Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 19

Alleged Voter Fraud in Detroit
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

During Jill Stein's recount effort in Michigan, it was reported there were many oddities found in Detroit's voting results. This has also been covered by...


 * http://nypost.com/2016/12/14/michigan-recount-reveals-error-but-not-the-one-jill-stein-wanted/
 * http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/michigans-elections-bureau-audit-detroit-precincts/95349562/
 * http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-recount-michigan-audit.html?_r=0
 * http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-recount-michigan-audit.html?_r=0
 * http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-recount-michigan-audit.html?_r=0

Now I don't expect this to be in the lead cause it isn't against Trump like every other piece of gossip we edit into there these days, but I do feel this should be added into the article since we were okay putting Jill Stein's recount effort into the lead before. Also, before you chime in I'm not personally calling this voter fraud but it has been alleged as such by conservative sources. Archer Rafferty —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO, we're putting too much post-election material into this article. It's becoming more difficult to navigate. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I propose we make a separate article that explains all of the hectic stuff that happened post election. 'Post-election results of the 2016 presidential election' or something along those lines. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 13:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably best to add these into the recount page, 2016 United States presidential election recounts, since these revelations came about from the shortly lived recount in Michigan. WatchFan 07 18:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fanatics allege a lot of stuff, but allegations of stuff happening where there is no evidence of it happening and it is impossible to verify if it happened because the recount that was going to happen ended up not happening... this article has lots of trivial stuff in it now. Random allegations that are literally impossible now to prove is about five steps too far on the trivia meter. 2005 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Map errors
There are some error on various maps. For example, File:Results by state, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote 2016.svg shows Trump winning Wyoming with over 70% of the vote when he actually received about 68%. Also, I haven't checked other counties in Wyoming, but Clinton won about 57% in Teton County, so the shading in File:Wyoming Presidential Election Results 2016.svg should be changed from "60%-70%" to "50%-60%".

Moving on to Illinois, while the vote was very close, Clinton appears to have narrowly won Winnebago County, Illinois. However, Trump is shown as having won the county in File:2016 Presidential Election by County.svg and File:Illinois Presidential Election Results 2016.svg.

My source for all of this is Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I found another error: Pike County, Mississippi shows Clinton ahead, according to Dave Leip's Atlas, while File:Mississippi Presidential Election Results 2016.svg and File:2016 Presidential Election by County.svg show a narrow Trump victory. There may be other errors in the maps and vote margins. I recommend that someone should look over our maps and vote results. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another error on File:Results by state, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote 2016.svg: Trump won Nebraska with under 60% of the vote, unlike what the map states. If someone would fix all these errors and search for more, that would be great. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors who have fixed the errors, however several of the errors that I pointed out remain, specifically in File:Wyoming Presidential Election Results 2016.svg, File:Illinois Presidential Election Results 2016.svg, and File:Results by state, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote 2016.svg. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario
Let's just say that, for whatever reason, all 8 of Kentucky's electors decide to vote for Clinton over Trump. Will Kentucky then be colored blue, or will it remain red with "8" in a blue circle? I'm bringing this up because there is a slight chance something similar may occur, and it would be better to resolve it now than later. MB298 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You picked Kentucky out of all states? Michigan or Wisconsin seems more likely to me. Nonetheless, should electors vote another candidate than chosen by the American population, I personally think we should add a new colour. Let's say purple for states that voted for Trump but an elector or all of the electors voted for somebody else. OR, we split the state in two, add blue and red with their respective numbers of votes received during the vote. For example, 3 electors out of 16 voted for Clinton in Michigan. Half would be red and the other blue, with red being 13 and blue 3. I don't know. I'm bad at this. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  00:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See United States presidential election, 1960. 2005 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's no sources that any Republican electors are gonna vote for Clinton. There are sources that Democratic electors will vote for a Republican if enough Republican electors agree with them to not vote for Trump. There's a higher chance, that 'blue' state will end up 'light red' for another Republican. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, such a scenario-while highly unlikely, has occurred before. In 1960, faithless electors in Alabama cast their vote entirely for Harry F. Byrd/Strom Thurmond. As a result, on the 1960 election page, the state of Alabama was colored orange for the Dixiecrat party. If any state were to go to a dem or other rep entirely, the state should be entirely colored with the appropriate color, with a footnote below. Hope I was of help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalmerTheGolfer (talk • contribs) 21:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In 1960, there was only ONE faithless elector, one guy from Oklahoma voted for Harry Byrd and Barry Goldwater. The votes Byrd got from Alabama were from Unpledged electors who had been elected individually. Byrd also won Mississippi. It's all very strange.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As to a revolt of the electors, which is extremely unlikely but dearly hoped for, there are three electors who have publicly stated that they would be faithless. Two democrats from Oregon and one republican from Texas. Bernie Sanders, who got over a hundred thousand write-in votes (that's notable) might get those first two. If they do, we should mention this somewhereArglebargle79 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump is the assumptive President-elect, not the President-elect
He has 306 pledged electors. He becomes President-elect after the electors cast their votes on December 19. As an analogy, he was the assumptive Republican nominee before the votes of his pledged delegates were cast at the Republican convention, at which point he became the Republican nominee.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear IP, while the logic in your argument is sound, the odds of Hillary pulling enough votes through recounts to win is close to zero. The odds of the entire state of Texas worth of votes changing their vote to Hillary is also virtually zero. Donald Trump will be president. There's no way Hillary can win at this point. It doesn't mattr what your political opinion is; the vote won't change on a large enough scale to change the election. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't know he "will" be President, that's why we don't call him "President" now. He could pass away five minutes from now, and the Electoral College would vote for someone else, whoever they want. 2005 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we aren't arguing about his health. IP brought up the argument that the electors will vote for Clinton. Obviously anyone can die at any moment. That doesn't change anything because he will still be president, as the chances of him passing away between now and January 20th are close to none, at least of natural causes. Of course it brings up the whole idea of accidents, misfortunes and even assassinations, but we won't get into that here or now. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 22:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, he would not be President if he dies. That is the whole point. The IP's argument is addressed by others below, but your argument was even more flawed.  It's not important though as our job is to summarize what sources say and not make assumptions.  What will happen will happen when it does.  We don't have to rush anything. 2005 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to : Find enough reliable sources that contradict the thousands of highly reliable sources that we could find calling him the president-elect and we will add it, until then, he is the president-elect. -- Chase |  talk 15:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can think for myself. And RS isn't always reliable. Al Jazeera for example is primarily a propaganda source. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Countless sources call him President-elect. We follow those sources, even though the Electors haven't voted yet. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to : "Thinking for yourself" so to speek is against one of Wikipedia's policies. See Original Research. -- Chase |  talk 15:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * President-elect is correct, IP 207. Per the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, "The terms 'President-elect' and 'Vice-President-elect' as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, IP user, you are correct- now you'll need to go and convince all the reliable sources of that. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

the term "president-elect" is a honorific one until the votes are counted by the Vice President. As everyone uses it, and the government is giving the Trump transition all sorts of goodies and cooperation, the term is apt. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

add wikilink to [hacked]
please add wikilink to the term hacked. Some editors on talk page cant comprehends what it mean and deleting talk content. 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove misleading sentence in the intro
"Donald Trump received more votes than any other Republican candidate in history and Hillary Clinton obtained the third-most votes for any candidate behind Barack Obama's 2008 and 2012 totals."

I think this is misleading, because total population is also increasing, and the amount of votes reflect this. Percentage-wise, Donald Trump is in line with the average Republican in terms of vote share. The only reason that Donald Trump has the highest amount of votes for Republicans in history is because there are more voters with the generally same percent voting for a Republican over time. You can expect that in 2020, 2024, 2028, etc. that the Democratic and Republican candidates will be setting new records for total amount of votes cast in favor of their county. Therefore, I propose removing this paragraph as misleading. --Proud User (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems ok to remove it. SPECIFICO  talk  23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, remove it. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I originally mentioned this in the body of the article and someone brought it up into the intro, I think it's particularly relevant because as you said you'd expect vote totals to increase as the population increases, but Hillary failed to get more votes than Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and the Republicans hadn't beaten their previous hard total since 2004. It emphasizes that the share of Republican votes compared to Democratic votes was in fact significantly different than in elections since 2004.  I wouldn't mind keeping all that to the body of the article though. Travis McGeehan (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with removal from lead. Enough trivia! makes a good argument for noting the discrepancy in the article body, provided that this observation can be backed by WP:RS. — JFG talk 07:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the paragraph is misleading. The problem with it is that it is an article body factoid, not lede material.  The misleading idea here is the turnout information focuses on VEP and VAP, and doesn't reflect the huge increase in voters.  While population increase is involved, less people voted in 2012 than 2008, so there is more to what happened than merely or even mostly population increase.  Also, Trump got a percentage of the vote between Romney's and McCain's and Clinton got within 75,000 votes of Obama's 2012 number.  So, in contrast to the Trump/Clinton/history quote above, a more historicish factoid is: 7.7 million more people voted in 2016, and about 3/4 of that increase voted for neither Trump or Clinton.  There's lots of factoid out there (Bernie Sanders got more write-in votes in California. 79,000+, than the amount of votes Trump needed to win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania). Meat and potatoes in the lede, whatever factoids get in the article should be down the page. 2005 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump has NOT been elected
Why is this article written as though Trump was elected president on November 8th? The only thing that happened on that date is that Electors got selected. NO ONE has been elected president at the stage we are at today. The body constitutionally authorized to do that is the Electoral College.

They have not voted yet.

This action is scheduled to happen on Monday. Up until such time as a president is actually elected, all such statements in this article are inaccurate and misleading. This needs to be fixed.--Chris from Houston (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm on it.Tvx1 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Trump & Pence are projected as having been elected President & Vice President. Vast number of reliable sources have been declaring them elected. Yay, I know what you're saying is true, about the Electoral college. But jeez, that's a lot of changes to make across Wikipedia. Particularly, when such changes will be reverted by December 19, 2016 or January 6, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said below: Wait until Tuesday. If there's an unprecedented revolt and the election goes to Congress for resolution, we can do all sorts of stuff (like a new article, for instance), but for now, we must assume nothing unusual will happen and the electors will vote as they were elected to do. WE can wait 36 hours or so. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian influence by Trump
This is in reference to the revert by JFG

That Russian supported Trump is the assessment of American intelligence, as reported by two WP:RS.

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Russia Hacked Republican Committee but Kept Data, U.S. Concludes

That is absolutely historic and should be in the lede, if not the opening sentence. Casprings (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These allegations are worth noting in the article, as you did, but undue for the lead. "CIA said so" is just not proof enough. — JFG talk 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The fact that a nations intel services have have stated with high confidence that another nation influenced their elections is not just rumor. Should we provide the source? Absolutely. But that doesn't make it any less historic and not simply a rumor.Casprings (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Even the WaPo source you quote takes care to note there is no proof, and relays denial by Wikileaks that Russia had anything to do with the DNC and Podesta leaks. Obama ordered a review of the hacks before he leaves office, let's see what comes out of it. — JFG talk 14:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what the WaPo article says. It says that the actors are "one step removed" from the Russian government and there is no direct intel of people in the Kremlin directing it. That is not the same thing as "no proof". That is circumstantial proof, which can be beyond a doubt. If we are going to discuss this, please don't misrepresent the facts. Casprings (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're going to add content, source it. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  16:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources are below in the section titled Russian involvement.Casprings (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe this is anything but an honest assessment by US intel. Russia has multiple reasons to want Trump as President, including his multiple statements concerning commitments to NATO.Casprings (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "absolutely historic and should be in the lede, if not the opening sentence" User:Casprings - This is just laughable. Get a better password if your in a position of high power. It could have been anybody, Russia hate is massive at the moment, next week it will be China or Mexico, reporting this type of obvious propaganda is beneath us. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If the Russians had rigged the election, then it should be prominently mentioned. But all we have are less than credible allegations they tried to influence it.  We should mention though that the Clinton campaign and its allies tried to use the allegations and that observers compared it to the old Republican smear tactic of linking liberals to Communism.  TFD (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How are multiple independent reports that US intel asses this to be true "less than crediable"? This seems absolutely silly and partisan to keep something this historic from not taking a bigger role in the article.Casprings (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "historic" LOL - history dictates that Govindaharihari (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather something is historic or not is a subjective judgement call. I believe that Russia directly supporting a candidate for the Presidency is. I think over time, most historians will eventually agree. Casprings (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with JFG. Worth noting, but not in the lead. Objective3000 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, the CIA saying that a potentially hostile foreign power intervened in the US election... yeah, it's historic. And it's all over the sources which means that it really should be in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This info was also added in at United States elections, 2016 article. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with . It was not just CIA but 17 total intelligence agencies. Sagecandor (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Should be removed frm the leade, there is no evidence this actually happened, and FBI is not on the same page as CIA. There are always smear campaigns in elections, the "Russian hackers did it" tactic is no different.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. This is your own original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE The director of CIA is appointed by the president. The CIA says whatever the president tells it to say. Innocence unless proven guilty. Plus, it doesn't take the FSB to hack a gmail account and download all the emails. Any hacker can easily do that with phishing. It's not like it's rocket science.

204.197.184.245 (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually not true at all. But thanks for playing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * remove from lead There's no argument here. There's no reason why a very minor paragraph in a long article should be given such prominence in the lead. Whether the allegations are true or not is irrelevant. They are not significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Right now this lead is directly violating WP:UNDUE.Ag97 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not "very minor" (seriously?), the whole "there's no proof" thing is nonsense and original research (you actually don't know). We follow the sources, if many reliable sources are reporting on it, we include it. Yes, in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Washington post, lol, is not a wp:npov source for reports about anything republican. The Washington peeps voted massively in support of H Clinton. Personally I suggest allowing the democrat editors to add whatever biased trash they want, such biased reporting was was got Trump elected. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol yourself. Washington Post is a reliable source. If you really want to waste your time (and that of others, which would be an obnoxious thing to do) take it to WP:RSN. Indeed, if you believe that a source such as WaPo is "not reliable" you might consider that you're in the wrong place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing from Washington is WP:NPOV in regards to Trump and you know it. I won't take it anywhere, write Trump is the devil all over wikipedia, whatever, it won't change anything in real life. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS. If you start removing text based on WaPo because of your own idiosyncratic beliefs you will be going against site-level consensus and your actions will be disruptive. Have you been given a discretionary sanctions notification by the way? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not aware I removed any content, as I said, post whatever biased content you like, the Washington post and Washington overall is biased against Trump, they voted massively in favor of H Clinton. It did not work in the H Clinton situation and it won't work here either. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then please stop using the talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not soapboxing to dispute your addition and to point out the biased position of your source. See http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-washington-post-becomes-unhinged-on-donald-trump/ Govindaharihari (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF WP:CIVIL. Objective3000 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

One more time folks. Please STOP misrepresenting sources. In particular this one. It says that the FBI and CIA don't see eye to eye on the question of the AIM of disrupting the election. It does NOT say that the FBI disputes that the Russians meddled in it. In fact, quite the opposite: "there’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals". Basically, according to the source, the CIA thinks Kremlin meddled with a specific purpose of helping Trump. The FBI thinks that Kremlin meddled in a way which helped Trump but it's not clear if that was actually their aim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This whole ordeal is clearly just another phase that will pass very quickly - thus, it does not belong in the lede. Literally a week ago the whole recount debacle was included in the lede, and now it's not. As has been said numerous times before in this discussion: 1) This whole story is based on some anonymous official's leak to the press - Congress still has not received an official brief or been presented with any evidence, according to Representative Peter King and Senator Harry Reid, as described here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/14/rep_peter_king_almost_like_cia_is_carrying_out_a_disinformation_campaign_against_donald_trump.html . 2) The debate over this issue potentially being "historic" is 100% irrelevant at this point. Someone tried to make that same argument as an excuse to include bullet-point lists of hundreds of anti-Trump protests on the Protests against Donald Trump page - in that thread too, the argument was shut down because it was pointed out that, even IF this is a "historic" occurrence, it is not Wikipedia's job to document it all as it happens here and now. Remember, WP:NOTNEWS. This can be included later on in the article (assuming that it isn't proven to just be another giant hoax), just as the failed recount efforts are. But it does NOT belong in the lede. Period. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already given up hope, that this article will be trimmed down anytime soon. Too bad, as it's having navigation problems. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek
Before the election, Newsweek sent bookstores advance printed copies of its magazine declaring Hillary the winner, but no such advance printed copies declaring Trump the winner.

"Topix made a business decision to only print the Clinton version ahead of time given that she is almost universally favored to win the election on Tuesday."

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/media/newsweek-hillary-clinton-cover/ 71.182.237.111 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This story has gotten some coverage since the election, but part of that coverage was conspiracy-mongering about the election being "fixed" (I guess the fix was broken). If it continues to get discussed the way the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" story was, then it should be covered here. If the story has no legs, it shouldn't be. Right now, I would guess it's undue weight. It is a funny story, though. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The quote you provided says it all. Are you aware of "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg)? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Now the question is: would a picture of the magazine (I have a copy, BTW and can scan the cover if you want) violate copyright and thus be impossible to place here? Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In short, the article could include an image of the cover if the cover image was specifically discussed in the article text. That would require consensus for including Newsweek's screwup in the first place. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @ArgleBargle79: I think that an image of the Newsweek cover is as relevant to this election as the Chicago Tribune headline in 1948, DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. Since you have a copy, please scan and add. American In Brazil (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @ArgleBargle79. I believe including the Newsweek cover in this article would not violate any copyright, since it would be for a non-commercial educational purpose. Therefore, it falls under the Fair Use Doctrine. This cover, which has a photo of Hillary Clinton with the caption "Madam President" is surely as important as the news photo of Harry Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago Tribune with the headline DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN in the 1948 election. Please scan and add. American In Brazil (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If the issue was never put on the stands, it is not noteworthy. This is not comparable to the Dewey headline. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently the issue was on the newstands in a few locations since some people were able to purchase it, including @ArgleBargle. Please scan and add. It is surely as important as the Chicago Tribune 1948 election edition "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" which also was on the newstands for only a short time. American In Brazil (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this is the same. In 1948, the Tribune one-star edition was distributed to newsstands and sold. It wasn't until the two-star edition came out that the headline was changed. Newsweek made a business decision to print one edition, but not put it on the newsstands in case the cover was wrong. If some stands didn't follow instructions, that's just not the same. The story is interesting. But, it would suggest an error by Newsweek without evidence. Objective3000 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is completely WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Some copies were sold. @ArgleBargle has one. Evidence has been documented in the Newsweek article, which is reliably sourced. I suggest using that information verbatim. It is not at all undue, since it is comparable to the 1948 election and the famous picture of Truman holding up the erroneous headline of the Chicago Tribune. I am adding the info from the WP article, with inline citations, to the section "Forecasts". If anyone knows how to cut and paste both covers (Trump and Clinton) from the two sources cited, please do so. It is an important aspect of the election, since it highlights both the erroneous forecasts and (because Newsweek only printed and distributed the Hillary cover until Trump was declared the winner by the networks), media bias. American In Brazil (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You are not close to a consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Then let's discuss. It's in the WP Newsweek article with reliable sources. So why is it not in this article? It's important information regarding the forecasting and has been added to the "Forecasts" section verbatim from the the Newsweek article. American In Brazil (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Copies are being offered for sale on ebay with a picture of Hillary and the caption "Madam President". Obviously some copies were sold, comparable to the 1948 one-star edition of the Chicago Tribune. This is surely as notable.


 * http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=newsweek+madame+president&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS0&_nkw=newsweek+madame+president&_sacat=0 American In Brazil (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So, perhaps some newsstands are selling the copies that they were told not to distribute on eBay instead of returning. Or maybe these are photoshopped. I'm fairly certain eBay sellers are not RS. This is proof of nothing. The Trib was a major outlet for news in 1948 and they distributed 150,000 copies of the incorrect edition. Multiple editions were produced each day. In 1946, 0.5% of US households had TV sets: Television set. This is below the level of trivia. Objective3000 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Objective3000. ebay sellers are not cited as reliable sources. I only am pointing out that copies were and are available for sale. The fact that another editor (ArgleBargle) has a copy (see AB's comment above) is proof that at least some copies were sold. These copies could not be photoshopped, since the entire magazine is being offered for sale on ebay. The reliable sources given are cited in the Newsweek WP article. I copied verbatim the information contained there but you deleted it. Newsweek is an important news outlet. This is not trivia - it is, as I stated above, notable information on the election forecasts and the mindset of the mainstream media. It is one of many other forecasts cited so it is not undue weight. So far, the only one who objects to including this information is you. I solicit the opinions of other editors. American In Brazil (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I am not the only person. Objective3000 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Objective3000. Volunteer Marek's objection is that it is undue weight. Your objection is that it is trivia. Obviously, it cannot be weighty and trivial at the same time. Let's hear from other editors. American In Brazil (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummm, "undue weight" means "giving too much weight to trivial crap".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000 & @Volunteer Marek. To my surprise, no other editors have chimed in. So I suggest we each state our case and the reasons for our opinions and see if that stimulates further discussion. OK, here goes: I propose adding the following to the "Forecasting" section [9.2], which is taken from the WP Newsweek article verbatim (with citations, of course). For those who know how to cut and paste, both covers can be added.


 * "On November 7, 2016, the day before the election, copies of a Newsweek article calling Hillary Clinton's victory were leaked. Supporters of Donald Trump criticized the magazine by claiming that the election was rigged.{cite} The magazine responded by explaining on Twitter that they specifically created two different covers to be released after the election.{cite}"

DISCUSSION - Many incorrect forecasts of the result were a major feature of this election, so this is not undue weight, especially since it is one of many other forecasts cited in this section. Newsweek is a notable national news outlet (so it is not trivial) and rushed only the Clinton cover and story to the newsstands, even though they later admitted they had an alternate cover and story featuring Trump. Numerous Clinton copies were sold, at least in New York City, as evidenced by the many copies available for sale on ebay. Indeed, one WP editor in this discussion (ArgleBargle), above, has offered to scan his copy and post it. These are not photoshopped, since whole copies are offered for sale. The fact that the magazine only initially printed and distributed the Clinton cover and story is also evidence of the mindset of the major media. The proposed text is only three sentences, but nevertheless highlights the incorrect forecasts and bias of the major media. Comments, please. American In Brazil (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is both trivia and undue and also the subject of many fake news stories. I see zero evidence that this is media bias. See [snopes] and [NBC News]. Objective3000 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Objective3000. If you read the citations, the Newsweek editor admits they were biased toward Hillary. This is not fake since it really happened. The wording does not say that the media were biased, only what actually was done. Further, it is logically impossible that it is undue weight and trivial at the same time. You have given no reasons for your opinion. American In Brazil (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please show me where a Newsweek editor said he was biased towards Hillary. Please reread WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. There is no contradiction in using both to describe an edit. Objective3000 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "editor admits they were biased" is extreme statement. Either back that up with a direct quote, or let's move on off of this unfounded trivia. 2005 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP Newsweek article: "(Topix Media CEO and co-founder Tony) Romando told CNN Money (on Monday, the day before the election) that Topix decided to print physical copies of the magazine with Clinton on the cover since she is favored to win Tuesday." (fn. 61) "The company — like the rest of the world — anticipated that Clinton would take office and shipped Clinton’s “Madam President” cover to stores early instead of Trump’s issue. “Like everybody else, we got it wrong,” Tony Romando, CEO of Topix Media Lab, told the New York Post on Wednesday. According to the site, the company is now rushing to print Trump’s cover." (fn. 62)


 * WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA are contradictory by definition. If something is weighty, it is not trivial. If something is trivial, it is not weighty. You still have not given any reason for your opinion. American In Brazil (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First, UNDUE means that the subject has undue weight. Trivia has undue weight. Secondly, Newsweek made a business decision based on the perceived winner to beat competitors to the newsstands. That in no manner whatsoever shows a bias. Did you read the snopes article? If you despise the Green Bay Packers, but are a t-Shirt salesman outside a game, you are still going to create and sell GBP t-shirts outside the stadium. That has nothing to do with bias. It is a business decision. You have made a false accusation against Newsweek and suggest that you strike it. Objective3000 (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First, the section heading is "Forecasts" and Newsweek obviously made an incorrect forecast. They could have printed and shipped both covers with instructions to newsstands to place on sale the actual winner. They didn't, despite the fact that there were credible polls indicating that Trump would be the winner (the Los Angeles Times/USC poll, for example). Second, the quotes I was challenged to provide speak for themselves. Third, there is no point of view in the wording I have suggested. It is taken verbatim from the Newsweek article, but it is relevant here because this was the only news outlet in the country that printed and distributed a story that the loser was the winner. This is no different than the Chicago Tribune in 1948 printing the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN". That has remained newsworthy to this day. American In Brazil (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tons of people make incorrect forecasts. In no way does that mean they are biased. It simply means they guessed incorrectly. It would have cost them far more money to print two editions. They made a business decision to print the most likely and ship to outlets with instructions not to put them on sale until instructed. There is NO comparison to the Dewey headline, where a huge number of papers were sold. There is no evidence that more than a couple dozen copies of the Newsweek cover were legitimately sold. Stuff sold on eBay is NOT evidence. Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to make of your position. You were asked to provide a quote of bias and you did not, and then you say you did.  If you are now asserting that thinking Clinton was going to win is "bias", that's just absurd (unless you aren't a native English speaker).  The Newsweek cover is mildly interesting trivia that resulted from widespread assumption, but adding some weighted POV to it isn't going to fly. 2005 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I did provide quotes and sources (see above). The quotes speak for themselves. The wording I have suggested has a neutral POV with no mention of bias. It is taken verbatim from the WP article on Newsweek. Hundreds of copies are currently being offered on ebay. Indeed, a WP editor has offered to scan his copy (see ArgleBargle, above). This was the only news outlet in America that proclaimed the loser to be the winner. It is comparable, therefore, to the Chicago Tribune headline of 1948, "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN". That is notable. American In Brazil (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. Nowhere in the quote is there anything about "bias".  Again, if you are not a native English speaker you should just note that as there is no "bias" asserted or anywhere to be seen. (And if you are a native English speaker, for heaven's sake look up the definition of the word "bias" because you are not using it properly.) 2005 (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @2005. Please address the issue being discussed. The question is whether or not Newsweek was the only news outlet which published that the loser was the winner. It was. All others made forecasts but only Newsweek published it as fact. Of course, this was fake news. That is notable, same as the Chicago Tribune headline in 1948 declaring Dewey to be the winner was notable. The Tribune published its fake story and headline before the polls had even closed on the West Coast. Newsweek published its fake cover and story the night before the polls even opened. The three sentence paragraph I have suggested adding is a neutral POV statement taken verbatim from the WP article on Newsweek (including citations). The paragraph says nothing about bias. Click on the link above to check it out yourself, which I have added for your convenience. As for my native English skills, I am a 4th generation American who teaches conversational English to Portuguese speakers. FYI = "BIAS: a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned." --Dictionary.com. Aren't dictionaries wonderful? American In Brazil (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Newsweek did not publish this. It had it printed for possible sale and 17 copies leaked out. There is no way to know how many eBay postings are fake.
 * 2. How do you know no one else printed such?
 * 3. This still, in no way, indicates any bias. The decision was a business decision based upon actual polling evidence, not preconceived or unreasoned.
 * 4. Although around 150,000 issues of the Dewey headline were published and sold, even that showed no bias. It was simply an error. Objective3000 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2016(UTC)


 * The fact that Newsweek "had it printed for possible sale" is the definition of "publication". Offering anything for sale on the internet that is fake is wire fraud and is a felony. Hundreds of copies are currently offered on ebay by numerous sellers. If you know of any other publication which stated as a fact (not a forecast) that Clinton won the election, please document it; it should also be mentioned in the article. So far, I have found none but maybe you know something I don't. The issue here is not bias (readers can draw whatever conclusion they want); the issue is that Newsweek published that the loser was the winner. Whether the Tribune or Newsweek showed bias is not stated in the paragraph I have suggested, which is taken verbatim from the WP Newsweek article. Just to remind everybody, here it is again (to be inserted in the "Forecasts" section):


 * "On November 7, 2016, the day before the election, copies of a Newsweek article calling Hillary Clinton's victory were leaked. Supporters of Donald Trump criticized the magazine by claiming that the election was rigged.{cite} The magazine responded by explaining on Twitter that they specifically created two different covers to be released after the election.{cite}"


 * American In Brazil (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Newsweek did not put this up for sale. This has been explained to you. 17 copies were incorrectly distributed. Even if they did, this in no way suggests bias. Their decision to pre-print was based on evidence, not bias. And yes, there is fraud on eBay. Further, we do not even have the info, nor the responsibility, to say this decision was incorrect from a business standpoint. Objective3000 (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, you are missing the point. The paragraph says nothing about bias or the motives for 'Newsweek's decision. It merely states what happened, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. It is good enough for the Newsweek article and references this election. So why is it not good enough for this article? American In Brazil (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one that has repeatedly stated that this is evidence of media bias as a reason for inclusion. It is not. Since it is not, it is WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA for an article on a presidential election. It may make sense on the Newsweek article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I clearly stated above that the paragraph says nothing about bias and that readers can draw whatever conclusion they want. It merely states the facts, with citations. To say that it shows or does not show bias is inserting a personal opinion and therefore is original research WP:OR, which is not allowed. WP is an encyclopedia and must state the facts. This is neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:TRIVIA; it is encyclopedic. You claim that 17 copies were sold, but with no evidence. On the contrary, obviously hundreds of copies were sold since they are now being resold on ebay. Further, this also received national news coverage (see the citations in the Newsweek article). It should be included in this article. American In Brazil (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You "clearly stated" a number of statements that are untrue, and then made some other assertions with nothing to back them up. Much of the problem does appear to be your unique definitions of words, but whatever.  Dewey Defeats Truman is at once both trivia and oddball interesting enough to merit mention.  The fact that Newsweek published some amount of test issues is trivia but also mildly funny in the context of Dewey Defeats Truman.  It is not in any way, shape or form any evidence of bias or mainstream media hankypanky or any of the other armwaving you've engaged in here.  There is nothing about this incident that indicates bias or nefarious intent.  Nothing at all.  Move on from that.  If you think the Newsweek cover picture should be somewhere near the bottom of the article, referencing Dewey Defeats Truman in one sentence, that seems appropriate, but this is not a nutty major conspiracy here.  It is a very minor thing, and should be addressed as such. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@2005. I have never used the word "conspiracy" and I'm sorry you have misread into my comments something that is simply not there. I have only noted that Newsweek was the only major news outlet which claimed that the loser was the winner (as a statement of fact, not a forecast), and therefore it is notable. If you know of another news outlet that made this false claim, that is notable also and should be included in the article. So far, I have found no others. The 1948 Chicago Tribune headline was the subject of a famous news photo of Truman holding it up and smiling (laughing?). The Newsweek cover was the subject of national news as well (see fn. 61 & 62 of the Newsweek article). The paragraph I have proposed is taken verbatim from that WP article, is fully cited and contains no POV, only facts. Since you state that it would be appropriate to include the cover near the bottom of the article, I will reinsert the paragraph at the bottom of "Forecasts", which is near the bottom of the article and seems like the appropriate section to place it. It is three sentences and you can tweak it as you wish, but two of the sentences contain the citations, so I would not want to eliminate any documentation; WP is an encyclopedia, after all. The two covers (Clinton and Trump) are shown in the citations, but I am not familiar with cutting and pasting from original sources so if you know how to do it, please feel free. Otherwise, I will get one of my geek friends to do it. I will wait 48 hours, however, in order to stimulate any further discussion. P.S. "PUBLICATION: the act of publishing a book, periodical, map, piece of music, engraving, or the like." --Dictionary.com. My definitions are limited by the dictionary. American In Brazil (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Newsweek never said any such thing. You are now engaging in slander. You need to stop this. Objective3000 (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your statement is simply wrong. Here is what the WP article on Newsweek says:


 * "On November 7, 2016, the day before the election, copies of a Newsweek special issue article calling Hillary Clinton's victory were leaked. Supporters of Donald Trump criticized the magazine by claiming that the election was rigged.{cite} The magazine responded by explaining on Twitter that they specifically created two different covers to be released after the election.{cite}" [emphasis added]


 * This is the paragraph I believe is notable for this article in the "Forecasts" section. American In Brazil (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The WP article is WRONG. A special issue, not a cover article, was sent out a day in advance, and on election day, it was put on newsstands at various venues, including the Barnes and Noble on Union Square in New York City, where I myself (as I mentioned above) physically purchased one. This magazine refers many times to "President-elect Hillary Clinton". @Objective3000 is incorrect as to the assertion that it wasn't put up for sale and that only 17 copies were sold. The following day I went back to see if I could get a couple more for investment purposes (my niece just got married and I thought it might be good for any presumptive kid's college fund) and they denied that they ever had the damned things. Newsweek and it's licensee who produced and published the issue were extremely embarrassed and undoubtedly wanted to cover it up. Whether or not it was sold out or quickly packed up and sent back to the warehouse I don't know. All I know is that it was out on the newsstands briefly and I bought one. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @ArgleBargle79. Thank you for your correction and clarification. I have corrected the Newsweek article, per the sources cited there, and made the same correction to the paragraph I quoted immediately above. You are right that far more than 17 copies were sold, as hundreds are now offered for sale online which I noted above. As you state, you purchased one. (Were only 16 other copies sold in all of New York City???) The sources cited in the Newsweek article also show the cover - a picture of Hillary Clinton titled "Madame President". Thus, there is no doubt whatsoever that the magazine stated that the loser was the winner. This is notable because, while other news outlets made incorrect predictions, this is the only news outlet that stated as fact that Clinton was elected president. The only other comparable case in American history that I am aware of was the Chicago Tribune headline in its first edition in 1948: DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. The Tribune published its headline and story before the polls closed on the West Coast. Newsweek published its cover and story the evening before the polls even opened. Don't you agree that the paragraph above is relevant and notable for this WP article and should be placed at the bottom of the "Forecasts" section. American In Brazil (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies in advance, but looking at your history, you appear to be obsessing on this one issue. This is an encyclopedia. You can't rely on someone that says he personally saw something. We rely on WP:RS. And, your repeated insistence that if something is sold on eBay, it must be valid, will not convince anyone. You must present reliable sources for what you want included. You have failed to do so. There are no such sources. Please read: WP:STICK. Objective3000 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Objective3000. You have repeatedly made assertions that are simply not true. For example, you stated that Newsweek did not declare Clinton the winner, when in fact it did. Both footnotes in the Newsweek article (fn. 61 & 62) and the following are reliable sources --


 * http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/media/newsweek-hillary-clinton-cover/


 * These sources are 1) CNN Money, 2) Cox Broadcasting National Desk and 3) US Weekly. I have referenced them several times above. Just check them out yourself and in each you will see the Newsweek cover with a picture of Clinton labeled "Madame President" and "Hillary Clinton's Historic Journey to the White House". All three are reliable sources. American In Brazil (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This is pointless. Newsweek made no such declaration. They created two covers declaring both the winner. In major football games, baseball games, elections, etc., multiple t-shirts, and other images are created to be first to make sales. You simply do not understand that this is a business decision, not an assertion. It is slander to make these claims against Newsweek. Why are you trying to push this? What is your point? You will have to argue with yourself from now on as I'm tired of explaining the same thing over and over. Objective3000 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

American In Brazil, you should stop editorializing and asserting your opinion as fact. A subcontractor of Newsweek printed some copies of a magazine about an event that hadn't occurred yet. It's common in print publishing to do test runs. None of that is relevant to the point though. No one is disputing some commemorative editions were published. Your insistence on characterizing this trivial action as "bias" or declaring Clinton the winner is a bit beyond obsessive at this point. 2005 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, @2005, Topix, Newsweek's licensee, put together two commemorative issues, however the Trump one wasn't printed and sent to newsstands throughout the country, the Clinton one WAS. A café/bookshop employee somewhere in the south opened the box with the magazines and put a picture of it on either twitter or facebook. After that it went viral, conspiracy theories abounded, and people like myself rushed to their local bookshops or newsstands to see if it was fake news or not. That Topix sent out the magazines a couple of days before they should have is indeed an assertion that they thought Clinton had won the election. This accident was something like Mrs. Clinton's bout of pneumonia right after the fake-news propagandists and the Trump campaign started rumors that she was dying of something. The optics were horrible, and may have gotten a few more Trump supporters to the polls. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Topix did NOT send it out before they should have. The bookshop sold what they weren't supposed to sell. This is trivia and doesn't belong in a large article on the presidential election. As for conspiracy theories, there is no end to them. Two days ago, Sheriff Arpaio announced he had proof Obama's birth certificate was fake. An encyclopedia can't include every bit of trivia. Objective3000 (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Here's the picture of the cover, do what you will with it: Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You have now posted this image on four pages. If you continue, you will have more of these images in Wikipedia than were sold. Why are you trying to push this so hard? What is your point? Objective3000 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's true. That's it. Hundreds of copies were sold in the day it was on the newsstanda. I saw this thing, I own one of them and I remember the words of Chico Marx: "who ya gonna believe me or your own eyes?" I believe my own eyes. That's my point. Also, I was asked and was trying to be helpful.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You should inform Chico that here we use WP:RS. Your own eyes would be WP:OR. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's all take a deep breath, calm down and look at the facts rationally. Everyone owns their own opinion but not the facts and facts are stubborn things. These facts are all taken from three reliable sources - the footnotes in the Newsweek article (fns. 61, 62 & 63), which are: 1) Cox Broadcasting, 2) US Weekly, and 3) CNN. WP editors can easily check out these sources.

1) About six months before the 2016 U.S. presidential election Newsweek, a national news magazine, decided to issue a special commemorative election issue. It prepared two articles with two different covers, one with the Democratic candidate as the winner and one with the Republican candidate as the winner. It contracted with a licensee (TOPIX Media) to print and distribute one of these issues (obviously, there could only be one winner). (By the way, nearly all magazines use an outside printer and distributor because it's simply too expensive to maintain a separate printing plant and distribution staff.) 2) TOPIX printed and nationally distributed the Clinton issue, but not the Trump issue, a day or two before the election. The issue had a cover with a picture of Clinton titled "Madam President" and the tag line "Hillary Clinton's Historic Journey to the White House". 3) Some issues were placed on newsstands the night before the election, but we don't know how many were sold. (Parenthetically, hundreds are being offered for resale online, but let's set that fact aside because it's separate from the reliable sources, which could not know that at the time of broadcast (in the case of CNN and Cox), or printing and distribution (in the case of US Weekly), since the online resales occurred later.) 4) Someone somewhere placed a copy of the Clinton issue cover online the night before the election and it went viral. Thus, even if only a few paper copies of the magazine were sold, many people saw the cover online and/or also saw it via CNN, Cox Broadcasting or US Weekly, which have very large audiences (in the millions). 5) After Trump won, TOPIX recalled the Clinton issue, some of which had already been sold, and then printed and nationally distributed the Trump issue.

In the history of U.S. presidential elections, so far as I have been able to determine, this is only the second time that a major news outlet has published that the loser was the winner. The previous case was the 1948 Chicago Tribune headline in its first edition: DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. (If anyone knows of another case, please inform me - with citation of course.) @ArgleBargle79 and I think this is notable, and reliably sourced, and should be included in this article. I have proposed simply using the three sentence paragraph contained in the Newsweek article (currently, the last paragraph of that article) and placing it at the end of the "Forecasts" section. I have also suggested scanning and posting both covers, which are contained in all three sources cited above. @Objective3000 has opposed this because of "undue weight" while @2005 considers it "trivia". I believe this correctly summarizes where we all stand at this point in the discussion.

I suggest the following to get us to safe ground (i.e., concensus). Post the three sentences from the "Newsweek' article as I have suggested for at least a few days to give other editors a chance to comment. After all, WP is not chiseled in stone, and if others object it can always be removed. (Someone once said, if you want your words written in stone, carve tombstones for a living.) On the other hand, perhaps some other editors will agree that to leave out a matter that is only the second time in American history where a major news outlet put out a story that the loser of the U.S. presidential election actually was the winner is to leave out an important fact about this election.

Comments, people. American In Brazil (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. As to other newspapers and magazines doing this sort of thing, The Milwaukee Journal announced that Morris K. Udall had won the 1976 Wisconsin primary, and published a photo of Jimmy Carter gleefully holding up the issue over his head the next day. A number of newspapers had headlines saying Charles Evans Hughes had won the 1916 election, and on the statewide level, it has happened a bunch of times in very close elections.

The thing here is that Topix and Newsweek handled the entire thing extremely poorly, and a couple of editors are using the coverup to imply the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by the extreme right in general and me in particular. End of rant. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are making false accusations against both Newsweek and editors here. There is absolutely zero evidence of a "coverup" or any need for a coverup of any sort. There is also no evidence that Newsweek or Topix handled this poorly. They made a business decision. The kind made commonly in the souvenir market. You do not gain consensus with rants or exaggeration. What AmericaninBrazil claims is an historic event and you claim is notorious was dropped from the few reliable sources that bothered to carry it soon after it occurred. WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are photographs of her signing the issue on election day.While the Daily Caller is biased, they prefer to publish real news whenever possible.
 * Why wouldn't Newsweek have her sign a promotional copy in advance? It's all part of the souvenir business. I frankly don't understand what you think is being covered up. This is all common business practice. Which is why you see the DailyCaller photo in so few publications, despite the fact that anyone can buy rights to publish it for $175 from GettyImages. This is a non-story that lasted a few days in some reliable sources. There is no consensus to include after five+ weeks. It's time this discussion was closed/hatted. Objective3000 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"Voting Age Population" is a very misleading metric for voter turnout
This metric may include: felons (illegal for them to vote in the presidential election), unregistered voters (these aren't just people who decided to stay home on election day, most at a certain point weren't able to register, and therefore were unable to vote on election day, or during early voting). The latter is a not insignificant number of people who for maybe certain reasons, or no specific reason, never registered to vote. In addition there is a percentage of voters who did not cast a vote for the highest office. http://www.electproject.org/2016g by this count the highest office vote is 58.9% and the total collective vote (not necessarily including president) of 60%. So by these metrics, it does change the historical perspective. In fact, the turnout was higher (voter eligible population) in 2016 than 2012. The highest office vote percentage from eligible voters was higher than 2008 and 2012 in the 2016 presidential election. Also if we are using the flawed VAP metric, the percentage was revised down from 55.3% to 54.4%. This would mean by the VAP metric voter turnout was down, but by the VEP metric voter turnout was up. The United States Election Project explains the distinction here.


 * McDonald says on the source page that "the preferred turnout metric is total ballots counted, whereas the second best count is total ballots (highest office)." When you use that number with VAP you get 55.3%, which is how we've been calculating turnout because all the previous election pages also use VAP and the official FEC reports calculate voter turnout via VAP.  There also seem to be some inconsistencies with the highest office metric between McDonald and Leip right now, Leip has counted 136.96 actual votes for highest office, but Mcdonald only has counted 136.49, so I would hold out on referring to the highest office metric instead of total ballots counted.  Also, if you only use the VAP source from McDonald instead of the FEC reports, McDonald estimated the VAP 2012 highest office rate at 53.6, so making an apples to apples comparison with VAP or VEP, turnout is up. Travis McGeehan (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Leip finalized his count on Dec. 17, at 137.01 million, based on certified state tallies. If the 138.9 million is only an estimate, this should be noted until McDonald finalizes the "total ballots counted" figure (SIDENOTE: If estimate is accurate, then 1.9 million left vote for president simply BLANK? When's the last time something like this has happened?). Also, FEC uses "highest office," not "total ballots counted" as numerator, and also uses a standard US Census estimate to establish the VAP denominator, rather than a novel interpolated calculation, as McDonald employs. Suggest we use FEC numbers only as source of truth moving forward for an Wikipedia apples-to-apples comparison (all other Wikipedia pages link to FEC docs or The American Presidency Project, which relies on FEC's statistics). I'm fine with using McDonald's estimate for now, but this should be changed when the FEC issues its report on the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.240.103 (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Lots of good points made. I would be OK with using the highest office number from McDonald once it aligns with Leip and of course switching to the FEC election report later.  There's probably no good way to fix the inconsistency between the ways McDonald and the FEC estimate VAP though, which will likely improperly make turnout appear down until the FEC report comes out.Travis McGeehan (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, 1.9 million or so can be blank or overvotes or undervotes or otherwise spoiled. This is normal and no reason to suspect there is a conflict between McDonald's number and the Leip/actual results.  For example, see the 400k or so difference in California between the 14,610,509 total votes cast and the totals for all candidates (including Sanders' 79k write-ins) on page 6. 2005 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Map
Would someone change Clinton to H. Clinton, as we've already have a Clinton in the 1992 & 1996 elections. See the 1824, 1828, 1888, 1892, 1904, 1932-1944, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004 election articles, concerning Adams, Harrison, Roosevelt and Bush. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Also started to change past maps. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Howdy Abjiklam. It looks like somebody undid your work. They changed H. Clinton back to Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this discussion. I reverted the change because it's completely unnecessary. The other maps are not on the same page. There's no ambiguity. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's done for all other US presidential election articles. At least, it should be. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Where's the ambiguity? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think specifying which Roosevelt/Bush/etc. ran in which election is a useful detail for historical election maps? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No because the maps are not all together on a single page. The only reason to use initials is if candidates who received electoral votes in the same election have the same last name.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That's not the only reason to have initials. The maps should be comprehensive on their own. Initials have already been put for historical maps, see 1824, 1828, 1888, 1892, 1904 for example. This is a minimal addition that serves to understand the maps without relying on the context of the articles that contain them. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Disambiguity is the only reason for use of initials. Otherwise you would put initials for all candidates.  The older maps should be changed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

On December 9 the Central Intelligence Agency issued an assessment stating that Russia intervened in the election to help Donald Trump win
This has to be the single most biased, factually incorrect statement I've read on Wikipedia. The "CIA" issued no such "assessment" according to the article itself. --218.214.50.229 (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I must agree. The CIA report only claimed that Russian involvement in the election was a possibility, but had no evidence to support it. JRHSD (talk) 8:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See [NYTimes]. Objective3000 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The NY Times article cited above does not, in any way, state that Russia hacked to put Donald Trump in the WH. It simple does not say that.  What it does say that Russia hacking was found but analysts disagree on the motive and how much hacking was done.  So the anonymous IP (219.214.50.229) comment is absolutely correct.  The statement is "biased" and "factually incorrect".  It needs to be edited because it is wrong.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Last week, Central Intelligence Agency officials presented lawmakers with a stunning new judgment that upended the debate: Russia, they said, had intervened with the primary aim of helping make Donald J. Trump president." Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is not the article cited next to the claim. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the decision to include mention of the CIA assessment and not the FBI's skepticism is rather in violation of NPOV by omission. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend not depending too much on the New York Times for non-biased reporting. They haven't exactly been Trump supporters. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not their job to be Trump supporters, it's their job to be critical of candidates and elected officials. And they didn't exactly treat HRC gingerly during the election, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is, they're liberal-biased. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They really aren't, though. Their reporting goes after everybody equally. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Take your opinions to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And all of this is irrelevant and doesn't belong here as this has been widely reported. The question is how do we handle this as an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously we include it. I agree with Toomanyaccountsargh that, to be neutral, we include the FBI's investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. Objective3000 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as it's not misrepresenting the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For example this edit does misrepresent the source. The way it's written it seems to say that the FBI has doubts about whether there was Russian involvement in the election. That is not what the source says (I've said this like ten times now so please pay attention). The source says that the FBI is "fuzzy" on what the purpose of the involvement was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous articles that people of Russia intervened (like this megastar ) and apparently they intervention was approved and carry on by God since Trump win. more refs

Today, the FBI and DNI have publicly concurred about the Russians interfering in the election to benefit Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

NB: The section on "Electronic vote tampering and Russian hacking concerns" had said, "On December 9, however, President Obama ordered a full review of possible Russian hacking of the electoral process (2016 United States election interference by Russia). " However, the reference has nothing about Obama investigating vote tampering; the link is all about investigation into pre-election Russian interference (e.g. hacking into the DNC computers and Podesta's email account). Removed this sentence; I think it should stay out of this section unless there's a specific cite that the investigation is looking into Russian vote tampering. — Narsil (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Washington, D.C. article
You may want to participate in the RfC at Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016. MB298 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Most candidates receiving votes in history?
According to every Wikipedia presidential election article, never before have 7 people received electoral college votes in a single election. However, when i mentioned that in the article, it was deleted. So if you want to claim this has happened before, show some evidence or I'll delete it in 24 hours. littlebum2002 06:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * look at United States presidential election, 1792. MB298 (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's only five there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you mean United States presidential election, 1788–89. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, and not counting the 1872 election where a candidate was already dead when the electoral college met and his electors were thus unpledged, this is the most. A weird end to a weird election. 12:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I realized the issue was the difference in voting prior to the 12h amendment. I tried to make the sentence in question clearer.littlebum2002 20:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is Trump at the bottom of the candidates list on the electoral map?
Going by the other election maps the convention seems to be to list the Republican second. There is no precedent for alphabetical order being used to justify putting non-candidates above one of the main two on the list. 24.34.37.26 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The placement of the President-elect at the bottom of the candidates list goes against precedent and seems to be a partisan edit. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was partisan, but it does break from other electoral maps from Wikimedia Commons. I'd suggest that you comment here, where there is already an ongoing discussion.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it's alphabetical, going from Clinton through the list to Trump. I saw that immediately, and it doesn't strike me personally as connoting any kind of bias or anything else (imho).

NicholasNotabene (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Last name alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But the other electoral maps for past U.S. presidential elections are not formatted this way. It isn't an issue of bias, but it is an issue of inconsistency.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The list should be Clinton, Trump, and below that all these other non-notable faithless elector candidates. Putting Kasich immediately below Clinton is confusing. The race was between Clinton and Trump. Calibrador (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Newspaper endorsements"
The section of this article on "Newspaper endorsements" concludes with the following sentence:

"Trump received favorable coverage, but no explicit endorsement, from Breitbart, a right-wing news and opinion website categorized as alt-right by The Guardian."

As Breibart (a) is not a newspaper, and (b) did not endorse Trump, may I suggest that this sentence is utterly irrelevant and should simply be deleted? The opinion of a columnist for The Guardian (a UK newspaper) regarding the Breitbart website is also wholly irrelevant to the topic of newspaper endorsements, by the way.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support the removal. Be bold! — JFG talk 18:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, I'll go ahead and remove it. — Narsil (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User talk:Narsil Why are you removing this after such a small chat? The fact that Breibert did not endorse him is a very relevant, important fact. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BOLD, you don't need to have any discussion to make changes like this. NicholasNotabene made the suggestion, and JFG and I both agreed, and agreed that discussion wasn't necessary here (especially since there weren't any contrasting voices at the time).
 * Since the question is raised now, though--I'll say that the negative fact ("A particular site that clearly favors Trump hasn't formally endorsed him") isn't noteworthy, aside from the fact that they aren't actually a newspaper. Possibly they had an existing policy of not making endorsements. But we can hardly list every website that clearly favored one side but didn't formally say so. — Narsil (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: Cartogram update
In Maps section, please change:

(From old) File:United States presidential election, 2016 Cartogram.png|United States presidential election, 2016 cartogram (To new) File:2016 Electoral Vote-Cartogram.png|United States presidential election, 2016 cartogram

Rationale: Old was merely a projection. New has actual vote as happened yesterday.--Chris from Houston (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This edit has been completed.--Chris from Houston (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Other candidates in infobox
Given that neither of the top two candidates won a majority of the popular vote, and given that some third party candidates actually got electoral votes this time, how about we add the other five faces to the infobox.
 * No third-party candidate got any electoral votes.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders was an official third-party candidate, even though he did not run. Please look at previous election pages for consistency.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanders didn't get 'at least' 5% in the popular vote & his electoral vote for president, was by a faithless elector. Therefore, he should not be included in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You put the comma in the wrong spot. Sanders was an official third-party candidate in California, and he got 5.67% of the popular vote in Vermont (finishing ahead of both Johnson and Stein).  He got a vote by a faithless elector in Hawai'i.  Those are just as meaningful, if not more so, than Stein finishing fifth in Vermont.  If you were consistent, you would zero out all third-party candidates, because none of their resulted in an electoral vote.  We can work on the numbers that we ultimately agree on in the rows to the right of the candidates receiving electoral votes, but to not include them renders the "Others" row misleading.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanders hasn't won at least 5% nationwide, which concerns this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could someone link the discussion where the 5% figure (post-election infobox inclusion) was decided on? clpo13(talk) 23:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5% is what the FEC considers a viable campaign eligible for match funding. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Final electoral vote count
Shouldn't this article list the final electoral vote count? I didn't see it there. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I keep adding it in. Someone keeps deleting it.  I think an article about the 2016 election should have the final, official results of the Electoral College.  I don't see why this is an issue.  Someone keeps saying that the info is already in the Info Box.  I don't see it there, other than the (obvious) results for Trump and Clinton only.  Thoughts?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would add both (Finnish article as an example), since in Monday I googled this article to see at a glance how many of Trump's electors rebelled and how many of Clinton's. I was disappointed when I had to go through the article for a while in order to find the information. It's also a problem that a random person arriving at this article do not know whether the numbers represent projected or actual electors. Since the amount of electors is listed immediately after the popular vote counts it could be also just numbers derived from the popular vote counts., (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the article should list the electors awarded to each candidate regardless of how they eventually voted, with a footnote in the info-box and an explanation somewhere in the article. The fact that some electors voted differently from how they were obliged is trivia, unless it affects the outcome, e.g., if the outcome had not been Trump's election.  BTW, these votes are not "final," that is determined by Congress when they count them.  In the United States presidential election in Hawaii, 1960 for example, Congress had to choose between two competing slates of electors.  TFD (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Either way the text "Electoral votes" is an insufficient explanation, as it could mean both projected or actual votes., (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The infobox now lists official results (304/227). I have added a footnote explaining the discrepancy with pledged electors. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. — JFG talk 07:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, a "footnote" is not sufficient. Someone should be able to go somewhere (like, this article) and see very clearly: "What are the official results of the 2016 Electoral College?".  It seems quite basic info to the topic of the article.  Why is this controversial?  Also, the color map does not help a person understand (who got how many votes), in the way that a simple list would.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is more important what electors Clinton and Trump won then how they voted. Suppose for example one of the candidates in an election died before the College voted - would we say they won no electoral votes?  TFD (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are making my point for me. You asked would we say they won no electoral votes?  So, again, I say: we need an article that lists what the official results of the Electoral College were.  I am dumbfounded that this is even an "issue".     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
They were in the infobox, but somebody went & deleted them. They should be in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As long as the results are here, somewhere.  This article should have the final official results.  Yes.  Whether in the Info Box or in the narrative, they need to be listed somewhere within this article.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think something like "the other colors represent seven faithless electors in Texas, Washington, and Hawaii who voted for Powell, Paul, Kasich, Sanders, and Spotted Eagle." should be added below the map. This is how faithless electors have been handled in other election articles, unless we are waiting for the votes to be counted by Congress. TdanTce (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)TdanTce.

Articles for faithless electors

 * Bret Chiafalo
 * Levi Guerra
 * Esther John (faithless elector)
 * David Mulinix
 * Robert Satiacum Jr.
 * Chris Suprun

MB298 (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)