28 percent backed Trump. Personally, it seems like the text is incorrectly citing the source, though I don't think it was intentionally cherrypicked and believe that the editor misunderstood what the source said. For the moment, I will remove the Nevada percentages, but I think the section does need more citations and support. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Electoral Votes

Do they change as in 2008 Texas was 34 now its 38? florida was 27 now its 29? According to the election maps on wiki!--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cynthia BrownSmyth, Yes, they are allocated based on population, so as population grows or declines, the amount of EV goes up or down.Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

They are reapportioned after each census. As this year was a census, the congressional districts will be redone for 2022. Remember, electoral votes are equal to the number of Representatives and Senators per state. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

can we link to primary sources?

There are some interesting primary sources that are becoming available. May these be linked when they are short and clear? For example there is a video recording of suitcases full of ballots which were hidden under desks at polling stations and removed and counted after poll watchers had left. https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1334569329334083586 I am wondering if it can be linked in the relevant sections, or only secondary sources can be linked? Marvinmarsupial (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not primary sources. Those can only be used in limited circumstances, see WP:PRIMARY. You don't have the full context of the video. 331dot (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The linked policy says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" and where it is not used to synthesize an opinion. ("Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.") Marvinmarsupial (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said, you don't have the full context of the video to be able to judge facts as to what occurred. 331dot (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile... "A video Donald Trump’s campaign alleged was “smoking gun” evidence that secret “suitcases” of ballots went counted without observers, has been dismissed by Republican election officials...Georgia's voting system implementation manager, Gabriel Sterling, said afterwards that the surveillance video provided no evidence that was suspicious, and that there was no wrongdoing." [3] IHateAccounts (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

im just going to add a label showing that pennsylvania is the tipping point state in close states 76.168.202.227 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion above called #tipping point state. Perhaps responding there would be better. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Broken ref in the infobox

The references regarding the turnout in the infobox (refs 3 and 4), simply say Cite error: The named reference turnout2020 was invoked but never defined, could someone please fix this? Nojus R (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just done so. Looks like the reference definitions fell victim to a recent spate of reversions. From the edit summaries, looks like the main problem is that newer numbers might be one day available ... but for now, these seem reliable enough. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

State maps

Here is the dilemma: for some state maps of county results the state is displayed with the northernmost point of said state being at the top of the image (Arizona, D.C., and Florida, among others,) while other states such as Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have been rotated, no longer having the top of the image being directly north of the bottom of the image. Clearly, this is an inconsistency with how we map these county results and we need to build a consensus. For me, it seems that the most logical thing to do is to have the top of the image represent true north since that seems to be the only consistent thing among all the other images of state results to do. Having each state arbitrarily rotated is arbitrary, and readers already assume that the top of the image represents the northernmost part of the map even though that is not true. Thoughts? ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it is based on a full map of the US, like File:United States presidential election results by county, 2020.svg. This is the cause for the rotation. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: I understand that but what I want us to establish is a proper guideline on how to display these maps since some are rotated while others are not. I just want to make it consistant. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I was initially responding to the following portion: ... for some state maps of county results the state is displayed with the northernmost point of said state being at the top of the image ... while other states ... have been rotated, no longer having the top of the image being directly north of the bottom of the image. Clearly, this is an inconsistency with how we map these county results and we need to build a consensus. That is why my reply was just explaining why the rotation exists. Given your clarification, I would like to point out that we do not link to any of those maps on this article, so this might not be the best talk page to discuss it. Even so, there is also the issue that there would be a number of state maps to adjust to a new standard. You might want to consider the pros and cons of the situation first. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what others have said about your suggestion itself, but you seem confused about what is "north" on a U.S. map. For example, the northernmost "point" of Arizona is the whole Utah border and that of Washington state is the whole Canada border. BlueSwede92 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Voter turnout

The FEC calculated the voter turnout for 2016 as about 55.7%, and the US Elections Project calculates it for 2020 as about 66.6%, but the increase in turnout was not about 11 percentage points. The two sources use different definitions for the turnout, mainly that the FEC uses the whole adult US population in the denominator while the US Elections Project uses only US citizens. I find the US Elections Project more accurate, but if we want to use it we also have to change it in previous articles for consistency. The actual increase in turnout, using the same definition in both years, was about 6.5 percentage points.

For now, I left the estimate of 66.6% in the infobox noting that it's preliminary and not comparable to the FEC figure, and not calculating the percentage point increase. After the FEC publishes its figure, expected several months from now, we can change the number in the infobox and calculate the increase. Heitordp (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, we could also just cite both and leave a note that the sources uses different calculations. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It was suggested above that a "2020 United States presidential election riots" page be created – assuming that things play out like they did last time. As an apparent compromise, 2020 United States election protests was created to list a few broken windows. The basic premise of this page's existence is flawed. There cannot be true "protests" against/in response to the election until votes are counted and a winner is announced. Until then, this page clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. It should be merged to the aftermath section of this page. KidAd talk 08:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is missing a few templates. One sec. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that for merging, only two templates and a talk page discussion is needed so we are fine.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Protests are minimal right now, likely because there isn't a result to protest yet, as KidAd pointed out. The assumption that these will expand—which seems a central premise of the article—is unverifiable speculation. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 09:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed - Based on what I have read, there is 600+ people cited, at least 33 arrested with 8 for Seattle and 25 for New York (using the NPR citation), and the Oregon National Guard had to be called in. I would say that it sounds notable enough to have a standalone article for now. If anything, the only thing I currently would support is spinning some content from this article into an "Aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election" and merge the "election protests" article. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the precedent set by the existence of the Brooks Brothers riot page. There is no way that this this article can cover the election protests in a manner that would both satisfy the sourcing that currently exists and that satisfies WP:UNDUE, so it should be split off. I believe that these protests are almost certain to pass WP:10YT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "There is no way that this this article can cover the election protests" that's pure speculation on your part and even if there were a lot of protests that did happen, it doesn't necessarily mean that they need to be included. At this point it's best to adopt a wait and see approach. Merge the article for now, but reinstate it if something big happens. Flickotown (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Uhhh no, I’m saying that if we take coverage that already exists I do not see a way for this article to cover it properly, no speculation there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. There is nothing that is on that page that can't go (with proper citation and citations of course) into the "election protests" section of this one, which makes a lot of sense as the protests are confined to a handful of places and have by and large been peaceful, especially when compared to the George Floyd protests. But if anything serious happens comes of the protests (e.g. a killing) then we can reinstate it. Flickotown (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • User:KidAd Be bold and just merge it. Flickotown (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

    Perhaps being bold was okay before starting this discussion. But when it has been started with 2 opposes and 3 supports (counting the OP), clearly being bold was no longer on the table. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now Until/unless widespread protests develop, having a separate page for them is unnecessary. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion is probably going to be moot within a day or two when the results are finalized and it becomes more obvious that either (a) there are significant protests warranting an individual page or (b) there aren't significant protests and the pages should be merged. In other words, we will likely know more concretely whether the pages should be merged before this discussion will even be finished; and when that information comes out in a day or two, everything said here up to that point will be rendered useless by the new information. For me, this raises the question of whether discussion right now is productive, since the discussion may become meaningless quite soon. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Back in 2012, we had a situation like this regarding the NFL Referee strike. The 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game was put up for an AfD the day after the game for a claim of lack of notability. Initially, the arguments were over if it deserved a spot because of it being such a bad call and there were other bad calls that had been deemed notable enough to have articles. Then there was the politician threatening to ban replacement officials for sporting events a few hours prior being brought up, the NFL resuming talks with the NFL Referees Association that evening, and an agreement to end the lockout being reached the next day. The AfD was closed hours later with a note that merging discussion could be brought up later. (I already stated above my opposition to merging.) --Super Goku V (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• In order for my answer to not be too WP:CRYSTALBALL-y, I'll say this: if there's a lot more protests that will go on beyond this election, Oppose the merge, and if the article content remains this small with no expansion, Support the merge. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems like a sensible approach to me. As mentioned above, there's enough notability and sources that I'm inclined to say Oppose for now and see if the article expands in the near future. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Same here. If the relative size of this page to the main page stays as about now, support, otherwise oppose. BACbKA (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZE. Either keep the article where it is or place it up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The decision of whether or not to initiate the AfD process is contingent upon the results of this discussion. If the page was nominated for deletion, a winner was declared, and people actually started throwing bricks through Walmart windows and lighting things on fire, the page would likely be kept. Right now it seems a bit premature. No need to predict turmoil when little has occurred. KidAd talk 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge and draftify per WP:CRYSTALBALL Nojus R (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nojus R, How does CRYSTALBALL apply? The protests are ongoing, not planned. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Read the proposal:

  It was suggested above that a "2020 United States presidential election riots" page be created – assuming that things play out like they did last time. As an apparent compromise, 2020 United States election protests was created to list a few broken windows.

WP:CRYSTALBALL states the following:

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate.

The entire point of the article is a prediction.

Orcaguy (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Still disagree. Protests have already happened, so not understanding the speculation or future argument. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, this article is already huge, and there's plainly enough sources there to support a separate article. Additionally, while the protests are plainly being treated as significant based on the coverage (and therefore deserve an article), they are not a major part of the broader and much larger 2020 presidential election topic, which makes them more appropriate to cover separately. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. As mentioned, a handful relatively peaceful. Doesn't seem to warrant separate article. | MK17b | (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. Let's see what happens after a winner is called. If that results in massive nationwide protests, OK, we may need an article. Or maybe not. Recall that there actually were huge, days-long protests against the election of Trump in 2016, and all that activity is summarized in a few paragraphs at the 2016 election article. I favor the same thing happening here. Right now this amounts to small protests in a few cities, and so far only Portland (lucky Portland) seems to have had serious activities like damage to property. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge. There is presently little evidence that this is a distant event from the election. I would also recommend that we give more distinction to what is happening. There is a large group of pro-Trump protests, a minor group of pro-Biden protests, and a few riots in cities like Portland that seem to oppose anyone being elected president. These should be subdivided or described in detail, and a bullet point list is far less effective than what the article could be. Rioting has been damaging, but it does not affiliate so much with a side; the Trump protests are intending to stop vote counts and many groups are armed. Both of these are stories, but (a) they have different levels of importance, and (b) they are from different sides. Nevertheless, it is probably best to merge unless these protests start doing anything other than building upon the election info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PickleG13 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now it's best to not have to argue over inclusion of every thrown brick here; if there are substantial notable protests in the future the article will surely be kept separately, otherwise it can be selectively merged or deleted later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Appears you made a mistake with your vote. it's best to not have to argue over inclusion of every thrown brick here did you mean to say you support the merger? BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now can always delete later per Aquillion. First wait for announcement of actual winner, and if no significant protests post-announce, can merge. Albertaont (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support we have had a couple of days of these protests now and they've turned out to be....your run of the mill ones. The normal kind of stuff that, you know, goes with every election. Is there a reason why we acting like this article will be gone forever if it gets taken off? BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BCEVERYWHERE's point. I'll note that most of the votes above are prior to today's changes that trimmed the article to a bullet-pointed list. Reywas92^Talk 08:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Any protests are part of the larger overall election event. We have precedent to merge based off 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Protests.   Knowledgeable Raven Comments?  08:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. WP:CRYSTALBALL; the protests are currently not noteworthy enough to have their own article, and predicting them to be is pointless. If they do become noteworthy, the article can always be recreated again at some later point. Orcaguy (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any reason this wouldn't be included in the main article instead. Turning on the TV, I see much, much bigger crowds celebrating Biden's victory than those protesting - and I don't think that deserves an article either. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. These protests are merely part of the res gestae of the election, to borrow a legal expression. Frankly the only reason there are so many sources about them is that the media have been looking for things to talk about while the votes are being counted. Now that the election has been called, there's a real story to talk about.Lordrosemount (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now WP:HASTE and WP:NOTE. If the protests are as large and widespread as they were last time, it would be appropriate to make it its own page. But right now, they are small and localized. Additionally, the current article is mainly documenting arrests and groups with very few details. In my opinion, not enough detail is present to warrant a seperate article. Please call me Blue (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now I see that section vastly growing within the next few days. But currently it's too small. Neovu79 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The protests are clearly of a different scale than in 2016, and may yet rise to being comparable to 1968. It's not merely a difference of degree, it's a difference of type, especially given that they're being centrally pushed by right-wing leaders when the reverse was not the case in 2016 and prior. We can always merge later, but right now they're notable all on their own and seem likely to remain so. Denzera (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an unprecedented historical reaction (both protesting and celebrating) that warrants more attention rather than being merged into the main article. Scott218 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now Until the article meets it's criteria, it should be merged for now. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The reaction to Biden's victory has been unprecedented in an election where more Americans voted than ever before. Meets notability. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support – 2016 also saw protests, but those are included in other articles, not on their own page. Moreover, beyond simply listing every known instance of protests, the article offers no insights; it does not offer any explanation for the protests or background on the topic, so it fails to stand on its own. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - both articles are large, and merge would make reading and understanding more difficult to the casual reader. The protests are notable by themselves to justify the current stand-alone article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - 2020 article is already quite long without including coverage of protests - if included I'd probably argue to split the articles. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now Ytpks896 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - seems like the wisest option for now. Feudonym (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed - They seem to be growing by the day i would say keep the page. WoodLay (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The protests have had minimal to no impact, especially after the election was called. Unless something significant occurs, there's no reason to have separate pages. Darrenr72 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because the 2020 United States presidential election article is already huge and the 2020 United States election protests article is only going to continue growing in size. As per WP:SIZE, this is a merger I will not support. Quahog (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support — The article is too small to have its own page. Moving it to the main page would also make things more consistent and less confusing. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed There is too many separate sources and protests in the other article. Adding them to this article makes it unwieldy. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are enough sources on the protests to establish notability. There is no reason for them to become a footnote in the election article. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZE, for reasons already stated. AlexKitfox (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per now I agree with the prior sentiment that we can not predict whether these protests will be notable per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ HAL333 00:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Many of the so-called "protests" are actually just rallies by Trump supporters. There is always some degree of opposition to any election result, but these are not on the scale seen in 2016 and per WP:NOTABILITY therefore do not merit their own article. Vrrajkum (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. A reasonable sub-topic to be split out given the length of this article. --Jayron32 12:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose lower important topic to merge it. Even, There is no reason for them to become a footnote in the election article. As per WP:SIZE. 37.111.196.226 (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the great points mentioned above Leotext (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge or AfD Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. The riots that some feared did not happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge per WP:RECENTISM. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support If the protests get bigger and/or violent as the time goes on, I would say make a separate article. Right now, it just seems like a bunch of whiney Trump supporters. CaffeinAddict (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now but it depends on how big the merging article might get. There's a risk it could get quite sizeable if the protests/failure to acknowledge the result go on for weeks, in which case it would probably have to be spun out into a separate article. gbrading (ταlκ) 15:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now until Dec 14 wait at least until Dec 14 and the Electors vote, since that might spark even more protests. The article might get substantial, and it's easier to merge than to unmerge. It can be merged then if it's still small.Eccekevin (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per above. Protests will likely increase in the coming days due to recounts or suspected fraud or conspiracy theories. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Destroyeraa. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is already stupidly long. WP:LENGTH NateNate60 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I don't have any evidence of how elections are the same thing as protests. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support. This page needs a "Post-election events and controversies" section like in 2016 United States presidential election. Merging this article can be the start of that section. On the other hand, this article is already quite big, and I'm not sure if every protest is worth mentioning here. – Anne drew 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Considering that the worst of the protests probably hasn't hit yet, and that the protests are enough of an article themselves, I think that the articles should not be merged. - DG745 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I literally have heard no mention of protests for days now, User:DG745, let alone that they will increase. I'm sure there's some local something somewhere (there's always a protest singer, singing a protest song, near the parliament here ... along with the guy in the Spiderman costume) ... but do you have a reliable source for the anticipated increase in protests? Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a reason sub pages exist, sub pages make the entirety of articles better. I am always in favor of keeping sub pages if they provide more information. This subject is so important it needs it's own article, it's so long that if it gets merged all the juicy information will get removed. Stop the war on sub articles. Vallee01 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per DG475. SMB99thx my edits 05:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZE. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 08:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - These protests really seem to hit a different tone compared to the ones after the 2016 election. Love of Corey (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose The protests are happening on a large scale across the US. The media coverage is also significant. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral - It's 2016 all over again. Will there be a petition to convince Biden pledged electors to vote for another Democrat, on December 14? Will Republican House members attempt to stop certification of the electoral votes in the joint session of Congress, on January 6, ya know, the way Democrats attempted to do so against Trump, 4 years ago? Me thinks I smell payback for Russiagate. Not sure whether we should merge or not. How was it done in 2016? GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The page is little more than a timeline that could easily be reduced to a paragraph as part of the main article. Zerbey (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There will be too much information here. Bretwa (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge - I saw that the 2016 protests were merged into the 2016 elections article, so this should be a good idea. I'm with it. 2604:6000:130F:4FB6:9C15:CBFB:2A3A:AADA (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now - These protests were influenced by the election, so therefore they should be included into the article. I realise both articles are long and this is why I'm supporting the proposal for now. Balacachini (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
• Support - I get that there is a lot of information in the protest article, but it doesn't seem independently significant like the 2016 protests were. 68.100.41.71 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment there's already two articles which covers the material in this one (Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump) and there is no reason why a merger (of the material in the 2020 United States election protests article into the other two) can't happen. Flickotown (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think it makes sense to merge the two articles. At the very least, even if the protests are addressed within the election article, I think it still warrants having its own article. I've seen plenty of articles on Wikipedia where a subtopic is discussed within an article and then there's a hyperlink to the "main article" at the top of the subsection. I think that's what should happen here. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Clear WP:SIZE implications here. We need sections of this article split into new articles, not articles merging into this. The smaller article either needs to remain its own article, merge into some other article, or be deleted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree. 162.245.178.141 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge I don't see why they would be separate; there have been a distinct set of protests in the aftermath of the election, either in support of Joe Biden or Donald Trump. I don't see why these would be separate from the election page, considering these protests represent a microcosm of a lot of issues that have defined this election and the Trump Administration. (talk) 3:41 PM, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed--Dr. Pizza (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Vehemently oppose Not only would the merged article be HUGE (The election article alone is already the 30th longest article in the entire encyclopedia, merging would easily move it into the top 10), but this was proposed nearly three weeks ago, before any major protests had developed. Now, though, both side have held rallies outside the White House. It's pretty clear that this is very worthy of its own article. Perhaps, however, the article should be renamed to something like "Reactions to the 2020 United States Presidential Election". {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 07:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing would be merged, the article would just be deleted. Enough references from reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose There is enough WP:NOTE for the second article about protests and it can stand on its own. Avindratalk / contribs 04:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Unless and until something happens that requires a separate article. At the moment I am not really seeing it. I think the other article could safely be summarized here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main article is long enough as it is, and clearly there have been major protests, mostly by Trump supporters, protesting against the election outcome and process. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 05:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose + merge Stop the Steal into this article - The article needs to be expanded, but there's definitely been enough unrest to warrant its own article. For the sake of expansion, I think that it would be best to merge Stop the Steal into this article since they're heavily related. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 10:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main article is already ridiculously long. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is already way too long and that article already has enough information to stand on its own. Maybe compromise and put a link? Hollywood43ar (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support this article is too long, yes, but that entire article doesn't need to be copy+pasted into here. Much of that article is just nitpicking. "Oh look, 100 people made a protest somewhere, let's mention it" -- even if a RS covers it (feeding the viewers is their job in this cycle) it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Reality is, that article can be sumrised in a few paragraphs, and those few paragraphs would not add much bulk to this article. So I agree with the 10YEARTEST/NOTNEWS concerns above. Perhaps other stuff in this article needs splitting out, but this obviously isn't one of those things, and that shouldn't be a bar against this merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

KidAd is there a way to rename the International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election to Reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election and then merge the material from the 2020 United States election protests into the renamed article? I just simply don't get how an article that documents the international reactions to the Presidential election exist, but an article that should be about the domestic reactions to it doesn't. If anything it should be the other way around because the US Presidential election affects first and foremost the affairs of the United States. Flickotown (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Note this was discussed twice on Talk:2020_United_States_election_protests where it was strongly opposed.
  • Unsurprising you would say that since you are the creator of that article. Flickotown (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Flickotown, you created the last move attempt and only one other user supported a move out of twelve users. First, I believe that you should have waited until your last move request ended. Secondly, since it has now done so, I believe you should hold off on suggesting another move for at least two weeks so that some times passes to re-evaluate if a move is needed or not. Also, it does not matter if they created the article or not. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - Article is now over 400 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Jax 0677: FWIW, readable prose is 77KB (and you would want your !vote in the above section, outside of this "Discussion" session).—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

Remove the word "False" from "False claims of voter fraud".

The inclusion of "False" in this context is an opinion and a characterization which, while perhaps supported by many sources, is far from factual. It adds nothing to the article and leads the reader to believe this is an editorial rather than an encyclopedic article. Gregausman (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)— Gregausman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Repeating the same request over and over will not change the result. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just as repeatedly stating that an election was rigged doesn't make it true. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    • FWIW - Seems the "Big Lie" article (esp the related "CIA profile analysis") may apply here - iac - hope this helps - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)