Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Insufficient evidence vs. False, and how it is applied

Despite what the "journalistic" headlines say (using words like "false" or "lack of evidence"), the courts have rejected the cases for the vast majority based on standing, timeliness or insufficiency of evidence, rather than because of presented evidence being false or nonexistent.

For an encyclopedic article, I believe that claims about falsehood should be held to a high standard, not be a mere echo of journalistic opinion (unless the intention is to document the journalistic opinion, in which case it should be clearly noted as such). Unfortunately I don't think this article meets these standards. An example is the sentence that begins with "Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud." (issues: insufficient evidence does not equate to a false allegation, also the use of "subvert" which makes opinionated assumptions about intent and does not add factual information to "overturn"). An even worse example is found later in the paragraph, where "widespread" is not even mentioned: "The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress,[24] still continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by [...] spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud,[28][...]" (issue: election fraud is not a "conspiracy theory" but a historically well-documented fact, e.g., in the Heritage Foundation voter fraud database . The question about fraud in the 2020 election is not whether it happened but whether it was sufficiently widespread to influence the outcome, as indicated by the comments from AG William Barr in this same article [28]: attorney general William Barr told reporters that though he was “sure there was fraud in this election” it was not “systemic or broad-based”). An additional problem with this part of the sentence is that the cited source is a rather weak support of the statement itself (the article opens as an ad-hominem attack in its headline and first sentence, which denotes a debate/opinion intent, and using Sidney Powell as a significantly representative example of "The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress" is a stretch).

Certain newspapers may be acceptable as a reliable source of facts, but that does not automatically extend to opinion in those newspapers (which includes sections of a news article where the statements are not backed by the facts being reported). This is specifically covered in Wikipedia's examples of where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice WP:TRUTH. Q2 in the FAQ is based on the incorrect assumption that because a source considered reliable for news calls his statements false, it is acceptable to repeat that same claim in a Wikipedia article (with Wikipedia's voice), and should be removed.

Proposed improvement: Remove the opinion sections marked in bold above. Remove Q2 in this Talk page FAQ

--Ecrz (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a nonstarter. It is nonsense that courts only rejected the suits because of standing. Numerous judges have ruled that the accusations lack merit and have no evidence, as can be seen by looking at previous discussions of the issue. Wikipedia does not report conspiracy theories as if they might be true.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to even rely on what journalism or courts say to begin to gauge the falseness of the claims: simply compare what Trump and GOP lawyers say in court—where they're liable for committing perjury—to what they say at their staged events when cameras are rolling but they aren't under oath. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, they often have said "fraud" in front of cameras but "no fraud" under oath. Additionally, the editor is proposing things that go against Wikipedia's basic pillars, I mean, whether or not something is true in this situation isn't an opinion. The reliable sources are reporting a fact that these statements are incorrect. Even then, like others have said, the courts have also thrown out cases because the evidence is false or nonexistent, not just standing or timing. The word "false" should stay, per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would respectfully request that you read WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS (as well as what I wrote) in its entirety and refer to the full context, instead of cherry picking. Also WP:NOR is relevant, and I will reiterate WP:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If_it's_written_in_a_book,_it_must_be_true!"

I agree that Wikipedia should not report conspiracy theories as if they might be true, but that is very different from engaging in value-laden labeling, which is explicitly against WP:LABEL. This is what this article seems to be currently doing and I am proposing to remove. --Ecrz (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You have an incorrect and mistaken understanding of Wikipedia policy. We report the world as reliable sources tell us it is, and if reliable sources engage in "value-laden labeling," so do we. We report that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by al-Qaeda at the behest of Osama bin Laden, no matter that some people have different opinions. We report that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, regardless of the fact that some people disagree. I'm sorry that you disagree with the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, courts, and experts - but your disagreement isn't relevant to Wikipedia. We just don't care that you personally think it's wrong. Sorry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you have read the policy?, let me quote one of the pillar pages WP:WIKIVOICE: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.".

Both you and I may agree on the evil of genocide but facts should still be separated from opinion. If you prefer rewording every relevant sentence so that it indicates that it is an opinion, that would be a valid alternative. I did consider that as my initial proposal but when I looked at how it would further bloat the article it seemed to me that the reporting of those opinions is not that relevant to this article and it was much simpler to just eliminate the opinion parts. This may be just a matter of insufficient writing skill on my part, if someone writes something that looks good and separates facts from opinion I'm certainly open to supporting that change and withdrawing my proposal.

--Ecrz (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This isn't an opinion. The lack of systemic fraud is a fact. Joe Biden winning legitimately is a fact. Wikipedia reports facts. None of these are opinions. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see "lack of systemic fraud" or "Joe Biden winning legitimately" in the list of what I proposed to remove

--Ecrz (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Amend paragraph 4 by removing the parts indicated in bold:

Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states.[16][17][18] Attorney General William Barr and officials in each of the 50 states found no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the election.[19][20] Federal agencies overseeing election security said it was the most secure in American history.[21][22][23] The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress,[24] have still continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by filing dozens of legal challenges in several states with all but one minor case being withdrawn or dismissed by various courts,[25][26][27] spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud,[28] pressuring Republican state electors and legislators,[29] objecting to the Electoral College certification in Congress,[30][31] and refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition in what is described by some as an attempted coup.[32] On multiple occasions, Trump has refused to concede and falsely declared himself the winner.[33][34]

Declined, per numerous arguments above. ValarianB (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Historic objections, in Congress?

Will this be the first US presidential election results to be objected & debated in both Houses, thus holiding up a certification by the US Congress? GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that also happened in 2004. A senator and at least one congressperson objected to the certification of Ohio.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There have been disputes before (1816 and 1820) with the most significant until today in my opinion to be the lengthy 1876 issues that required weeks and the formation of a temporary commission to resolve. Due to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress now jointly meets rather that the House (somewhat inconsistently) doing the count. Since the passage of the ECA, there have been three disputes that are listed on that article (1968, 2004, and 2020). If you are looking for firsts then to what I know, this is the first time a lockdown has interrupted the certification and the first time someone was killed due to certification. I would suggest going to 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count or 2021 United States Capitol protests though. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

President Trump leading the rally turned violent domestic terrorism

I think that we need to include the fact that Trump spoke at the rally that turned violent and declared that he was leading the march. When he had the opportunity to call for peace and condemn violence, he told them to go home but that he loves them and that the election was stolen by forces of evil. He clearly stoked the flames.SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest going to 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count or 2021 United States Capitol protests give that they are the current events. A summary of those articles here could be fine. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the first thing that we can do is to also edit the final sentence of the section "Certification of Electoral College votes" into: "This action has been described as an attempted coup[646] and an act of domestic terrorism " Epicity95 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I like both of those ideas. I think that would adequately include the events while providing the wiki links to the larger articles that are no doubt going to continue to be updated.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Create a new section under Biden and Trump to read "Tallied Electoral Vote: " "Trump: 12" "Biden: 0" and increase the votes as Congress tallies each state. 2601:247:8280:4AE0:1041:DA6F:D212:7FDF (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and the electoral vote count is 306-232, as displayed already. There's a page at 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count that's more specific to today's events. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Note #639, 640, 642, 646 year typo

Please note that Note #646 refers to information of January 6, 2020. Should be 2021, n'est-ce pas? This also happens in Notes #639, 640 and 642. 2601:545:8201:6290:ED08:888E:D4C2:44FE (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done I think I caught all of them. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 08:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)

Change the following sentence in the lead:

"The presidential electors formally cast their votes for president and vice president on December 14, and their votes are currently being officially counted by Congress, which began on January 6, 2021."

to

"The presidential electors formally cast their votes for president and vice president on December 14, and their votes are currently being officially counted by Congress, in a session which began on January 6, 2021." Gust Justice (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 08:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Edit Request

Can someone fix the link to "John Kennedy" in the second paragraph of Section 7.13 of the article? President Kennedy has been dead for 5 decades already. The Kennedy referred to here is probably John Kennedy (Louisiana politician). 45.251.33.62 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 12:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump concedes

For what it's worth, Trump finally conceded a few minutes ago: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concedes-1.5865609

Dpm12 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't read into his words any implication. True, he described his legal actions in past tense and said "the new administration will be inaugurated on January 20". But what is to say the new administration won't be a second Trump administration? After his repeated insistence that he won the election, I would want a more explicit declaration, like "I lost" or "Joe Biden will be the next President". I doubt Trump is capable of giving such a statement without any string attached, but that's what a concession sounds like. If he never concedes, so be it. TroyVan (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (2)

In the lead section, after "and their votes were officially counted by Congress on January 6–7, 2021", remove the source "Hayes, Mike; Macaya, Melissa; Rocha, Veronica; Wagner, Meg (December 14, 2020). "Biden formally clinches Electoral College victory with California's 55 votes". CNN. Retrieved January 7, 2021.", currently citation #44. This source pertains to the Electoral College meeting to vote on December 14, 2020, and not the counting of the votes by Congress on January 6, 2021. TroyVan (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! The original post and updates to it were all published in the Dec 14-15 range concerning the Dec 14 casting of votes. I moved that citation to the appropriate location. TimSmit (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Conceded on January 7 not November 7 like stated. Change "November 7, 2021" to "January 7, 2021" Wais1412 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done It looks like another editor has made this change. Thank you. TimSmit (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Mississippi election results amended

Mississippi's election results were amended. The vote totals changed slightly.

https://www.sos.ms.gov/Elections-Voting/Pages/2020-General-Election.aspx

AJPEG (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (3)

Popular vote count in the infobox and in the Electoral results table in section Results do not match. Matroxko (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I synced the infobox value to show the referenced table values. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (3)

I have something to add: Can you please add a graph featuring arrows swinging left or right in states like 2016? Please. 2601:40A:8480:1750:C4CF:DC42:812E:45C4 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The post refers to File:Presidential Election Results Swing by State from 2012 to 2016.svg displayed at 2016 United States presidential election#Battleground states. I searched Commons and found File:2016 to 2020 swing by state.png but it only shows the swing and not what they actually got. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (as to the immediate edit request) - you will need to produce the graphic first, then reactivate the request here for review. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Signed Affidavid about US Embassy in Rome.

The Geller Report (A republic news network) posted a story about a signed affidavit from the US Embassy in Rome. Wanting to start a discussion about it as a signed affidavit is a major legal document and this one states a who, what, when, and how to an election fraud scheme. Here is the original report: https://gellerreport.com/2021/01/%f0%9f%9a%a8-sworn-affidavit-personnel-at-us-embassy-in-rome-engineered-voter-fraud-%f0%9f%9a%a8.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

A google search of "leonardo spa italy election fraud" brought up a decent amount of information about it, so IMO, it should be added (Probably one of the only true election fraud claims that will be on the article). Elijahandskip (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake, give it up. Not a reliable source.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: honestly, by that language, you appear to have a strong bias/opinion on this topic. Would maybe suggest not editing this article IMO. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a strong opinion about adding something "reported" by a known birther conspiracy theorist, yes. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with wp:RS before continuing this conversation. All of these so-called fraud claims have been swatted down in court. It's time to move on.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Without invoking Jesus of Nazareth's name, I agree that the source is not reliable, the affidavit is not believable, this is not sufficiently important to include in this article, and this is not sufficiently reliable to include in any article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd second the above comments, but also add that just because there is a source, that doesn't automatically make it reliable, accurate, or sufficiently notable per Wikipedia standards. Also, several senators, including longtime Trump-supported Lidnsey Graham, have said that the election is over, and that Biden and Harris will be inaugurated as has been traditional for years, once January 20 of this year rolls around. As far as Congress is concerned, the results have been recorded and accepted by majority vote. That majority vote in the Joint Session of Congress means it's over. Trump has offered the closest we are going to get to a concession speech. Wikipedia is not concerned as much with what might be true, including wild theories and accusations, but with what reliable sources say. And the reliable sources indicate that Biden and Harris will be inaugurated on January 20, at which time Trump and Pence will no longer be in control of the Executive Branch of the government. Wikipedia has reported that situation as being what it is, and with that in mind, that's more than enough said. Let it go, leave it be, and if that's problematic for anyone here, my recommendation is that such individuals create their own websites with their own regulated parameters to report whetever they think is being overlooked or ignored elsewhere. For Wikipedia purposes, it's long over. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal challenges still outstanding - New Mexico and other states experienced rampant fraud

Latest nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's premature to state that biden is anything other than a failed former vice president given the fact that new evidence is coming out almost daily. New Mexico, while it only has 5 electoral votes, has had serious problems with Dem drop boxes and fraudulent votes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMlzEUYo33s The case in New Mexico has yet to be adjudicated. As such, we cannot label the election as finished. Similar cases are being pursued in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Maine. Together with New Mexico, they account for 22 electoral votes. In fact, a Brooklyn judge has evidence that New York was won by President Trump, but through fraud, awarded to biden. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/nyregion/aaron-mostofsky-arrest-capitol.html If rampant fraud was found in these so-called blue states, than the argument that biden legitimately won red states like Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and the others doesn't hold water. There will be another Kraken soon - and we as editors need to be neutral and withhold labelling biden president. Morphoditie (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC) A YouTube video is rarely acceptable as evidence of anything on Wikipedia. The NY Times article actually says that the judge's SON, not the judge himself, is making the claims. The article also says "A spokesman for Mr. Mostofsky’s father declined to comment" and mentions "President Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud". Sorry, there's nothing there to support your claim. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

States carried, infobox

I thought we had reached a consensus that we Bold Biden's total, as DC was the tie-breaker. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see why anybody cares, as the raw number of states carried means exactly nothing. --Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mistake in Voter Demographics section

In the [Voter Demographics] section it states Biden increased the Democratic percentage among white men without college degrees from 42% to 48%. It should read that the GOP margin among those voters dropped from 48% to 42%, as indicated by the Brookings citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:2340:341F:E778:8E40:342F (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Section "Election delay suggestion"

The article currently contains the following section:

In April 2020, Biden suggested that Trump may try to delay the election, saying that Trump "is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can't be held". On July 30, Trump tweeted that "With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history" and asked if it should be delayed until people can safely cast ballots in person. Experts have indicated that, for the election to be legally delayed, such a decision must be undertaken by Congress. Several legal experts noted that the Constitution sets the end of the presidential and vice-presidential terms as January 20, a hard deadline which cannot be altered by Congress except by constitutional amendment.

References

I would suggest removing this: it's about something that didn't happen and the article is fairly long as it is.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because something did not happen, it does not mean it is not relevant or due. The attempted coup by Trump et al. also failed but that does not mean we remove it just because it did not succeed. The election delay suggestion seems to be pertinent to the 2020 United States presidential election, so we would need much stronger reasoning than what you just proposed. Davide King (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If it's relevant to other actions, then it can be mentioned, at less length, there. As it is Trump tweeted about it and Biden said he thought Trump would do it, but it's a counterfactual at this point and thus not particularly important on its own.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump did suggest delaying the election. This is easily proven and was reported as an unprecedented suggestion. It was one of the attacks by the president on the election and is relevant to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I never said that he didn't say that. My only point is that it probably doesn't deserve it's own section. Trump has said a lot of things, most of which don't end up happening.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Move nomination process to another article.

The article is bloated right now and moving the nomination process elsewhere would help condense. A Tree In A Box (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The entire primaries section and the aftermath could be split out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Those are both worthy of an article in their own right. Some of the background information can probably be trimmed as well. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

They are elsewhere, what is there now is just a summary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the U S Congress has already confirmed the results of the Presidential Election as certified by the Electoral College, all the superfluous [difficult to determine what to remove and what to paraphrase especially in paragraph 1] data in this overbloated article should be shifted to form separate articles. Wiki editors from the U S are best qualified to do this, is my firm belief as they have all kind of information at their fingertips as well as rapidly updating news sources. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There are articles for the Democratic Party's primary elections and the Republican Party's primary elections, but not an article for all the primary elections of 2020 as a whole. An article of the nomination process of all general election candidates would be somewhere in between the level of detail on this article and on those for each party's primary election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The nominations section is relatively short, and the nominee boxes and primary results to display there were settled by this RfC. The article length can't be used as a reason to ignore that consensus and remove the boxes for Jorgensen and Hawkins. I don't think the nominations section is a good candidate for trimming the article for the following reasons: there's a strong consensus on what information to include, the decision on which candidates to include is controversial, it's relatively short, and the nominee boxes are so essential to a presidential election article that you're just going to end up with a WP:CFORK. General election campaigns, Results, and Aftermath would be better targets for reducing the article's bloat. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of that RfC was to remove vote totals, not to keep or add any content relating to the nominations. If you would prefer other sections be split, please start those sections or act WP:BOLDly yourself. If you believe the nominee boxes are essential to this article, we can retain the split of the nominations section but also include the nominee boxes in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, I object to this being used as a reason to remove the boxes for Jorgensen and Hawkins from this page. What makes you think you can remove their boxes and leave only those for Biden and Trump? You can't just blank their candidacies from this page in the name of making the article shorter. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, the text on the Libertarian and Green nominations is already very minimal. There are just two sentences on the Libertarian ticket. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

hat makes you think you can remove their boxes and leave only those for Biden and Trump? I didn't. I moved the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green nominee boxes to another article, as part of the entire nominations section. Another editor restored the Republican and Democratic nominee boxes. You can check the edit history yourself. As most of the section was about the Democratic and Republican nominations, most of the reduction in size was by moving the Democratic and Republican nominations, so it's ridiculous to claim that I targeted the Libertarian and Green parties. I have no issue with retaining nominee boxes for the Libertarian and Green parties. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, okay. This was the state of the article when I restored the section, and you are the one who objected to me doing so, so I got the wrong idea. Sorry. I think we should keep all the nominee boxes and some bare-bones text above each, including the couple sentences above the Libertarian and Green boxes. Those just state the nominees and ballot access, which is essential information. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: If you self-revert, I will add/restore the Libertarian and Green nominee boxes to the article, as they are currently on my sandbox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, okay. Are you okay with keeping a small amount of text over each box? We could keep the existing Libertarian and Green paragraphs, and reduce those over the Republican and Democratic boxes to a similar length. I think brief statements of candidacies and ballot access are the bare minimum of what should be included for the nominations section of an election article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am okay with keeping a small amount of text over each box. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, self-reverted. Sorry for the assumption of bad faith. This election has been so crazy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I accept your good faith and acknowledge your co-operation. I have placed the nominee boxes for the Libertarian and Green candidates on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, transcluding these sections would reduce the size of this article and prevent some WP:CFORK issues. I've done it already for the Libertarian and Green tickets. What do you think? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The content is fine, but I am strongly opposed to transclusion in this case. We can conform to WP:Summary style and retain those sentences without transcluding. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, okay, I don't have strong feelings about it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

The following text should be removed, as it is now after January 6th:

Other disruptions are not expected until January 6, 2021, when one or more Republicans in the House of Representatives are expected to challenge the electoral vote from several swing states. Any challenge can only be debated if it is signed by both a representative and a senator, and it is only accepted if approved by both houses of Congress, which is extremely unlikely, given that the House of Representatives has a Democratic majority.[486] Additionally, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recognized Joe Biden as the president-elect and reportedly discouraged Republican Senators from joining objections to states' electoral votes.[487] In late December 2020, some Republican members in Congress were reported to be considering such an effort nonetheless.[488][489][490] 126.199.213.78 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at rewriting the paragraph, and included references from the day in question. I welcome any further improvements in this direction. Thanks for catching this one. --Jayron32 19:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate conviction contingency

Hi everyone. I've thought of something I'd like to be prepared for. In the unlikely case that the Senate both fast-tracks the impeachment trial and votes to convict Trump, Pence will become president for a few days. If that were to happen, would an article for his presidency be needed? Personally, I wouldn't think so; I think it could just go in Pence's article, similarly to how William Henry Harrison's presidency is covered. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Quite unlikely indeed ;). No, I think a subsection on Pence's page would be fine, unless there is something eminently noteworthy that happens during those hours. (I am thinking like a mass resignation of a Cabinet, some military instability, etc.) No indications that there will be any considerable fanfare, even if he does become president - so I'd say no for now, but open to it should there be anything noteworthy. That being said, if anyone does make the article, I would be fine with it: That's not my preference, but I am open to either. Urve (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Obvious date - am I missing something?

I changed the first sentence: The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. to The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3., saying that the year is obvious. But taking a look at other presidential election articles, this practice seems to be the norm. Is there some convention or decision I am unaware of? I think saying that the 2020 election was held in 2020 is unnecessary, but I don't want to go through a bunch of articles to make this change in case I am going against long-standing practice or consensus. I don't see anything in this talk page, so I wanted to leave a comment asking. Urve (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I tried to see if it is a standard of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, but I didn't find much. I did just pick a related article and that also includes the year. Maybe it is an overall policy like WP:MOSNUM? Personally, I am unsure. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Biden's 51.3% was the largest percentage of the popular vote won by any challenger since 1932."

The introduction paragraph states that Joe Biden's 51.3% of the popular vote "was the largest percentage of the popular vote won by any challenger since 1932.", this could be misleading and lead people to believe he had won the largest percentage of the popular vote since 1932. The term "challenger" caught me off guard at first because I did not realize that it meant challenging an incumbent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmsch (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, that sentence should probably be removed from the lead. While interesting, it is not a particularly important fact and we should not be weighing the lead section down with trivia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

As a non-American, but fairly well-informed on the USA's obscure and convoluted electoral process, I know that figure plays no part in that process, but it's important to me as an indication of the swing in popular opinion in the country over the past four years. Elections tell us a lot more than simply who won. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's incredibly misleading and also incorrect. Barack Obama received a higher percentage of the popular vote in 2008. "Challenger" doesn't mean opposing an incumbent. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that challenger does imply running against an incumbent. If there is no incumbent running, there is no one to challenge.--Khajidha (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition of the word "challenger" is "a person who engages in a contest.". Every election is a contest between candidates, regardless of whether they are an incumbent. Respectfully, I disagree and I believe the term "challenger" ought to be specified or the sentence be removed. Benmsch (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A couple of days go I changed it to say "challenger to an incumbent." marbeh raglaim (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Another definition of challenger is "someone who tries to win a competition, fight, or sports event from someone who has previously won it". The change made by marbeh raglaim, however, removes any problem. --Khajidha (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's also not that interesting when you realize that since 1932, it's only happened two other times that a sitting president was defeated. Saying "Most of three occurrences" is not interesting phrasing. Saying "Biden was only the third challenger to defeat an incumbent President since 1932" is far more significant than saying it the other way. --Jayron32 16:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

I would like to request that all instances of "CDS" in the "Debates" section of this article be changed to "CPD".

The commissions name is the "Commission on Presidential Debates" This is established in the first sentence in the "Debates" section. The use of "CDS" appears to be a typo. 216.230.45.118 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathematical odds of ratio transfer between districts.

YouTube videos of random people's livestreams are not reliable sources, and thus are irrelevant to this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is no math in this article yet but I would like it to include reference to the phenomenal odds involved in these Biden victories, in particular those in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Analysis of data has been livestreamed over the weeks and warrants inclusion in the article. This election had obvious inconsistencies and they *must* be addressed in order to present a Neutral Point Of View. 124.169.150.131 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible overuse of negative connotations relating to Donald Trump's allegations of voter fraud

Donald Trump's allegations of mass voter fraud are false. However, the page is filled to the brim with words such as "false", "insufficient evidence", and "repeatedly claimed". Yes, these words are true. However, the overuse of these words can be irritating and is bordering on overkill. These extra words are not very useful as they are all over the article, and removing them would streamline it. This is not necessary, however, it would definitely improve the article (in my opinion).--Foxtail286 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources don't hold back on using those words. Nor should we. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with the above comment, FWIW. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The same terms can and should be applied to biden, since he is actively accused of being the ringleader in the fraud committed against President Trump. Morphoditie (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean that there was actually voter fraud? I'm not going to actively attempt to change your opinion, I would just like to know.--Foxtail286 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless a more reasonable explanation as to how the votes received by Biden far outpace not only the number of registered voters but total population in some counties. Not to mention the fact that there were videos of ballots being shifted... WWG1WWA2021 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WWG1WWA2021, since none of what you said actually happened, there's no explanation necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As there was only 45,000 votes in it, any fraud would not need to be "widespread" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Those 45,000 votes were spread over several states. So, yes, it would have to be wide spread.--Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion criteria

Hello, I'm not asking for any changes to be made, but I'm wondering what the criteria for inclusion in the infobox are, and if I could get a link to the relevant guideline? (I can't seem to find it myself). Thanks, Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 09:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the convention is to include all candidates which got at least 5% of the popular vote or won an elector. Gust Justice (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the second criterion is carrying a state, rather than winning an elector. Votes from faithless electors don't count. Jah77 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that winning an elector is the proper criterion, as it is possible to win electors without winning a state. A candidate could win one district in Maine (and its elector), but lose the state overall. The same goes for Nebraska. --Khajidha (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe there's still a consensus that faithless electors don't count. We don't put John Hospers in the infobox for 1972, or Faith Spotted Eagle for 2016. Jah77 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's implicit in the term "winning" an elector. The electors from Maine and Nebraska's congressional districts are won separately from those for the state as a whole. So, carrying a state and winning an elector are not equivalent. --Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus comes from a talk page discussion of the prior election. If you scroll up to the top of the talk page, you will see a large amount of talk page templates. The various consensus ones were put after the section size template and the daily viewpages template. (If you wish, just put the following text in green into the browser search box, Consensuses reached for the 2012 and 2016 elections apply) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Source for popular vote in info box is not visible

As the title says. It took me half an hour and digging through the source code to finally find this: "This number matches the table of results by state further down in the article. If you wish to use a different number, cite a source here."

Proposal

Add a footnote next to "Popular vote" or the numbers saying something like:

Number matches the table of results by state further down in this article. Total will be updated with figures from the Federal Election Commission when available.

The 2016 United States presidential election cites a source for their data which is quite helpful. I think adding a footnote would make the info more verifiable.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Good suggestion, thanks. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Election Night Section

Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 reads as follows:

Shortly before 2:30 a.m. EST, Trump made a speech to a roomful of supporters, falsely asserting that he had won the election and calling for a stop to all vote counting, saying that continued counting was "a fraud on the American people" and that "we will be going to the U.S. Supreme Court."

An unofficial transcript of Trump's speech reads as follows:

This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. Okay? It’s a very sad moment. To me this is a very sad moment and we will win this. And as far as I’m concerned, we already have won it.

The transcript says Trump stated "we want all voting to stop." The transcript does not indicate he called for a stop to all vote counting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowlege2020 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The part about "add them to the list" is about vote counting. --Khajidha (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I infer the meaning of those two statements together indicate that he did not want votes made cast after the deadline not to be added to the list.

However, he did send out at least one tweet on Twitter that read: STOP THE COUNT! I am merely I do not draw the statement "and calling for a stop to all vote counting" I gathered he called for all voting to stop and expressed a desire for any ballots found at 4:00 a.m. not to be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowlege2020 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The phrase, "after the deadline" does not make sense since each state sets the cutoff time for votes, with some states having more than one cutoff and some places extending their cutoff due to issues on Election Day. (To note, there is at least 64 deadlines overall.). Regardless, all states had concluded their voting at that time, so there is only one way for his words to be taken, which is how sources took it.

Additionally, regarding Trump's words on the day after the election, I believe he talked for about 20 minutes. While that transcript above should be accurate, I do not believe that it is everything he said. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What is important for me is how the sources interpreted the phrasing, which, to my understanding, is why the sentence reads as it does; the sources contend that Trump called for all vote counting to stop. Przemysl15 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The in person votes cast on election day were basically all counted by then, running totals were given as the day went on. Just about the only things being counted at that point were the early votes and the mail in votes, the counting of which could not legally start until election day or even the day after depending on the state. --Khajidha (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you what you mean and agree that the underlying meaning of the totality of his statements indicate a desire to stop all vote counting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowlege2020 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

New image

I've noticed that President Biden's photo has been updated on his own page, should we add a new image for the election page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monokamui (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: The photo currently in use matches Trump's better, and was the most recent official portrait of Biden at the time of the election. It's also higher-quality than the new one, which isn't even an official portrait. In the new one, Biden is not facing the camera or smiling, like he and Trump both are in the current photos. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support If there are new images which is fitting with Wikipedia's image policy, then it is not a problem to change a new one. I think we can find new images that is fitting with template. -- Wendylove (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support It is a portrait from the White House. The same was done in the 2016 page (evidence) when Trump had his portrait posted (not an official one may I add then-portrait on Trump's main page briefly in 2017) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - we should not be illustrating the election article with a portrait from after the election. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Khajidha says, there is value in keeping the picture synchronised with the election discussed in the article. We have precedent in all the other election pages that try to use a contemporaneous photo of each candidate even when they run in many consecutive elections over the course of their career. I would, however, nudge editors looking for a better picture to find one from 2019 or 2020. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Just as TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · contribs) said, pictures can be updated after the election takes place. In fact, almost all previous US presidential election infobox pics of the winner are "official presidential portraits" taken after the winner has entered office. We don't see Obama's Senate portrait on the 2008 election page, nor do we see Clinton's gubernatorial portrait on the 1992 election page. It seems pretty standard to do the same here. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  AwesomeSaucer9, what is the actual argument in favor of doing this, though? It being done on other pages doesn't really tell us anything. That's an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  So, because OTHER pages are lying to the reader, we should do the same here? Um... no. --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The photo used should be one that was current at the time of the election, not futuristic one that didn't exist yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. See this discussion. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 00:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Thanoscar21: I’m pretty sure this discussion might be outdated since this, if not an official portrait will be uploaded after the matter. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  TDKR Chicago 101, the dates are from the 23rd to today. Eventually, the official portrait will come. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 12:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriousness of primary opposition

The current version of the article mentions that "Trump secured the Republican nomination without serious opposition", a claim that doesn't match common sense given that Bill Weld and Mark Sanford are former Governors and that Mark Sanford and Joe Walsh are former US Representatives. It doesn't have an inline source, which is normal for statements in an article intro. However, the claim is not repeated anywhere else in the article, nor does the article's sole source pertaining to the Republican primary say anything about the seriousness of the opposition. Accordingly, it seems best to remove it. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine to remove as it is subjective. They were "serious" people in terms of their resumes, but they had no "serious" chance of actually winning the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems especially nitpicky. You could define Harold Stassen (former MN Gov) as a "serious" opposition to President Reagan in 1984 on these grounds. While the term "without serious opposition" may seem vague and subjective, it does fit a consensus reading of the history of incumbent presidents who sought reeleection, where, say, 1980 and 1992 were considered to have serious opponents, but 1972, 1984, 1996, etc. didn't even though there were relatively prominent people in those years who ran and challenged the sitting president's renomination. marbeh raglaim (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

marbeh raglaim I guess I wouldn't disagree with calling Harold Stassen's 1984 opposition serious as a matter of consistency in how we treat the resumes of challengers. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Serious opposition" means opposition that is perceived as having a realistic chance of affecting the outcome. How "serious" the candidates are or how they performed in some unrelated past election is beside the point. Is there a single reliable source out there that would describe Weld's, Sanford's or Walsh's campaigns as viable, or the outcome of the Republican primary as anything other than a foregone conclusion? If not, then Trump did indeed secure the nomination without serious opposition. Jah77 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Bias is ok or not

First, let me say that Trump is a jerk.

The lede says

Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing...

That's a little opinionated. Does WP want to be slightly left of center? Fine with me if that's what people want but WP is currently supposed to be neutral.

In 2016, the Democrats had a similar complaint but it was "not my president" and that Trump colluded with the Russians. In the 2016 election article, there's no wording like "baseless or false claims that Trump colluded" but in this article it says "subvert".

I am not going to make an edit about this because I do not want to be called a Trump stooge. I am not even American. He's an idiot. However, it should be fixed.Vanny089 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Subvert" is definitely opinionated and not specific, and Wikipedia has struggled with this. Reliable sources are factual but often non-neutral in their assessments of Donald Trump. We should be able to remove the part of the sentence saying they attempted to subvert or overturn, and simply say that they alleged election fraud, attempted to hinder postal ballots, and whatever else we can specifically say they did. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It is the job of Wikipedia editors to summarize what reliable sources say. When I do a Google News search on the string "trump subvert election", I see lots of coverage in reliable sources that say that Trump tried to subvert the election. Other sources say he tried to overturn or overthrow the election. So, unless you can bring forward reliable sources that say that Trump actually did not try to subvert, overturn or overthrow the election, then the wording should remain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Because of ratings, more American news sources are not as reliable because they add commentary. Fox News was the first, though MSNBC followed. Later, CNN followed. CBS and ABC partly followed. Vanny089 (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Searching the string "trump subvert election" in Google News returns such articles as this Politico article which claims he tried to subvert the election in the headline, as well as other articles from Aljazeera, WaPo, NYT and MSNBC, that claim he attempted to subvert the election in the body. As these are all generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources, I agree with User:Cullen328 and find the use of WP:Google by said user acceptable. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the statements by User:Vanny089, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources has Fox News being reliable for all things not related to politics or science, and MSNBC and CNN as generally reliable, so I do not believe your opinion coincides with general Wikipedia practices. That said, I could see that line of argument being used to attempt to change that consensus, although I personally would not, at this moment, go and argue that myself at that page. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the type of country we live in now, where reality and facts are now considered "slightly left of center". Dpm12 (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

How is "subvert" opinionated? Subvert means "undermine the power and authority", Trump was specifically trying to undermine the authority of the election results. --Khajidha (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems like one of those "inconvenient truths". "Subvert" is well-supported by reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPTALK you are not allowed to blurt out phrases like "Trump is an idiot" or "Trump is a jerk". Future comments of this sort are likely to be reverted.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's easy to get side-tracked into debates about whether Trump was right or wrong in this instance. Actually, the debate should be about the connotations of a word. Is the word "subvert" overly emotive/opinionated? Is there a word that describes these actions, which is also sourced, with a less emotive/opinionated connotation? Do we really need this part of the sentence at all or could it be reduced simply to "overturn the results"? These are really the only issues that matter here and you can debate them without it being specifically about Trump. It's not sufficient to simply link to a source (the New York Times, USA Today and Buzzfeed are the sources given in the article) to justify the use of this word. There are countless words that have been used by credible sources to describe what happened so this in itself doesn't present a case for choosing the word "subvert". For instance, here is a BBC article that uses the word "annul". Here is a Bloomberg article that uses the word "invalidate". We could go through this process forever but only one (or two) words can be used in the article - the question is which one is the best in terms of tone. I'm not in a position to resolve that debate, but I do think this is the path people need to go down here if there are concerns over the word appearing emotive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.24.200.63 (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Please add the following section to the results section for consistency with other election pages:

Counties

Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Democratic)

1. Washington, D.C. 92.15%
2. Prince George's County, Maryland 89.26%
3. Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota 88.41%
4. Petersburg, Virginia 87.75%
5. City of Baltimore, Maryland 87.28%

Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Republican)

1. Roberts County, Texas 96.18%
2. Borden County, Texas 95.43%
3. King County, Texas 94.97%
4. Garfield County, Montana 93.97%
5. Glasscock County, Texas 93.57% 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary?

On the infobox it says the preliminary turnout was 66.7%. I think now it's official. Should we change it? TheRescuerFromLeftistBias (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for definitive results? --Aréat (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The FEC has just released its compiled results:[2] The results shown in article can now be updated with this source, replacing the individual sources by state. Note that some numbers for some states are slightly different. However, this FEC report still does not contain a turnout estimate, which should be available in a full report later.[3] Until then the article should still show the turnout as preliminary based on the unofficial source. Heitordp (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ballot access table

@Tartan357: You removed Kanye West from the ballot access table, saying that "It makes no sense to list candidates here without the mathematical possibility to win, even with write-in ballot access taken into account. Every voter in the country could've written West in, and he still wouldn't have won the election." This is not exactly true. If West had won in every state where he was a candidate, no candidate would have won the electoral college, and the election would have been decided by the House, which could have chosen West. In fact, this was Evan McMullin's strategy in 2016. Having access to most of the electoral college is not an absolute requirement to be elected president. In theory, a candidate could even be elected president without any ballot or write-in access at all, due to faithless electors. These scenarios are extremely unlikely of course, but so is a minor candidate winning the electoral college. I also find it inappropriate to remove West from the table because he had much more media coverage and more votes than some of the other minor candidates, despite having less ballot access.

You also simplified the footnote from "Other candidates were listed on ballots of more than one state and were listed on ballots or were write-in candidates in states representing most of the electoral college" to "Other candidates were listed on ballots of more than one state and were write-in candidates in states representing most of the electoral college". This is not exactly correct either. Except for Brian Carroll and Jade Simmons, these candidates had access to most of the electoral college when combining ballot plus write-in access, not by write-in alone. Heitordp (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Item 1:

Of course the House (in the event of no Electoral College majority) or faithless electors could have elected whomever they wanted. However, West was not eligible to win the election by earning pledged electoral votes in state popular vote contests, which are what ballot access pertains to.

Item 2:

I see your point, and you can go ahead and change that back. I really just wanted to get rid of the awkward and arbitrary "in most states" clause that seemed formulated just to include West despite him not having access to 270 electoral votes. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, I'd be willing to support getting rid of everyone without ballot access to 270 electoral votes (so, everyone below Hawkins) per WP:DUE. I can't support any solution that involves putting Kanye in that table, though. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've re-read the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and I see your point about the election restricting the candidates the House could choose to the top three electoral vote winners. However, if we were to add everyone who was eligible to come in third in the electoral college, we'd have to add every candidate with write-in access in just a single state, which would be very WP:UNDUE. So, we need to have a criterion for inclusion in the table that is reasonably exclusive (I made it access to 270 electoral votes, which seems intuitive). ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, we can keep the current criteria since it's about ballot access. I'll just change the note. Heitordp (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent date format

@Tartan357: the first sentence of the article says the election "held on Tuesday, November 3," however, in the third paragraph, the date is shown as "morning of November 7." Why is the day of the week provided for the day of the election, but not for reporting the results? Readers know the election was on Tuesday, and they could easily visualize the delay, if told the results became available on Saturday, without the need to refer to a calendar. I do not see where MOS:DATE forbids including the day of the week. Comfr (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comfr, I don't feel too strongly about this, so you can change it back if you want. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The election was held on November 3, when the polls closed. The results weren't fully known until November 7. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:EGG

@EditorRock: Please explain why you reverted—with a minor edit mark and no edit summary—my removal of an easter egg piped link. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: The references listed here mention coup in a generic sense. A vast number of academics and historians have described it as a specific type of coup, the "self-coup," based on multiple factors. If you click through to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup, you'll see this particular case listed there with a minimum of 2 references, although many more can be provided if needed. To keep the link routed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat would be an error of misinformation. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorRock (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

EditorRock, my concern is MOS:EGG, not whether the term "self-coup" is appropriate. You've piped the link to display "coup" but link to self-coup. This is an unacceptable Easter egg link. The link needs to say self-coup or coup according to what the sources say. It can't be piped the way you've piped it. And the sources cited on it all say "coup". ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Well, then some additional references may need to be added to this paragraph for complete accurate information. Feel free to change it back to coup until the necessary references are added to correct it with self-coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorRock (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

EditorRock, thanks. Please indent and sign your talk page comments. See WP:THREAD for help. Pings only work if the comment is signed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

NH results off by small margin

Hi all- The results for NH on this main page seem to be off by a very small (<20) number of votes. The 2020 United States presidential election in New Hampshire page has what I believe to be the accurate state-level tallies for NH for all candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:845:C200:BB60:5982:407:E3B3:2923 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The results on this main page are based on the compilation by the FEC, which matches the NH certificate of ascertainment. The page on the NH election cites the results from the NH SOS website, which has slightly smaller numbers. For consistency, and to match the national totals from the FEC, it's better to use the same FEC source for all states on this main page. If desired, the page on the NH election could be changed as well. Heitordp (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

VP election statement - slightly misleading wording

"Biden became the second former vice president, after Republican Richard Nixon in 1968, to be elected to a first term as president, and the first Democrat to do so"

Understanding that the use of "former" clears this statement from being specifically inaccurate, it also leads to some confusion regarding VPs who have followed into being President.

This statement should possibly be amended to read: "Biden became the second former vice president, after Republican Richard Nixon in 1968, to be elected to a first term as president *that did not follow their own term as Vice-President*, and the first Democrat to do so."

As John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George H.W. Bush were all "former" Vice Presidents who became President (albeit, elected while still VP).

As the Vice President takes the Oath of Office before the President does on Inauguration Day, being completely technical - every Vice President who becomes President is a "former" Vice President (for about 2 or 3 minutes!) 2601:8C3:4002:67C0:75C5:7611:AC02:D726 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The usage of "former" cannot be accurately applied to Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, or George H. W. Bush, because they were still technically the Vice Presidents at the time they were each elected as President. The argument raised above might apply to the question of each of these men on the days of their inauguration, but this article is covering the process of a specific election. Throughout Biden's campaign, and until he was formally elected as President, he was correctly termed a former vice president. That being said, it might be helpful to acknowledge that Richard Nixon was the last man to be elected as president several years after concluding his vice presidential term. That's just my opinion, but I would defer to the consensus on both matters. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but technically, incumbents who took office after the death of their predecessor, like Lyndon B. Johnson, Harry S. Truman or Theodore Roosevelt, were also former vice presidents. Jah77 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

But they weren't elected to a first term as president. marbeh raglaim (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm for removing this line entirely, the amount of technicality the phrase needs to be right makes it prime for removal imo. Przemysl15 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

replace Biden's photo with this one "File:Portrait of United States President Joe Biden.jpg" 2601:154:4080:1660:6883:DB19:A48D:1FE1 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Decimals

The source foe the results use two decimals. I don't see the point of rounding it up. If one feel so, rounding it up mentally is an easy task. On the other hand, it's not possible to unround it without knowing the number. --Aréat (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I support 2 decimal rounding if it is what in in the sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I also support two decimals because it's what the source uses. The articles on previous elections used one decimal but we can change it from now on. Heitordp (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Electoral map

Why has the main image not been moved to File:ElectoralCollege2020.svg? All states have long certified the results, the electoral college has voted, and the votes have been counted. Have people just not got around to it yet or is there some other reason? AveryTheComrade (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Vietnamese American voters

I removed the claim that "Donald Trump flipped Westminster, California from blue to red due to support from Vietnamese American voters" because the cited source did not contain that claim and I could not find one that did. Gershonmk (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Minor Party Candidates

Could we remove Jo Jorgenson and Howie Hawkins from the lead section? Neither had singnificant attention during the race ad distract from the focus of the paragraph. 2600:1702:D90:29A0:6DAC:6EC3:EE3B:DFCB (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Their nominee boxes are in the article, so it is appropriate to mention them in the lead. A single sentence shared by both candidates is already very little, and is WP:DUE for the amount of coverage they (especially Jorgensen) received. There was previously a long discussion on whether to keep their nominee boxes that ended in no consensus for removal. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Question of third parties

What are the requirements for a third-party candidate to reach an election page? I have noticed that Ross Perot was on 1992 and 1996 with 18.9% and 8.4% of the popular vote respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdude gamer (talk • contribs) 13:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Xdude gamer, it's 5% of the popular vote to be in the infobox, per this consensus. Thanks for asking! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Please change "inciting insurrection at the United States Capitol" to "allegedly inciting insurrection at the United States Capitol" 2001:569:FA6A:8C00:685F:E1C6:5133:A6E5 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia's content follows reliable sources, many of which state unequivocally that Trump incited the riot. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this not a violation of WP:BLPCRIME? There are problems with the sources used in the article to support this claim anyway (two of the three being liveblogs with no evidence of editorial oversight or factchecking) but that's probably not relevant. Urve (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that the new, suggested language with "allegedly" is more neutral. It's also more true to the process, since he was technically acquitted (yes, I realize the vote is very political). PrairieKid (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing it per WP:BLPCRIME but it's a borderline case. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Congressional district map

I made the congressional district map in the default style and with complete results: File:2020_presidential_election,_results_by_congressional_district_(popular_vote_margin).svg. Would be great if someone could replace the one in the article with it. ―Abssch (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Done! Przemysl15 (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

All errors should be fixed now, I think. -Abssch (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

I was reverted on my addition of "allegedly" per the above discussion. Since I fail to understand revert policies -- it must be congenital -- feel free to discuss here. Of course, I think removal is a BLPCRIME violation, but not enough to revert on sight. Urve (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)