Talk:Trump fake electors plot/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

POV Template

Noting: I added the POV template only because the main (and at the time of adding only) contributor has recently been involved in numerous political articles and political AfDs. I have also been involved in political articles, so I do not feel I am able to fully say it was wrote in a neutral POV. I would like for an editor, who hopefully hasn't wrote/participated in political articles recently, to go over the article and double check everything is in a neutral POV. If it is, please remove the template. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Elijahandskip: How does the fact that I have recently been involved in numerous political articles and political AfDs give rise to a POV concern? Have you spent time reading this article to identify specific concerns before instantly tagging it with a presumption of POV? soibangla (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

::As I stated, I do not feel like I could say it fully NPOV, so all I tagged it for was to have an editor that hasn't been doing political articles ensure it is neutral. Also, the comment I mentioned from the most recent AfD on your talk page is one reason I am wanting someone who doesn't edit political articles make sure it is NPOV. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag because you've said it was added to grossly talk-about-the-other-editor, not because you want to talk about improving the article for any alleged neutrality problems. If someone decides there is content at issue, sure they can put it back up with a link to a discussion thread that obeys our WP:P&G plus the Arbs ruling on US politics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how an editor who gave a barnstar to the sole contributor came in for the defense. Well, hopefully, it is NPOV because I don't want to read stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
You don't feel like you could say it fully NPOV? soibangla (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Noting: I struck all previous comments, aka recanting them, as I do not fell like having NPOV discussions about political articles. I'm going back to other topics. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Archive set up

I set up an archive for this page, just to move the first thread out of the way. If either of you want to undo archiving of the thread, I have no objection and will perform the task on request. But I thought it would best help get back on track to do it this way. YMMV. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(
)

Created by Soibangla (talk). Nominated by FormalDude (talk) at 23:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC).

* ALT1 has a better wikilink target; however, there is some preliminary discussion about the article title. I don't know the procedures for DYK nominations (especially if there are deadlines), but ideally the title discussion will wrap up expeditiously, one way or the other, before a DYK goes active. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Antony-22, ALT1 is interesting but is too long. Hooks need to be 200 characters at most, yours is 219. The main hook, or the shortened ALT1, may be considered for review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There's discussion going on about whether "alternative" or "falsified" is better, so I'm providing both options at this time. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Since "fake electors" blows away every other "(adjective) electors" that I have researched, I kinda think the article title should be changed per WP:COMMONNAME NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
That one is even worse, because my character counter shows 230 characters (ALT2a/b have 195 characters, though they may benefit from making the hook shorter). Also, please resolve the alternate/fake elector issue before proceding further. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for catching that. I didn't realize my version of Word counts characters with... and without spaces. I used the without number.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude and Szmenderowiecki: Where are we with this nomination? Are there any outstanding concerns? Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Both ALT2s pass formal criteria but IDK if they are going to be in DYK. I'm not the one who decides here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Full review needed, including the hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

With the RM now completed, I'm proposing an additional hook. ––FormalDude talk 03:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to point out that calling it "Trump's plot", which is different than the actual article title, is potentially a WP:BLPCRIME issue. It's a fact that the fake electors were voting for Trump, but due to the strictness of BLPCRIME there needs to be at least an indictment and preferably a conviction to give someone "ownership" of a conspiracy. ALT2b does not have these issues. I'll leave it up to the promoter to decide. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Approving original hook --evrik (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  • @Evrik: Can you please explain why you declined ALT2b and ALT4? ––FormalDude talk 20:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Title

This thread is intended as preliminary discussion not a proposal to rename. A lot of RSs say "fake electors". The Jan 6 committee's 7-part plan uses the phrase fake alternate electors with alternate in scarequotes. I'm concerned that "alternate electors" (without the scarequotes) is too imprecise and unintentionally feeds oxygen to the forces that tried to pull this off. Same with "controversy". What about Trump allies' attempt to use fake electors? .... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting this article myself, and was going to use the title Falsified electoral slates in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. "Fake electors" strikes me as being informal and possibly imprecise: the electors were real people; the documents were what were falsified. I agree that reliable sources support using "falsified" or a similar word instead of "alternate" because the people producing the documents were objectively not electors according to the law; if they had been approved by a governor or state legislature then a case could be made that "alternate" would have been more neutral, but that's not the case here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I wrestled with the title quite a bit. What I came down with is that subsequent events would likely lead us to "fraudulent electors controversy" and thence to "fraudulent electors scandal," but for the time being to hedge on that. But with Trump being specifically named as a subject of the DOJ investigation yesterday, we may have crossed the threshold to go that way. soibangla (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
"Controversy" unintentionally injects a WP:FALSEBALANCE as though there was a wisp of skunk odor from a million miles away that it might have been a legitimate gambit. Most RSs I have seen use "scheme". While not definitive, someone could do a google hits count as I did below for "(adjective) electors".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI per WP:COMMONNAME I did a quick GoogleNews search on eight possible phrases. Maybe these weren't the phrases that matter most, so by all means add some more if you like. Short story........ "Fake electors" returned more than 3x the combined number of hits for every other phrase I searched. Overall hits from my searches (rounded to nearest thousand) are....

"(adjective) electors"

  • "fake electors" = 96,000
  • "alternate electors" = 6,000
  • "false electors"=6,000
  • "falsified electors"= 3,000

"(adjective) slate"

  • "fake slate"=1,000
  • "alternate slate"=6,000
  • "false slate"=zero (246 rounded down)
  • "falsified slate"= 5,000

And it bears repeating that the Jan 6 committee uses

fake "alternate" electors

with alternate in scare quotes... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

How about Trump's fake electors scandal? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Although I like it, note that the Jan 6 committee in their 7partplan describes this component as something done by Trumps allies rather than Trump himself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
We can get around a lot of these issues by excluding words like controversy or scandal, and identifying it by the year rather than having to decide whether Trump or his allies were mainly responsible, something that is under investigation and not even clearly known at this time. The main question now is, should we use "fake electors" (more common) or "falsified electoral slates" (more precise and formal)? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The fake electors were created to aid Trump, and their fraudulent electoral votes had his name on them as they were for him, hence they can rightly be described as his fake electors. We have several possible elements we could include in a title:
  1. Who were they for? Trump. The beneficiary should be named.
  2. The election year. 2020.
  3. The type of electors. Fake ones.
  4. The nature of their electoral votes. Fraudulent.
Result: 2020 fake Trump electoral vote fraud
How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
A lot of these suggestions are unwieldy and not consistent with how articles are typically named on Wikipedia. It seems that the "fake electors" terminology is preferred by most commenters here, and given that there are a lot of existing Wikipedia articles that use the similar term Fake news, I'm going to prefer Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. I'll likely set up an RM soon. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a need for something so wordy. The naming conventions prefer concision when there is no loss of fidelity.
Trump fake electors scheme, per the NYT (or "plan" if there is any doubt of neutrality) meets the naming criteria. "Scheme" should be sufficient based on how we currently use it in the opening sentence, i.e., instead of saying the controversy is a scheme, just say the subject itself is a scheme. As for the current name, "alternate" is a euphemism that reliable sources do not use nearly as often and the subject of the article is the scheme/plan itself, not the ensuing controversy or the scandal. We also have many reasons to avoid using "controversy" in titles. czar 06:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There's been some discussion above as to whether it's appropriate to assert whether Trump himself or Trump's allies were responsible; it's best to avoid that issue by using a year. Most existing related articles do spell out the election: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, Pre-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election, Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election, 2020–21 United States election protests. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)]]
Czar, I agree that concision is a good thing to remember. I'd also like to address the legitimate concerns of Antony-22. How about Fake Trump electors scheme? Moving "Trump" ensures there is no ambiguity about "who" is "responsible" for the scheme. It makes no difference whether Trump or some underlings were the architects of the scheme. The use of fake Trump electors is the scheme. It's a very concise title that still includes Trump. He must be mentioned as this is a totally unique and new situation, all for him. Nothing done by his underlings is done without his approval or knowledge. The year is unnecessary as this is the only time this has ever happened, and the first sentence provides that information.
There are no "fake Biden electors", only "fake Trump electors". A section should also be included in the United States Electoral College article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:10, 28 July 2022
IMO, "fake" is too casual, "false" suggests it could just be a mistake. "Fraudulent" is best. soibangla (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
So Fraudulent Trump electors scheme or Trump fraudulent electors scheme? They don't mean exactly the same thing. The scheme was fraudulent, and the electors were fraudulent. Both are true, but the first covers both, so it's preferable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia's guidelines are strict about reflecting reliable sources, especially since this topic involves accusations of criminal activity (like fraud) by living persons. At this time, there not yet been indictments. Also, the investigations are ongoing and there actually is ambiguity about the responsibility and criminal liability of various persons. The fact that there are no Biden fake electors itself means that disambiguation is not needed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The term "fraud" raises WP:BLPCRIME issues. No one has been indicted yet, let alone convicted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
This subject is far and away more associated with "Trump" than with "2020 U.S. presidential election" in reliable sources. It's also far more often described as "fake electors" than even "false electors". We could quibble about the word order but the most obvious name still appears to be Trump fake electors scheme, with "Trump" as the natural disambiguation from any general "fake electors scheme" (i.e., it is not known as "the fake electors scheme"). Also what part of that title accuses criminal activity? The source material clearly discusses Trump allies as the source of a scheme about "fake electors". It's association between two known entities, not presumption of wrongdoing. czar 00:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Rep. Adam Schiff said there is evidence Trump himself was involved in the fake electors plot. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

Antony-22, I see your point, so let's wait with the "fraudulent" until there are convictions or until it is the word of choice by RS (we follow RS regardless of BLP, which only forbids "unsourced" negative content). So far "fake" seems the most common description. So now we're back to these two:

  1. Fake Trump electors scheme
  2. Trump fake electors scheme

Shall we make an RfC to see which one people prefer? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not see "Trump" as a disambiguator, but as an accurate description. They were literally only used for Trump. The Trump electors were fake, hence fake Trump electors scheme. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We could also use "plot", rather than "scheme", as it's the more commonly used word:

  1. Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results)
  2. Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results)

Should we do that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

These sorts of words all have nuanced connotations that make them inadvisable for article titles. They also lead to a lot of wasted effort in discussing them: recall how long it took to decide whether Jan. 6 was an attack, storming, insurrection, or riot. My preference is to avoid these words completely and focus on "fake electors" as the core noun phrase. If we are to use such phrases, there would need to be a strong WP:COMMONNAME argument, but I doubt that any such phrase is dominant enough that it could be considered part of the name itself rather than as a descriptor.
For consistency reasons, I looked at existing usage of these terms in Wikipedia article titles. I can't find any article titles that use "scheme" for a specific illicit action, only for general classes like Pyramid scheme and Get-rich-quick scheme. Some articles do have "plot", but they all seem to be assassination attempts, predominantly in England: Gunpowder Plot, 20 July plot, Throckmorton Plot, Popish Plot, Babington Plot, Main Plot, Bojinka plot, Doctors' plot, Lithgow Plot. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
??? I just provided abundant evidence of usage above: Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results) and Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results). That's impressive enough for us to follow per common name, especially the last search phrase justifies a title of Trump fake electors plot. We follow what RS say, no matter what other things exist here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
No, 79k vs. 55k is not that big of a difference, especially since those are not the only terms in use. A slim plurality doesn't mean it's the common name, it means that there is no common name. Also, people (even experienced editors) often forget that WP:COMMONNAME is just one of several title WP:CRITERIA: consistency is explicitly one of these criteria, that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", so it can't be dismissed as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it's not enough of a difference to be the sole determinative factor. We're just discussing switching two words in the current title, and there are compelling reasons why the two words HAVE to go:
  1. "Alternate" has to go because it is the misleading word chosen by the perpetrators. It's literal propaganda.
  2. "Controversy" has to go as there is no controversy in RS. All RS agree these electors were fake and part of a fraudulent election scheme/plot to steal the election.
Current: Trump alternate electors controversy
Proposed: Trump fake electors plot/scheme
"Fake" and "plot" or "scheme" enjoy massive usage in RS.
The proposed changes are not a big deal. We should have gotten this done hours ago. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that Trump fake electors plot is better than the current title. I don't object to making that move now. I'm not convinced it's the best title or that it's really in line with policy, and there could still potentially be an RfC or RM in the future. I think we've both made our points, and I'd like to hear from others so that we don't monopolize the discussion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, going back to the Google News search: "fake electors" has 105k hits, "fake electors plot" has 25k, "fake electors dispute" has 16k, "fake electors scheme" has 7k, and other terms like conspiracy, fraud, and controversy have fewer than 200 each. Clearly, "fake electors" alone is much more common than any alternative. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Trump fake electors scheme seems like the best option presented so far. ––FormalDude talk 07:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it's an improvement. FormalDude, is there any particular reason you lean more toward "scheme" than the more commonly used "plot"? Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results) vs Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results). Plot implies secrecy more than scheme, and there is clear evidence that many of the involved tried to keep it secret and used misleading words to describe what they were doing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with either one I suppose. ––FormalDude talk 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think either version would be an improvement. I think our discussion in this thread has been good enough that we can now proceed to an RfC. I'll start one below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Video (18:49): "Inside Trump's Election Plot" on YouTube (MSNBC News); July 29, 2022 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2022

RM paused by nominator to allow time for more unstructured discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Trump alternate electors controversy → Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidential election – Several reasons:

Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I oppose: 1) fake is too casual; 2) doesn't specify Trump; 3) doesn't note it is a controversy, scheme, plot or something. soibangla (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • WTF? Making an RM while there is ongoing discussion is disruptive. Keep discussing in the previous thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Valjean: The discussion isn't going towards any kind of consensus; people keep suggesting different titles that aren't in conformity with policy. It's also out of order to unilaterally withdraw someone else's RM. At this point, if you've settled on a different proposal, you should propose it here and make your case. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You know what, I’ll pause the RM if you want more time to discuss a different proposal. There’s no rush. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Oops, didn’t see the RM was on pause. Either way, if it is continued, then please include my comment above. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Trump fake electors plot. Consensus developed to move to Trump fake electors plot. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump alternate electors controversy → ? – A good discussion about a better title exists above, and we seem to have boiled it down to two options that are widely used, with "plot" being used 45% more than "scheme". While search results are an important consideration, other factors may be seen as more important, so please provide reasons for your choice:

Which one do you prefer? Please !vote Scheme or Plot and explain why. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 4:07, 3 August 2022‎ (UTC)
  • Antony-22, you're repeating what you already wrote above and it got no traction, so it's a waste of time here. Your method of searching is totally flawed. To illustrate, you're essentially saying the title of the Ford Mustang article should be Ford because "Ford" is more frequently found in searches than Ford Mustang.
  • Concision is preferable. This is all about Trump, and only Trump, so use his name. The nitty-gritty of who, among those who were doing all of this for him and with his knowledge and consent, came up with and developed the plan, is explained. The reason plot and scheme are good terms is because this was a secret operation.
  • RS, not BLP crime, rule here. We describe and use the terminology used by RS. Note that we are not suggesting adding the word "treasonous" to the title as that is used by few RS.
  • Your suggested title hasn't gotten any traction either, whereas the suggested titles in this RfC have support. As mentioned above, the exact number of Google hits is not the only factor, so it comes down to personal preference. Which is the better title than the one we have? "Alternate" has to go as it is a deliberately misleading propaganda term used by the plotters. "Controversy" has to go as well, because there is no controversy in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Participants routinely propose alternatives in RfCs. The entire purpose of an RfC is to equalize the discussion by giving everyone a place to state their arguments succinctly, whereas unstructured conversations tend to favor people who post more rather than lead to a decision on the merits. I've made my proposal so I'm happy to let the !votes come in.
To respond to your points: I'm suggesting that the title should be something akin to Ford Mustang and not Ford Mustang car or Ford Mustang automobile. WP:BLPCRIME, like the rest of WP:BLP, applies to all statements about living persons in any article, and it is possibly the most taken seriously policy on Wikipedia. No RS supports that anyone has been convicted or even indicted for a crime at this time. My proposal didn't get much less traction than yours; only two agreed with either of your proposals in the above discussion, and one agreed with me in the short time the RM was active. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google's initial count is generally wrong. If I scroll to the last page of results on Google News, I get around ~175 articles for "fake electors plan", ~224 articles for "fake electors plot", and ~218 articles for "fake electors scheme". You may get different numbers if you click those links. There's no point arguing for a title based on which of those numbers are bigger, as these numbers are similar, all generally wrong, and there's 20 different ways you can try and generate them. The only thing you can gather from this is that those three phrases are used a similar amount in sources, so your argument should be based on something else, I think. Endwise (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Endwise: the last page trick on Google hits is just never worth doing. Google arbitrarily returns about 200 or so hits for almost any subject, and there doesn't appear to be any reason for the exact number. For example, heading to the last page of a "Donald Trump" search gets me 206 results. The hits reported on page 1 are certainly not exact, but it's at least somewhat useful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, wtf, I didn't know that -- thanks. Endwise (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Gonna go with "fake electors scheme" here. Seems to be the language used in more encyclopedia-style reporting in the media (which is what Wikipedia should go for), e.g. "explainers" like: The Fake Electors Scheme, Explained (NY Times), What to know about the Trump 'fake electors' scheme (CNN). Additionally, "plot" sounds a bit judgemental in tone, and we should strive to use clinical, non-judgemental language where possible. Endwise (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Plot. I guess I better voice my view. I tend to favor "plot" as it more accurately implies the secrecy involved. Fake Trump electors in Ga. told to shroud plans in ‘secrecy,’ email shows -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I removed the RfC tag as RfCs should not be used for renaming/moving articles per WP:RFCNOT. Please use the requested move procedure for this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Plot and scheme don't feel like the right tone to me. They are a bit passionate and arguably not NPOV. How about Trump fake electors plan, Trump fake electors controversy, or similar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Novem Linguae, "controversy" is part of the current title and has to go because there is no controversy in RS. "Plan" is meaningless. What kind of plan? Plot and Scheme are much more accurate descriptions of the type of plan and are used by RS, so to use them is to preserve NPOV by not letting our own editorial bias neuter what RS say. Quote sources accurately. Editorial bias violates NPOV, so don't let it affect editing. It is not words and sources that must be "neutral". It is editors who have to be neutral when they edit by not getting in the way of the sources. Neutering the language of RS violates NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
      • There is plenty of RS that uses "fake electors plan". Talking down to me about being true to sources isn't needed here since many sources exist with this wording. [1][2] This issue is not as black and white as your tone indicates, with plan, plot, and scheme all having between 50,000–100,000 results on google. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Here's why I don't like "plan":
          • Plan: a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.
          • Scheme: a plan or program of action, especially a crafty or secret one.
          • Plot: a plan made in secret by a group of people to do something illegal or harmful.
        • So which one describes what happened best? "Plan" is true, but it's vague and doesn't begin to convey the true nature of what happened. It was a "secret plan" although not fully carefully hidden. Afterward, much more about the planning has come to light, including instructions to keep it secret and use misleading terminology like "alternate". "Scheme" can imply some secrecy, and "plot" really does. That's why I favor precision, just like all the articles we call "conspiracy theories", not just "theory". "Theory" would be true and get a lot of Google hits, but it's so vague as to be worthless. That's why I don't like "plan". It's so vague as to be worthless. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I support a move to either "scheme" or "plot". Both are an improvement in terms of recognizability and naturalness. I have a very slight preference for "plot" as it shows up more in a Google News search and because "scheme" has some connotative differences in British vs. American English. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll just echo what Firefangledfeathers has said, either is fine but leaning towards Plot. --Pokelova (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2022 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump_fake_electors_plot/Archive_1&oldid=1178019893"