Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 14

President and First Lady Trump Test Positive for COVID-19.
During this late-night period, NBC News, among other outlets, has broken into regularly-scheduled programming to announce that President and First Lady Trump have tested positive for COVID-19. I imagine that development will have a profound and direct impact on the remainder of the 2020 US presidential election cycle. How much, and to what extent, should this be mentioned in this article? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's a short paragraph on this at the end of 2020 United States presidential election. Context for Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic is provided directly above it. IMO that's all that's needed for now. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 06:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, not long after I opened the new thread on this, someone added the content to which you referred above. I was aware of that addition, but had some other things to take care of, so I wasn't able to report back here that I was satisfie with the way things worked out there. As the news coverage tonight mentioned, and as I'd already surmised, the situation, and consequently the coverage thereof by news outlets, which in turn will impact whatever is said about that here, will be in flux, which means we'll have to be flexible and fluid in what is said and how it is said based on the available sources. That's no problem whatsoever. I apologize for my delayed response to what's been put in thus far. Thanks for ensuring that I was aware of it, however. I appreciate you doing so. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Joe Biden being tested, I will state we must be careful not to let that section devolve into Citation overkill, that has been a fairly persistent problem. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Bill Weld did not receive any delegates at the Republican National Convention.
The Section on the republican primary shows that Bill Weld won one delegate, but at the RNC the delegates from Iowa unanimously voted for Trump. I think the section should say he received 0 delegates, but with a note explaining the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.59.82.111 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Open debate
Can we restore the sentence mentioning the open debate at the end of the debate section? I agree that it's not notable enough for a table, but I think that it's still worth one sentence there, just like in articles for previous elections. It would also be consistent with the various mentions of minor candidates throughout the article. Heitordp (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd be fine with that but am mostly indifferent. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I restored the sentence. Heitordp (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Polls are strange
Looking at the polls they show Trump with near zero chance of winning. And yet he is going to win why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.3.199 (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not for political discussion. It is for improving the article. Nojus R (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY Przemysl15 (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , please remember to assume good faith. There does not appear to be any trolling going on here. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 03:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Polls are snapshots of the race at a given time and are not predictions in and of themselves. Predictions are listed on this page, too, but Wikipedia does not evaluate their methodology. You can go directly to the organizations publishing the predictions if you want to learn more about them. Most do not actually give Trump a near zero chance of winning. Please note that this talk page is not a forum for discussion of the election, and you should only make comments related to improving the article. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 03:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Jo Jogensen
She’s on all 50 states ballots that fact the polls are random and can be easily fixed to keep her out. She should have picture up with trump and biden Ogwisconsin (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A little tip for you: before opening a topic for discussion on a page like this, make sure that no other topics on this page cover the issue you want to raise. Discussions on whether or not to include Jo Jorgensen or any other third-party candidates has been rehashed almost ad nauseum. In one of the earlier threads on this page, plain as day, you'll find the arguments against including anyone else outside of the two main political parties for now. If any third-party candidate earns a sufficient majority of the vote that results in them wining any presidential election, that would be the precedent we currently lack for any sound rationale about including them. Just because any given third-party candidate has access to 270 electoral votes, that doesn't necessarily indicate that any of those third-party candidates has a real chance to earn sufficient enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Until that changes, the third-party candidates only really serve to draw away support that would otherwise be given to the two major-party candidates, which is not sufficent enough reason to include them in the infobox. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The condition isn't [just] "a sufficient majority of the vote that results in them wining any presidential election" but [also] 5% polling. You dismiss ballot access but I wonder if you can tell me how many candidates have access to 270 EV, and 538 EV, apart from the Democrats and the Republicans (excluding write-in)?  The statement "third-party candidates only really serve to draw away support [from D&R]" is simply wrong.  There many are people who wouldn't vote if only the `major' candidates were on the ballot. Etsnev (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Our focus on elections is mainly on who wins. Therefore if they pull in people that doesn't affect the election. So their only effect that is notable that point of view is them taking votes of those who would have otherwise voted from another candidate.
 * My more general point is that including third party candidates in the leading infobox here would be like including Finland in the infobox of WW2, it's undue weight. I'm sure there's some underlying consensus on when to include somewhere, but as examples: 1992 United States presidential election and 1996 United States presidential election are the most recent elections to include third party candidate, where Ross Perot who got 18.9% and 8.2% of the vote respectively. Banak (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Found it, in the banner. It's 5% average in the polls per the RFC at Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12. Banak (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevant split discussion
Talk:Postal voting in the United States. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Legions of Lawyers: Part 2
Unless there's a Biden blowout that even Trump can't contest, there's going to be a contested election or at least an attempt by the Trump people to make it one. Now whether how much is going to be on this page and how much will be on a new article will be determined when the time comes. An article called Supreme Court cases related to the 2020 US Presidential election can be started now, as there have been, as I mentioned before two cases, not including Trump's taxes (that would make it five) which have already been ruled on. I suggest we have a list of the cases and their rulings before the big stuff gets going. Then I'm not so sure. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do the 2 current cases warrant creating a completely new article? Would we end up with a stub article if we move forward with a new article today? Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A stub will do for now. There are at least ten or fifteen cases that haven't been ruled on yet, including Trump's second bite at the apple on the taxes thing. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Politico election predictions
Politico made a number of edits to their state predictions on October 11: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/race-forecasts-and-predictions/president/

That needs to be edited in the state predictions section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1201:C853:C84D:D1D5:7B34:4B32 (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"The most consequential presidential election in modern American political history"
The lead was recently expanded with a new paragraph about the major issues of the election. The first sentence is "Considered the most consequential presidential election in modern American political history,". Is it really considered that? Seems like every presidential election is described as "the most important" or "most consequential" election in American history. It seems kind of ridiculous to describe an election that way before its even happened. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Prcc27 (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed that specific phrasing from the intro. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While we're on this topic of new stuff that's been added to the lead I feel like we should get rid of this sentence too: "generally considered the pivotal vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius;". For one thing it's feels like oddly too much detail regarding the ACB nomination plus it's pure hypothesizing anyway, ACB has not said she would vote any particular way on either of those cases and it's not even a given that either of those cases will come up again in the Supreme Court. To suggest otherwise is just random speculation which I don't think belongs on an encyclopedia. I suggest the sentence about the Supreme Court just be shortened to "The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett," Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Social media and Section 230
Yesterday I added a text on Unique issues about how two social media companies handled a New York Post post, but it has been removed as "irrelevant". Since this issue has raised new callings for reform Section 230, I see this as relevant, therefore it should be places back in the article: --David8a (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)David8a

On October 14, 2020, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley asked the Federal Election Commission to probe Facebook and Twitter for possible violation of campaing-finance law: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/hawley-asks-fec-to-probe-twitter-fb-for-violations-on-post-censorship/

This came after Facebook and Twitter failed to allow several users to post the link of a New York Post exposé featuring a hard drive with emails and pictures of Hunter Biden: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-post-from-posting/

Emails reveal how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, said the blocking was "unacceptable": https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/twitter-ceo-says-handling-of-blocked-post-article-was-unacceptable/

Colorado Rep. Ken Buck and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan called for a reform on Section 230, to give social media same treatment as media outlets: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/trump-slams-censorship-of-the-posts-expose-on-hunter-biden/
 * Well, all of this is based on apparent Russian disinformation. Your post suggests a POV, as Twitter and Facebook didn't "fail to allow" the link, they suppressed disinformation. Section 230 is not particularly relevant to the election. I imagine we may need to add things on this to Section 230, October surprise, and Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, when the situation becomes more clear. But no, we should not add it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of all the things that I would add to the article that are not currently in it due to concerns over size, "a bunch of twitter users got ange-ry because they couldn't post Russian disinformation" is pretty much at the complete bottom of that list. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Include Independence Party candidate Brock Pierce
Brock Pierce is a legitimate third party candidate who will appear on the ballot on the Independence Party line (and in Hawaii as the American Shopping Party). Brock's running mate is Karla Ballard. https://www.independencepartyny.org/brock-2020 talks about the candidates and confirms they will appear on the New York ballot as their party's candidate.

from: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2020/09/american-shopping-party-picks-brock-pierce-as-presidential-nominee/ " The American Shopping Party, which has ballot access in Hawaii, nominated independent presidential candidate Brock Pierce for president and Karla Ballard for vice president, according to the Hawaii Office of Elections. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.10.28.6 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Coverage of this person's campaign is nowhere near as close to the levels of mainstream or even third-party candidates. Inclusion on the page would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. He is included on the Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election page, which is enough. KidAd   talk  21:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020 (2)
In 2020 United States presidential election, further should go before Update section per MOS:LAYOUT JsfasdF252 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done JsfasdF252 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020 (3)
Donald Trump is not from Florida. He is from New York, New York. The sidebar of him and Joe Biden indicates he is from Florida when he is not. DL19992020 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ He changed his residency to Florida. So that is what we consider his home state. Prcc27 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per Prcc27. Also you do realize there is a note in the infobox explaining this? Asartea   Talk  undefined  Contribs  16:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020
In the candidate section of the page, the slot for other minor candidates is written in persian despite the page being in English. Would change other from Persian to English for ease of reading. Zombiedale (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Already Fixed, the issue was due to possible vandalism over at Template:U.S. presidential ticket box other, see diff. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the word Senator should capitalized in the Harris info box
I think that the word Senator should capitalized in the Harris info box.

Cnon20 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Cnon
 * Yes check.svg Done ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 11:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tartan357

Cnon20 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Cnon20

COVID deaths in America
The number of deaths in America is 638,044; of which 220,000 belong to the United States alone. The article cites 220,000 as the number of deaths in the whole continent, when only people from the United States are allowed to vote in the US presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:40:28:DD9:A969:4CD4:CF48:217B (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Americans" in English mostly refers to people in the United States, rather than to people who live in all of the Americas. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , and that is especially obvious in the context of this article. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 20:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2020
I believe the home states of the running mates Vice President Pence of Indiana and Senator Harris of California should be listed Historymaj18 (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The VP nominees have joined the ticket of the Presidential nominees; the election is primarily about the presidency. What you propose is not done on the other US presidential election articles. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * per . Consensus would be needed to change the entire U.S. presidential election series. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 08:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020
In the article it says "(Biden would be) the first candidate to defeat an incumbent president in 28 years since Republican George H. W. Bush's defeat by Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992; and also, the first Democratic candidate to defeat an incumbent Republican president in 44 years since Gerald Ford's defeat by Jimmy Carter in 1976". The last part about Gerald Ford's defeat by Jimmy Carter should be removed as the last time a Democrat defeated an incumbent Republican president was already mentioned in the previous sentence which was George H.W. Bush's defeat by Bill Clinton. MetabolicMouth (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ by, so thank you for the good catch!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2020
Delete "has increased" in front of Generation Z in the section Demographic Trends under Background. Red 05 (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2020 (2)
In this paragraph: "Central issues of the election include the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left over 220,000 Americans dead; protests in reaction to the killing of George Floyd and other African Americans; the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, and the future of the Affordable Care Act, with Biden arguing for protecting and expanding the scope of the legislation, and Trump pushing for repealing or narrowing many of its provisions." Add: "climate change regulations, particularly the Paris Agreement from which Trump plans to withdraw;"

Making the paragraph read: "Central issues of the election include the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left over 220,000 Americans dead; protests in reaction to the killing of George Floyd and other African Americans; the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, climate change regulations, particularly the Paris Agreement from which Trump plans to withdraw; and the future of the Affordable Care Act, with Biden arguing for protecting and expanding the scope of the legislation, and Trump pushing for repealing or narrowing many of its provisions."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54395534

Alternative source: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/22/925468716/theres-a-lot-at-stake-for-the-climate-in-the-2020-election 2601:640:4000:3170:7D9D:E6D7:E959:A951 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, I have implemented your request. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should we include nominee boxes and primary results for third parties?
Should this article include full-size templates presenting presidential nominees of third parties, like below? 00:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Candidates
00:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * No. Per WP:DUE, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to [...] prominence of placement [...] and use of imagery. The templates look nice but they are clearly undue here, as they would also be for any of the several other third party candidates. The extent of arguably noteworthy material on the above candidates in the article is this:


 * (Extra info on conventions is cited to primary sources and a newsletter called Ballot Access News.)
 * We could autocollapse the templates, create a smaller/less prominent alternative, or just remove them entirely, which is what I'd opt for, as versions already exist at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No per the above argument over WP:Due. The templates are large and give the impression that Hawkins and Jorgensen are considered on some level of equal footing with the Democratic and Republican sources given that the Democratic and Republican candidates have similar templates used, which is a level of equal footing not backing by sourcing. Moreover, the 2016 article does not have the same level of template equality this page does, and while I need to be careful of WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, and an election page looks different pre and post election, I do believe that the 2016 article is relevant. The 2016 page documents the last election, and given that the sourcing does not give any reason to believe that third parties in this election are going to have a more significant effect in this election than in 2016, such should be accurately reflected in the page. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: Conditionally Yes as discussion below brings up the idea that the boxes should be collapsed, removing the nomination part as substitution, which is a solution I am equally in favor of. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Libertarian Party is on equal footing with the Democrats and Republicans ballot access wise, it has ballot access in all 50 states plus DC.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do not consider ballot access alone an accurate signifier of impact on the election; poll numbers are generally considered a good indicator of how relevant a candidate will be in the election, and only Trump and Biden have polling numbers of any significance. Neither Jorgensen nor Hawkins have any other reason to be considered impactful in the election. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that they plainly do and your blatently wrong. For example polling agencies regularly poll Hawkins and Jorgensen alongside Trump and Jorgensen but not other third party candidates. Also, Jorgensen at least is plainly having an impact because Jorgensen frequently polls higher than the projected margin of victory in many polls. Finally, wiki:CrystalBall prohibits such conjectural analysis as you have used because the event in question, the election, has not happened yet. There is thus no definitive way to know what their impact will be on the election. In Florida in 2000, Nadar and Buchanan's candidacies ended up being deciding factors in the Election, and yet neither of them polled higher than 5%.XavierGreen (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election, there have been 339 polls conducted between May 1, 2020 and today, Sept 22, 2020. Jorgensen in included in 44 of those polls and Hawkins in 43 of them, for a percentage of ~13% and ~12.7%. I don't know what you define "regularly" as, but certainly being included in under 15% of polls does not qualify as regular inclusion. Furthermore, in said 44 polls, Jorgensen polls above the margin of victory by 1% in one single poll, and ties the margin of victory in 2 more polls. Jorgensen does not frequently poll higher than the projected margin of victory. Figuring in margin of error with Jorgensen's polling, the sum of Jorgensen's polling and the margin of error is only larger than the projected margin of victory in 6 of the 35 polls which include Jorgensen and a margin of error. So even if you include the margin of error, Jorgensen does not "poll higher than the projected margin of victory in many polls". Additionally, WP:CrystalBall does not prohibit speculation on an event if the speculation is well documented in reliable sources. The entire article is based on this speculation, so even if the fact that there is no definitive way to know what their impact will be on the election is true, there is a definitive way to determine what reliable sources consider their impact on the election will be. Lastly, you are correct that Nadar was considered by some to have an effect on the election, both pre and post election night. However, The Bush/Gore race was considered to be much closer than the Trump/Biden race, and as such Nadar's inclusion in the race was seen as much more controversial than Jorgensen's. Republican leadership ran pro Nadar ads in some states and the President of the Sierra Club even wrote Nadar about his concerns. No one on any level of similar notability is writing any of the third party candidates open letters nor is the Trump campaign running pro Jorgensen or Hawkins ads, to my knowledge at least. Jorgensen is not considered a spoiler candidate in the way Nadar was, a more precise comparison is to that of Evan McMullin in 2016, who was not considered to be a spoiler candidate until after the election and included as such then. If Jorgensen defies what reliable sources are reporting and is later considered a spoiler candidate after the election, then such should be recorded after the election, and only then. WittyRecluse (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nationwide polling is utterly meaningless in United States presidential elections, the national popular vote is of utterly no consequence to the results of the election. Rather statewide polling shows a candidates impact. In several key states, Jorgensen is polling higher than the projected margin of victory in various polls.XavierGreen (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nationwide polling is not utterly meaningless in United States presidential elections, as prior example Nader's goal of 5% for federal matching funds has carried on into even this election and the likelihood of a national popular vote winner also winning the election is quite high. But, as they say, correlation does not mean causation. In any case, Jorgensen is not considered to be making an impact in state races by reliable pollsters. In all 13 states I could find with at least one poll that shows Jorgensen's polling numbers combined with the margin of error outpolling the margin of victory (Az, Fl, Ga, Ia, Mi, Mn, Nv, Nh, Oh, Pn, Tx, and Wi), she was included in an average of 14% of polls, only breaking 15 percent in Az and Nc and not breaking 25% in either of those states. In these 13 states, she outpolled the margin of victory ~23.3% of the time, outpolled or tied the margin of victory ~37% of the time and outpolled the margin of margin of victory when combined with the margin of error ~46%. Even with a less than decent sample size and all the possible ways to find relevancy, Jorgensen isn't close more than half the time. The only individual states that Jorgensen's polling numbers mean anything in any category more than half the time were Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina (excluding Nv, Nh, and Oh which had one poll with Jorgensen each, and Ia, which had 2). However, Georgia only has 6 polls with Jorgensen, so her having relevant numbers in 4 simply means the sample size is too small. She is only relevant in Fl because there were 8 polls with margins of error and she was outside the margin of victory when combined with the margin of error 5 times. She did not exceed 50% when considering the 2 extra polls that did not have margins of error. The most compelling case is North Carolina, where she was included in 18 of 75 polls (the highest percentage by far (almost 25%)) and because she tied the margin of victory 6 times and beat it 5, so 30% of the time she beat the margin of victory and 60% of the time she beat or tied it. When summed with the margin of error she beats the margin of victory a whopping 75% of the time, but only with 12 polls of data. I am unwilling to say that someone who is arguably relevant in 1 state based off of being included in 10 or 20 polls out of almost 80 polls is someone who is going to have an impact in the election.
 * Moreover, all of this doesn't matter, because what I think or do math on is literally irrelevant. Clearly my ranting is WP:OR. What matters is what reliable sources think, and clearly reliable pollsters don't consider her to be a significant candidate because she isn't included in even 1/4 of yearly polls in any of the states or districts and reliable sources elsewhere don't consider her an impactful candidate either becuase they consider this to be a 2 candidate race decided by things that are not third parties. The point is, my OR cant even find her as an impactful candidate. If Jorgensen really is an impactful candidate, reliable sources do not think so and we aren't in the business of righting WP:RGW here, so unless there are other WP:RSs out there who do consider Jorgensen to be an impactful candidate, the WP:ONUS of bringing reliable sources that believe so here is on you. Clearly they aren't pollsters because they do not find her impactful WittyRecluse (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources state Jorgen and Hawkins are irrelevant as you purport? THAT is OR and your own biased opinion. While in contrast there are tons of polls that show Jorgensen polling greater than the margin of victory in various states. For example see this Georgia poll from just yesterday I can post a myriad of others.[[User:XavierGreen|XavierGreen] (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I do not think you read the comment you responded to. As stated previously, "the WP:ONUS of bringing reliable sources that believe [Jorgensen is a relevant candidate] is on you". From WP:ONUS directly: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Clearly, these templates are disputed content, so I do not need to find sources that state Jorgensen and Hawkins are irrelevant, you need to find sources that state Jorgensen and Hawkins are relevant. Also, my "biased" opinion is based off of the polling that you are talking about. Georgia has had 35 polls conducted by reliable pollsters in 2020, and, due to the new poll, it now has 7 polls with Jorgensen in it. While you are right that Jorgensen beats the margin of victory in 5 of the 7 polls, inclusion in only 7 polls out of 35 (20% inclusion in polls in Georgia) certainly is not a large enough sample size to make a clear and obvious determination on whether or not reliable pollsters think she is going to make an impact on the election there, especially considering only 20% of pollsters in 2020 consider her to be relevant enough to include at all. Further more, she is beating the margin of victory by exactly 1% in all 5 polls she beats it in, and, most importantly, the margin of error in those polls is larger than what she polls at in 6 of 7 polls and larger than 1% in all of them. An opinion based off of reliable pollsters, assuming I've taken them as a whole and weighted them fairly, which I believe I have, is not biased. Your judgement is off of "some polls" or "various polls" or "tons of polls" and not the wholistic picture. In any case, again as previously stated, Georgia is a much less effective example to use for argument than North Carolina. WittyRecluse (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, NPOV demands it and the so called Undue weight arguement is inaccurate. Joregensen and Hawkins are regularly included in polling and Jorgensen has hit 5% in several polls including those used to determine who enters the presidential debates. If anything Jorgensen and Hawkins should be added to the infobox at the top of the page.XavierGreen (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, as clearly WP:UNDUE and as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Besides, none of them are even included in most polls and their polling is pretty low. It would also look right now as if they are given more coverage in this article than that for Libertarian/Green in the 2016 United States presidential election, when the candidates for those two parties had way more coverage in sources ahead of the election.  Impru 20 talk 16:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Fails WP:UNDUE. Coverage is not proportionate to that of the legitimate candidates. KidAd   talk  16:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "legitimate candidates"? How exactly are the Libertarian and Green party candidates not "legitimate candidates", they are ballot qualified and have filed all proper paperwork with the FEC. Your statement smacks of what this really is, an attempt to sway the article against third party candidates of any sort and thus a blatant NPOV violation.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak No While I do find them useful, third parties aren't really as important as the major ones and they can easily work just as well with galleries or a table Weak Yes per Tartan357. Nojus R (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes with the nomination infoboxes/tables collapsed it provides appropriate WP:DUE weight. That said, I would also be fine with the nomination part being removed and just leaving the box with the nominees and their photographs.  As these parties have ballot access to over 270 electoral college votes, it would be undue to exclude them and a photograph of their nominees.  Those who want to know more about Green or Libertarian nomination contests/primaries, can find that information on the pages about those nominations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikipedeans arguing for the suppression of third party candidates should be seriously considered for permanent edit bans from the site. They obviously see this free encyclopedia project as a political cudgel. I think their stance on something as simple as mentioning certain candidates at the same level as others is very useful for determining the attitude they take for all of their edits and contributions. Imagine if our article on the 2000 elections refused to list Third party Candidate Ralph Nader, despite the huge impact he arguably had on the election results. Popularity does not equal notability. 12.33.243.106 (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither party has had a notable impact upon the election thus far, and if any candidates other than Biden or Trump were to become notable in their campaign, the page would be edited to reflect it as such. Your argument that "Wikipedeans arguing for the suppression of third party candidates should be seriously considered for permanent edit bans from the site." is a hysterical claim and does not belong on this talk page. There is no suppression - in fact, I'd argue that there are a few here who are trying to increase the notability of candidates by trying to give candidates undue weight on this page. However, I'd agree with Darryl Kerrigan that the boxes should be added, but collapsed, removing the nomination part as substitution. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No - this is a clear-cut case of WP:UNDUE. Unless one or both of these candidates qualifies for a debate or consistently polls above 5% nationally, there is no reason to include them. No reliable source has indicated that either one has a chance at becoming president, or even has a chance to change the outcome of the election. --WMSR (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They should stay. There were several false electors in 2016, and even if neither receives more than 5% of the national vote it is very possible that they will receive a vote from at least one faithless elector. If that happens, then the 2020 results page will end up including them while the 2020 election does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimmeytop (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although the reliable sources generally do not consider them to be viable candidates for the presidency, the Libertarian and Green nominees are typically considered to have a potentially substantial effect on the outcome of the election and are commonly included in national and swing state polls. For example, Michelle Obama warned voters in her 2020 DNC speech that it would be potentially costly to "play games with candidates who have no chance of winning", and The Wall Street Journal recently pointed out that third parties received more votes than the winner's margin of victory in several key swing states in 2016, saying: "In some battleground states, [third party votes] made up a larger share of the vote than the margin between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump." Trump himself argued in his recent interview with Laura Ingraham that Gary Johnson caused him to lose the popular vote in 2016. The reliable sources routinely represent the Libertarian and Green candidacies as important factors that could tip the scales of the election, and it is therefore perfectly WP:DUE to include them in this article under the Other parties and independent candidates heading. Moreover, the WP:CONSENSUS has been in favor of inclusion in past presidential election pages (see 2012 United States presidential election and 2016 United States presidential election), and we would need a compelling reason unique to 2020 to overturn that consensus for this article alone. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, concerning 's point I would also add in a similar vein that the Democratic party's attempts to keep the Greens off the ballots in some states also suggests the Greens are more significant then the DNC would care to admit. See sources like any of these:, , , ,  & .--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, per "No votes" that cited the issue of WP:UNDUE. Idealigic (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose per other comments, WP:UNDUE, and the lack of clear precedent for such actions in prior election years. I believe that it would only make sense to think about including candidates from either or both parties in the main infobox in an election article following a prior election in which those third party candidates earned a significant number of electoral votes. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and since available sources are pretty plainly clear about the fact that third-party candidates haven't been shown to make a substantial difference in the electoral vote tally, there is in fact an established precedent to not include third-party candidates in reliable coverage on presidentiial races. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , why do you not see 2016 United States presidential election as precedent for inclusion? Also, why are you talking about the "main infobox"? This RfC has nothing to do with that. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 10:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, previously, this page was where that information was primarily presented. However, with the recent changes to Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, third-party candidates being included here is both a WP:CONTENTFORK and a violation of WP:UNDUE, as they are completely irrelevant electorally. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No per WP:UNDUE. Sources cover mainly the Democratic and Republican tickets. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No because these third-party candidates, while I admire their gumption, have not generated enough support (as measured by media coverage and polls) to merit equal standing (due weight) with the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 21:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think "equal standing" would be putting them in the infobox. We're just talking about whether they should be included in the body of the article. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understood the RfC to be about including the templates in the article body, and my "No" was based on that understanding. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 05:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Note - Why has the entire set of infoboxs (ie everything) been removed while the RfC is ongoing? Also I am not sure a "No" vote results in all of the content being removed.  There was discussion of compromises that removed some of the content (presumably for due weight or redundancy) but not all.  The way that the RfC question was worded meant that a "Yes" would leave everything as it is, but a "No" does not necessarily mean everything is removed, only that the content will be changed in some way (ie some of it is removed, all of it is removed, or it is altered, etc).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I support keeping them as-is but would prefer collapsing them to removing them entirely, which is what some "no" !votes are conditional on. I agree that their removal was premature. I also think a case can be made for removing Hawkins but not Jorgensen because she has universal ballot access; it is not necessary to either keep or remove both tickets. These are examples of conditional/compromise "no" positions that the editor who boldly removed the boxes failed to consider. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 01:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think collapsing them or removing the "nomination" box is appropriate, but the photos of the actual presidential candidates should stay. I am not sure we need the "nomination" boxes for the Democrats or Republicans either.  This content is covered in another article, and likely doesn't need to be restated here (but a "see also" line is appropriate).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No Seems to take up a lot of space and provide little of value. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's the only place in the article with pictures of the candidates. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 01:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , why do we need to have their pictures in the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , pictures show readers what the candidates look like, which is of great encyclopedic value. It seems strange to me that it's deemed necessary to have Biden's and Trump's portraits each appear in two places in the article (their ticket boxes and the infobox) while those of other candidates are kept out entirely. I think removing Hawkins is reasonable, but removing Jorgensen, who is polling at 5% in several state and nationwide polls and has universal ballot access, is an WP:NPOV violation. We included these boxes for Johnson and Stein in 2016, and as I mentioned in my !vote above, we'd need a compelling reason unique to 2020 to ignore that precedent. So far, differences between 2016 and 2020 are not being sufficiently discussed. For example, stated above that there is a lack of clear precedent for such actions in prior election years, but declined to answer my question about why 2016 does not qualify as precedent for inclusion. ―  Tartan357  ( Talk ) 01:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No per WP:UNDUE as others have noted. Carter (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note - I have requested a formal close for this RfC. It should likely be allowed to run for 30 days, but a formal close is likely required in the coming weeks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the third parties' results are regularly also given in RS, especially RS about the primaries and the elections, not about Dem. vs. Rep. or Biden vs. Trump (which is material that often over-focuses on the persons or on party machinations, not the election processes). The UNDUE arguments above are flawed, as many others have already explained.  I can see excluding "wild card" candidates that do not represent notable parties and which do not get even a trivial number of votes or more than passing-mention coverage.  But even Kanye West may need to be factored in, since he's very notable and, along with established third parties, has a vote-draining effect primarily on the Dems (multiple entire major-media pieces have been written about this).  Reader understanding of that will be damaged if the third-party and other notable-candidate information is censored.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. No matter what anyone says this does not comply with WP:DUE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And what is your response to what others have said? Or why you think it is WP:UNDUE?  Do you have a response to the 2016 precedent for inclusion?  The fact that they have ballot access in most/all states?  May split the vote?  Etc.?  With respect, this is not a vote.  It's best to show your work and explain your position.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed, this is not a vote. I don't see why others have not responded to my above questions about the 2016 precendent, especially, who said that no such precedent exists. Commenters need to explain their opinions and supply evidence to back up their assertions. If they don't, their comments should not weigh much in this discussion. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC closure

 * Comment: As one of the editors arguing for keeping all the content on the Libertarian and Green parties, I'd just like to say that I approve of this close identifying a consensus to remove the primary results. The primary information is certainly far less WP:DUE than the nominees may be and this seems to be a lotgood compromise as it still presents readers with the most basic information on who the nominees are. I thank for thoughtfully assessing the discussion's nuances in making the formal close. ―  Tartan357  ( Talk ) 01:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Treating non-major candidates different is undemocratic and not the purpose of an independent and factual encyclopedia which should list all the facts. There are more than two candidates, cover them all equally! 2A02:C7F:60A:A100:450D:F931:749F:D0B1 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight Election Predictions
I believe we should add the FiveThirtyEight predictions to the prediction section. It is one of the least biased and most accurate sources for election polling data. They even called every state during the 2012 election. It would be a good way to add polling data and predictions while still abiding by WP:RS and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywood43ar (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We have that on the Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election page, but it does beg the question: why don't we have any polling on the main page at all? Przemysl15 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Completely agree.Colin dm (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)--

It's definitely very strange there's no polling. There's not even a link to that page on the article. Maybe add a link to that article for the mean time and then decide how to move forward after that. Hollywood43ar (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This article has two links each to the nationwide and statewide polling articles. There is one in the infobox at the top of the page (under the US map), and another in a section titled "General election polling".  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly think we should at least have a list of aggregates and/or a graph instead of just links. The predictions section shouldn't be being weighted that much more significantly than the polling section Przemysl15 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree, we should simply transclude the "Polling aggregation" section over at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election over to here, I reckon that would be better than just having links. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion we should have a link to the polling but also graphs from FiveThiryEight on this talk page, updated on a weekly basis. I think that polling information is relevant enough to the topic of the presidential election before it has been conducted.  After the election occurs, we will get rid of the pre-polling information and replace it with exit polling and actual results.  A top priority for this page should be to keep readers informed on the ongoing developments and educated predictions for the outcome of the election. Lshane23 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"Issues" Section of this Article - Omitting the "Hunter Biden, Ukraine, NY Post, and Twitter Censorship" Issue
Right now (October 19, 2020), the biggest issue being discussed in right wing media is the Hunter Biden laptop and corruption story. The President himself has highlighted the Hunter Biden laptop story directly today (indeed, literally telling a reporter that the reporter is a criminal for not reporting on the Hunter Biden story).

The NY Post story about this issue led to Twitter censorship. It is a huge story and one of the big issues of this election.

Further, even before the NY Post story, the President referenced alleged Biden corruption due to Hunter Biden's receiving $50,000+ per month from Burisma and a large sum of money from the wife of the Moscow mayor during the first presidential debate.

Thus, it seems incomplete to list the issues of this election and not include this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki899 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's covered in the Biden campaign article. That's enough. It is not likely to have much of an effect on the election based on the current reporting and reactions. If it somehow turns into a huge issue we can reconsider. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently The New York Post is considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP, and quite frankly this issue is not relevant at all. To the degree that this has received coverage, I find that it's mostly people laughing at the Post's lack of journalistic standards. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , NYP is an unreliable source per WP:RSP. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This story has not yet reached beyond pro-Trump echo chambers like the NYP. If it gains significant traction as an issue of the campaign in mainstream reporting, we can consider adding it then. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 00:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating whether the supposed emails are part of a Russian intelligence operation. Let's not give it any more exposure than we have to. But that reminds me, it should be added to the article Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Issues" Section of this Article - Omitting the "Civil Unrest and Rioting" Issue
Massive civil unrest occurred across the United States in 2020. Depending on political orientation, one might call it "civil unrest" or "riots."

President Trump makes an issue of the rioting/civil unrest in every single rally speech he delivers.

Thus, it seems like a glaring omission to leave this off as an issue being discussed in this campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki899 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the article about the election as a whole, and should not be a blow by blow account of the campaign. Such things can be discussed in the respective campaign articles. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the proposed wording, I can get behind the idea of having a section on the George Floyd protests, because they clearly had a massive effect on the campaign. It's currently mentioned in the lede, but not the article body. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

US Election results Due Date
When can we see the results for the election? Election night of November 3rd? Or November 17th when all 50 states have counted mailed in voting Ballots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that whenever reliable sources declare a winner, the discussion will start here. In my memory, the Associated Press is usually the first to declare a winner.
 * Do not expect Wikipedia to declare a victor before media organizations do. We follow the sources, we don't lead. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia going to declare the Winner on December then? Is that what they're doing? Delayed reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't declare the winner, we simply report if reliable sources declare a winner. Zoozaz1  talk 14:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, you’re going to report the result on December Like last time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As others have said, we will not add a result until reliable sources start reporting one–and even then, we may wait for a very clear agreement among multiple reliable sources. If they weren't to do so until December, then neither would this article, but I think it's too soon to speculate on when a result will become apparent. If you are looking to Wikipedia as a place to come for the first announcement of who has won, I would suggest reconsidering that choice. This is an encyclopedia: Wikipedia does not "declare" a winner or break news. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you know it only took 5 hours for Wikipedia to make 2020 Beruit explosion page on the same day it happened? Only 5 hours. That’s top notch professionalism worthy of a Nobel prize.

However, for 2016 election, it took a month after the presidential election results announcement for Wikipedia started display results. What happened? did you procrastinate by partying and drinking beer every night? Are you going to do the same for this election? Just wait a month after the election results get announced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote counts
I reverted the unsourced addition of the first handful of votes that've come in in New Hampshire, as the addition was unsourced. Devonian Wombat has just restored them, with a source mentioned in the edit summary but not in-text.

What exactly is the plan here? Are we going to try to keep a running tally by adding individual towns' results, sourcing them in edit summaries? Source them all in-text and end up with a massive list of references for each state? Or perhaps we should hold off on adding these tallies until a meaningful number of votes have been counted?

Noting that the decision may be relevant to 2020 United States presidential election in New Hampshire also, which is facing the same issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is split between either waiting 12 hours after the last poll closes before adding the popular vote total, and then updating it every 6 hours or to hold off altogether for the time being per WP:NOTNEWS. That user acted unilaterally and should be reverted. Prcc27 (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologise for reverting, I completely forgot the agreement made beforehand not to touch the popular vote until 12 hours after polls close. I hereby WP:TROUT myself. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * All good, I'll stick a note in a comment so others don't do the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ The total is still up on the article. Prcc27 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I think I got the last of it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, I re-added some of the totals by accident. I meant to make a dummy edit, but failed miserably. My bad. Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I think I got them too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In the press
This article received another, rather extensive, mention in the press: Should it be added to the template above? --2606:A000:1126:28D:B44D:AECC:2DDA:3FC5 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request
Could someone please add: "Across the nation, nearly all voters who expected to be alive in 20 years voted for Biden." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a published source for this comment? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a bizarre request. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I find no sources that verify this claim. Where did you get this information from? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 19:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably just some anti-Trump/pro-Biden partisan trying to editorialize. "Requests" like these are part of the reason why this article is protected. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding to "Potential rejection of election results"
I am unsure if you need permission to make edits to certain pages so I will leave it here. In terms of the potential rejection of election results, I believe we should add a sentence or two about what Hillary Clinton said to Biden, "should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'". There have been many news outlets that have covered this included CNN, NBC News, Politico, and more. Thank you. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the page is under WP:BLUELOCK so you are correct that you do not yet have the capability to edit this page yourself. But you need not worry about that because the system will not let you edit the article if you attempt to do so. Regarding your suggestion, I think that is perfectly fine, but I will wait to see if any other editors object here before adding it myself. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 20:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

, I appreciate you waiting to see if other editors object to adding this, which is consistent with Wikipedia policies. But if it makes a difference, often, when two or more editors approve of content, it's been my experience in most matters like this that the content can be added and retained in the article unless and until there is an objection to the fact that that has been done. Although you can wait a little longer if you'd like, I'd say that, given the suggestion, the sources that support adding it, and both you and I being in favor of the change (which, for the record, is a suggestion I absolutely and completely support), my recommendation to you, given your track record of adding valid information to this article, would be to be bold and go ahead and add it however you see fit to do so. For any others reading this thread who disagree with that, feel free to make that known here. But for the interim, I'd said the suggestion has sufficient support unless and until there are objections to that addition. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. To be clear, I would have felt perfectly comfortable adding it. I just didn't feel strongly enough about it to want to. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 01:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to add it, we need to add the WHOLE comment: that he should not concede on election night. It would be grossly misleading to suggest that she told him never to concede. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is a very important distinction, and I'm glad you caught that difference. I agree that the mention of Clinton's advice to Biden should include the full and complete quote. Nice catch. So let's include the information while ensuring that distnction is made. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just added it. Tweaks/improvements are welcome. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I had no idea she qualified it that way. Thanks for pointing this out. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 01:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)