Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 25

State certified election results.
I think we should have a separate map for state certified election results. The current map shows the opinions of various media outlets. These outlets have disagreed with each other, and some media outlets have changed their opinions over time, giving the impression that the election results are uncertain and arbitrary. If we now place state certified election results on this same map, it will give the American public the impression that state certified results are uncertain and arbitrary. The Trump campaign has been actively de-legitimizing the validity of this election, and this Wikipedia election map is helping to de-legitimize the results by placing state certified results on the same footing as media opinions. Here is my first draft (very rough) attempt at what I have in mind.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:State_certified_2020_election.svg#mw-jump-to-license Unitfreak (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We've got enough maps (one) in this article. Best not to make things more confusing. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Best not to make things more confusing." Right.  From the perspective of the Trump campaign, this election was decided before anyone went to the polls to vote.  The fact that this election outcome map existed and was populated long before the votes were counted seems to support that simple explanation.  Do you really want to keep things simple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Unitfreak  (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear totally anonymous visitor: "From the perspective of the Trump campaign, this election was decided before anyone went to the polls to vote." - On Wikipedia we require evidence from reliable sources. Do you have any? "The fact that this election outcome map existed and was populated long before the votes were counted ..." - Wrong. We actually have been more cautious to indicate that a candidate won a particular state than almost all other sources. If you took the time to learn how Wikipedia works and how we developed this article, you would know that. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * “If you took the time to learn how Wikipedia works”? The caption in the article says the following: “The electoral map for the 2020 presidential election, based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets at mid-November 2020.” The caption in the article says that the media is determining the outcome of this election, as shown in the map. What part of this do you think I have misunderstood? When the Trump campaign claims that it is the media, not the American people, who have decided the outcome of this election, how can you argue otherwise when the caption in the Wikipedia article says that it is based on media consensus?

The media reports on what will happen, it doesn’t determine what happens itself. It is standard practice, and has been for centuries now, that the outcome of elections can be acknowledged even before they’ve been officially certified when they are already clear. This has been done for every election in US history.


 * “It is standard practice, and has been for centuries now, that the outcome of elections can be acknowledged even before they’ve been officially certified when they are already clear“. Well, as I wrote above: “These outlets have disagreed with each other, and some media outlets have changed their opinions over time, giving the impression that the election results are uncertain and arbitrary. If we now place state certified election results on this same map, it will give the American public the impression that state certified results are uncertain and arbitrary.” Unitfreak (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which mainstream reliable sources currently disagree on the results of which states? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * “mainstream reliable sources”? Are you familiar with the “no true Scotsman“ logical fallacy?  If not you can read about it right here in Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman. Unitfreak (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No one will take you seriously if your response is purely a link to the definition of a logical fallacy, just FYI. The distinction between reliable and unreliable sources is a critically important concept on Wikipedia, and there are no reliable sources currently in any disagreement that I'm aware of. Nor do I think they've ever truly in been in disagreement - some just waited longer than others to call certain states. And no reliable outlets that I'm aware of "changed their opinions over time." Can you give examples of what you're referring to? Lazer-kitty (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

“It is standard practice, and has been for centuries now, that the outcome of elections can be acknowledged even before they’ve been officially certified”. Really? If the editors and contributors of Wikipedia are interested in business as usual, then by all means give yourself a pat on the back and pass the Kool-Aid. However, for those more responsible members of the community, who are interested in doing your civic duty, can I recommend watching this video clip from former President Obama. Maybe it is time to think seriously about the role Wikipedia is playing in promoting a conspiracy culture. Maybe it is time to report “actual” election results, rather than reporting the opinions of media outlets. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-us-2020-54910344?__twitter_impression=true Unitfreak (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable Sources are deemed reliable for their editorial integrity practices, as you are probably aware, so they tend to not want to sacrifice their reputations. To call states, and elections as a whole, they base their decisions on mathematic probability and trends in the vote count and also total remaining votes as reported by election officials. So the reliability shouldn't generally be in dispute. Also wiki primarily goes by Reliable secondary sources and not firsthand sources, therefore any certification would STILL be reported through mainstream RSes. That's my two-cents, not going to argue about it, personally.Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ”not going to argue about it, personally”. I agree. Don’t make this about yourself.  The issue at hand here isn’t about any specific individual, nor is this an attack on the previous decisions of Wikipedia contributors and editors.  This is a discussion about facts and reality, not a discussion about opinions and personalities, so don’t make this about yourself.  The fact is, we have a pervasive conspiracy culture in the USA that is threatening our democracy.  It is easy to point the finger at the Trump campaign and accuse them of stoking the flames of distrust, but as Obama explained in the above video link, this conspiracy culture existed before the 2020 election, and will exist after the election.  The other pertinent fact here is that Wikipedia has a long entrenched tradition of reporting mainstream media opinions and conflating those opinions with actual state certified election results.  Right now, the Wikipedia article on this election is showing an election map where media opinions are conflated with actual state certified results, making it impossible for the reader to know where opinion ends and reality begins.  This is a wake up call for those within the Wikipedia organization who want to do a better job of informing the American public.  It is time to stop the gaslighting.  It is time to repot the facts, not media opinions.  It is time to put ego and personality aside, and to do the right thing for the future of our democracy.  Please, take the time to listen to the above linked video by Obama and think about the role that Wikipedia is playing in supporting the culture of conspiracy! Unitfreak (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not "Mak[ing] this about [my]self". This is about wikipedia's community standards, wiki is WP:NOTNEWS, it isn't  into doing its own reporting, as that would be WP:OR, original research. It, instead, refers to WP:RS Reliable Sources that have editorial accountability.  The type of thing former President Obama is referring to is propaganda and conspiracy theories perpetrated by media that have suspect integrity. He is NOT referring to Reliable Sources reporting their projections of the awarding of states to either candidate. RS report their findings based on voting trends and what election officials on the ground report to them, then wiki present what was reported.Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you seem to be using the term "gaslighting" as a strawman argument. Gas lighting is where someone witnessed something and the other person tells them that it didn't happen or act like the opposite happened. That, or someone says something happened that didn't happen. This is not what's going on with RS declaring states have been won. Votes were cast, votes were being counted, precincts were communicating with RS and those RS making calls on states once a tipping point was reached and wiki used those sources. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Persistent Corvid and Unitfreak, these are just some thoughts on the term "gaslighting" and what other terms we should use. Frankly, I'm not sure. PersistentCorvid (love the name about the very smart birds) is right. That is the proper definition, but in these trumpian times, the term has gotten legs for lack of a better term. Trump clearly uses Hitler's "Big Lie" propaganda technique all the time (he has provably studied Hitler), and people sometimes just call it "gaslighting" as the effect is similar. The constant repetition of an obvious lie causes people "to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears." Classic Nineteen Eighty-Four stuff. The double whammy of Orwellian and Hitlerian propaganda is very effective, as the election results clearly tell us. (Trump didn't get a tiny minority of the votes.) "The [GOP] party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
 * Trump, and the GOP has followed him down this rabbit hole, has a habit of doing what no normal person, even habitual liars, do, and that is to continually repeat lies he has told, even after they have been soundly and constantly debunked. Normal liars won't make the mistake of repeating that lie, but, as Obama has said, Trump has a "flimsy relationship to the truth." The phenomenon is so new and unusual that Glenn Kessler, the lead fact-checker for The Washington Post's team, has been forced to create a new category for lies. He calls it the "Bottomless Pinocchio". Veracity of statements by Donald Trump has this paragraph:
 * The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods in December 2018, the "Bottomless Pinocchio," for falsehoods repeated at least twenty times (so often "that there can be no question the politician is aware his or her facts are wrong"). Trump was the only politician who met the standard of the category, with 14 statements that immediately qualified. According to the Washington Post, Trump has repeated some falsehoods so many times he has effectively engaged in disinformation.
 * So, taking my cue from Kessler, maybe we should use the term "disinformation" and save "gaslighting" for its proper, and limited, use. -- Valjean (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Valjean I agree. Thanks for the info. Do you have anything to add about RS calling states and wiki reflecting that on its electoral map? I've tried to adequately explain it but am I missing anything? Persistent Corvid (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most major RS, including Fox News (!), have called all states and concluded that Biden has won the election. His lead is now over six million votes and growing, with no states where there is any chance of legitimately overturning the results. We should do what RS do. If something changes, we can always change it here. We should generally mirror what's happening in RS, including when they get it wrong. We cannot know they are getting it wrong until after the fact. To do otherwise, because we think they are wrong, would be substituting OR, wishful thinking, crystal ball thinking for dependence on RS, a phenomenon we see all the time with editors who depend on unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)



“Gas lighting is where someone witnessed something and the other person tells them that it didn't happen or act like the opposite happened.” - Exactly! In this case, state certified election results for a dozen states has “happened”, and yet the editors and contributors to this article continue to report media opinions as if the state certified results hadn’t happened. The net effect is to confuse the public and make it appear that the media opinions reported in the article are somehow on a par with state certified election results. As I wrote above: “the Wikipedia article on this election is showing an election map where media opinions are conflated with actual state certified results, making it impossible for the reader to know where opinion ends and reality begins.” I do agree with you that “gas lighting” likely implies that the person doing the gas lighting is intentionally trying to deceive people, whereas in this case I suspect the contributors and editors of Wikipedia are doing this unwittingly. Unitfreak (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unitfreak, where is anyone saying of the states that have certified, they did not certify? No one has claimed they haven't. Of those that HAVE certified, literally none of them have presented an outcome different from the RS calls. Likely, NONE of the remaining states will present a different outcome either. Nothing is being conflated because we show sources, no one is claiming or inferring that the RS supersede official state certified vote results. Votes were counted and were reported to RS by Election Officials (The ones literally overseeing the actual counting of votes). That happened, it is a fact. The map is not deceiving. If something changed, it would be shown. Once certified results come in, those SAME reliable sources will report them and wiki will reflect that by using said RS's reporting. That may not match up to YOUR opinion, but this is wiki policy and this is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Persistent Corvid (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * “Once certified results come in, those SAME reliable sources will report them and wiki will reflect that” -  Really?  -  Is that what will happen?  -  Actually, those state certified results have already come in for many states, and yet the wiki continues to report “projected” results based on a “consensus” of media outlets.  Go read it yourself.


 * Here is the exact wording as it currently appears: “The electoral map for the 2020 presidential election, based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets. Blue denotes states projected for Biden/Harris, and red denotes those projected for Trump/Pence. Numbers indicate allotted electoral votes.”


 * For anyone interested in truth and reality, here is a website showing which states have actual election results: https://usafacts.org/visualizations/when-will-each-state-have-official-election-count/

Unitfreak (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was already aware of what it says, DIRECTLY UNDER the electoral map at the TOP of this wiki page. Don't patronizingly give orders to "Go read it yourself." There is literally nothing wrong with how it is now, considering what is said under the map provides complete transparency as to the sourcing of the information. Editors are waiting for all of the states to certify first and for RS to report complete certification. Also, patience should be observed, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't meant to convey breaking news. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * “Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't meant to convey breaking news.” - Exactly my point - This isn’t breaking news. These are state officials completing their constitutional responsibilities to count and certify election results.  These state certified election results can be obtained directly from state governments, where the votes were counted, or they can be obtained from federal government sites.  There is no reason to involve unofficial media sources.  Go directly to the source and get the actual official results.  Why is Wikipedia reporting “projected” results based on a “consensus” of media outlets when the official results are available from state governments?

Unitfreak (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You have been told before, wikipedia policy is to use secondary reliable sources and not direct sources. Also, all states haven't completed certification, once that happens, then it can be stated by RS that the WHOLE election has been certified. Now step away from the WP:DEADHORSE. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Unitfreak, the map as seen here is the state results as reported by reliable sources, which has occurred in one form or another on the past four election articles. (Aka, all related Wikipedia articles since its founding.)  Said map has a second purpose; after the Electoral College votes, the map is updated with their results and the caption below will be updated to say Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia and include a mention of faithless electors, if any.  (The 2000, 2004, and 2016 articles handle faithless electors a bit differently to each other, but does include a mention somewhere in the caption.)  Meanwhile, the Results by state section handles the certification process; vote totals cannot be added until they are certified.  This allows us to show readers what reliable sources are saying without misleading them and both sections mention how their are handled in case of confusion.  (Additionally, if we waited for the official results from the state governments, we would need to change the map and turn 22 states back to the color grey, which would go against the current consensus.  We only have the "projected" results from these states as they lack certification.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I found the following in the edit history: “edited by Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 24 November 2020 (→‎Results by state: we should state these are certified numbers, not just running totals).” - Kudos to Kwamikagami. You appear to be the first Wikipedia editor/contributor who is interested in reporting facts and reality rather than reporting media projections.  It is important for the readers to know that the election is determined by state certified election results, not by media opinions.  Your edit is a big step away from gaslighting.  Thank you. Unitfreak (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again. It is not gaslighting. It says right there that the current map is based off media projections. Nothing is being hidden and there is absolutely no attempt to fool anyone. When all states certify it will be stated. Also, nothing is currently different between maps, no matter what is used. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ”It is not gaslighting”. How is it not gaslighting?  The article has been reporting election results since the beginning of November, apparently including some state certified data.  The article didn’t identify the state certified data until Kwamikagami edited it to identify the “state certified” data.  If the article is using state certified data, and mislabeling it, or being ambiguous about the data, then how is that not gaslighting?  If the article exclusively reports media projections, even after the states have certified results, then how is that not gaslighting?  If the article is giving the reader the false impression that the election was decided by media outlets, and that state certified results are not important, then how is that not gaslighting?   Unitfreak (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already explained this to you, as have others, numerous times. It will placed in the article when ALL OF THE STATES HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED, and once it is reported by Reliable Sources (NOT primary sources) that ALL OF THE STATES HAVE CERTIFIED. This article is NOT "giving the reader a false impression." The certified results ARE important, literally, no one here has been saying otherwise.  Again, the policy regarding WP:RS is the same for all pages on Wikipedia. It is not gaslighting for the simple reason there is basically a disclaimer stating "The electoral map for the 2020 presidential election, based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets." That is directly in map key, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE READER to read. Once every single state has been certified, then, and only then, will it be replaced. By going out of my way to explain this to you, I am Assuming Good Faith. Now you should WP:AGF as well. If you continue, don't be surprised if you are accused of tendentious editing, just saying. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We will probably have to agree to disagree on some points. Perhaps the one point we can agree upon is that Kwamikagami did the right thing (by correctly identifying state certified data rather than obscuring the source of that data). I believe I am also Assuming Good Faith.  To be clear, I never accused anyone of intentionally misbehaving.  As I wrote above: “I do agree with you that gas lighting likely implies that the person doing the gas lighting is intentionally trying to deceive people, whereas in this case, I suspect the contributors and editors of Wikipedia are doing this unwittingly.”

Unitfreak (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is deceiving anyone knowingly or unknowingly. It says exactly what is being used, there is transparency. This is not opinion, the RS policy is wiki policy, whether you agree or not. @Muboshgu I have said what needs to be said, will you handle this? Maybe I lack technical proficiency with this. Persistent Corvid (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

“It says exactly what is being used” - Well, it does now. Let me put it this way: prior to 24 November 2020, the article was using state certified data, but the article was not identifying the data as “state certified”. Kwamikagami was the one who fixed that problem. I think we can all agree that Kwamikagami was the one who correctly identified the state certified data. Go look at the history yourself if you disagree. Unitfreak (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

“No one is deceiving anyone knowingly or unknowingly.” - That really is an incredible claim. How can you be certain that everyone who reads this article will come away with an accurate understanding of all of the information in the article? You can not! Human communication is imperfect. All languages, including English, are imperfect. Clear communication is as much an art as it is a science. Prior to 24 November 2020, this article was ambiguous about the significance of state certified election results in determining USA election outcomes. A reader could easily come away from this article with the false impression that the election was decided by media projections. Fortunately, Kwamikagami took the time to carefully review the article and identified a place where state certified data was being used but not correctly labeled. I, for one, am appreciative of thoughtful and careful editors like Kwamikagami who will identify and fix problems, rather than just argue about them. Unitfreak (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look at the electoral map key again, it says  based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets. You are talking about the table of results down the page, which DOES have certified results. You are conflating the two. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the one arguing against policy and a consensus to wait for every state to certify before updating the electoral map (not the table), is you Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

“You are talking about the table of results down the page, which DOES have certified results. You are conflating the two“. - You are correct that I have been unclear in my explanation. When I first looked through this article back in early November, I felt that the entire article was unclear about the role that state certification plays in determining election outcomes. Even worse, the article gives the false impression that elections are determined by media consensus shortly after the vote is taken. As a possible remedy, I suggested changing one specific map in the article to indicate which states had certified results, and which states were still counting votes. I had viewed my suggestion as one possible solution to the problem, but looking back through the discussion, I see now that from your point of view, you probably thought that my concern was exclusively about that one specific map. At any rate, I do believe that Kwamikagami’s edit was a big step away from gaslighting. As I wrote above: “It is important for the readers to know that the election is determined by state certified election results, not by media opinions”. Unitfreak (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, anyone who considers the Washington Post "reliable" should be in a straightjacket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is sad that this article has degenerated into a dispute about which media outlets are the most reliable. Who cares.  The point is: the USA is a carefully crafted system of checks and balances, one of which is the limited sovereign of individual states.  This article has completely misrepresented the role of state sovereignty in the USA.  I read this morning that Texas and seventeen other states are suing four states to invalidate their election results.  In this lawsuit, we have seventeen states who are asking the federal government to deprive four states of their limited sovereignty.  In my opinion, the contributors and editors of this article have played a role in subverting and delegitimizing state sovereignty in the USA. Unitfreak (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I highly doubt that existence of this article has contributed in any form to the political situation going on. To get back on topic, the map is going to be updated in 72 to 96 hours from now with the results of how the electoral college voted, including faithless voters.  We have the full certified election results as a table in the article.  Is there any changes you would like to suggest be made with regards to the topic or can discussion on this come to a close?  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post is considered to be generally reliable. Please review Reliable sources and please be careful not to make blanket statements about other users.  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of closing discussion. I agree with you that this article is having little impact, in any way, on Americans. I suspect very few Americans are reading this article, and the ones who do are not taking it seriously. I see this as a missed opportunity. Unitfreak (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2020 (2)
Change the text in the controversies section from future tense to past tense, "On November 21, the Trump campaign requested a machine recount, which will cost taxpayers $200,000 but will not address concerns about absentee ballot signatures." Change "will cost" to "costed" and "will not address" to "did not address." CarsonSnorts (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
Please explain your revert, especially the "recent rfc". It would be unacceptable if even the Wikipedia is becoming a platform of censorship favoring only one faction. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be unacceptable if that were the case. See this link for the recent rfc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_303#RfC:_Fox_News   Zoozaz1    talk   04:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The rfc mentioned "The pundits and talk show programs related to Fox were explicitly excluded from this RFC". The Fox source I cited is the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe interviewed by the "Sunday Morning Futures" program hostess Maria Bartiromo. The quotes are John Ratcliffe's remarks, not Fox's own commentary. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt, there are multiple issues with what you added: If you take your complaints to the talk page there, beware how you do it. Assume they know much more about this subject than you do, so ask, rather than tell. If you, especially because you have been warned, continue down this road, you risk getting blocked for disruption and pushing conspiracy theories and disinformation from unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) You added it to the lead without first covering it in much more detail in the body of the article. That is not allowed.
 * 2) You started this new section, even though you have the same agenda as in the hatted section above, where your attempts have been soundly rejected. Repeating/continuing the same line of thought here is disruptive. That section was hatted for a reason, so why on earth would you persist? That's just asking for trouble. Read WP:IDHT.
 * 3) Your sources are terrible. The first two are to the same article at Fox News, a dubious source for political content. We demand better sources here. They push falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and you have chosen exactly that type of thing as your chosen content. Not good. Ratcliffe is notable, but he is not a RS. When we quote him, and we do, we use RS so the context will explain how what he is saying is filled with falsehoods. Fox News will not tell that part of the story.
 * 4) Your third source is Chinese. We prefer easily verifiable sources, so we prefer English language sources here at the English version of Wikipedia, or at least translated sources. I'm sure the Chinese version prefers mostly Chinese sources. We don't know whether your source is reliable or pushes falsehoods or conspiracy theories. There are plenty of English language sources, so there is normally no need to use other sources. (Note that I'm not saying we can never use other language sources. There are exceptional situations where we do it.)
 * 5) We favor facts from RS, not falsehoods from unreliable sources. That's the only kind of "censorship" we practice.
 * 6) This stuff doesn't even belong in this article. It belongs in one of the articles I told you about above:
 * 7) Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results‎
 * 8) You should read that article before you discuss this subject anymore. Really. Get informed. Your ignorance is showing.
 * 9) Even worse than ignorance (we are all learning here), your choice of bad sources is also showing. That's not good. Questions about sourcing should be broached at WP:RS/N and WP:RS/P. Study those pages before you proceed.
 * In any case (even if better sourcing can be found) it's patiently undue for the lead, especially given that this article is for the entire election. And since Radcliff is a Trump administration political appointee, his opinion doesn't really have any weight distinct from Trump - that is to say his statements fall under the broad summary of Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging that there had been widespread voter fraud, and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states and The Trump campaign and its allies continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election.  It's not leadworthy to individually quote every Trump administration figure stating "we tots won tho." Yes, of course Trump, his allies, and the Trump administration all say these things, that's what the entire paragraph is about; the broad summary, from a 10,000-foot lead perspective, is that they say these things but reliable sources are unanimous in stating that there's no evidence for their claims. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. Sorry about that.
 * 2. This case is not exactly the same as my discussion above.
 * 3. 5. The recently leaked tapes proved that CNN, intentionally, avoids normalizing Trump and avoids reporting Hunter Biden scandal during the election. It's a intentionally, strongly biased medium. If Fox News is not allowed, why is CNN?
 * 6. If William Barr's saying no evidence of widespread fraud found belongs in this article, why doesn't John Ratcliffe's saying widespread fraud found?
 * I hope there is no double standards here on the Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What does CNN have to do with it? Take it up at the reliable source notice board if you have sources showing CNN has been exposed as a fraud, but if they’re the same dubious sources as where you are discovering “fraud” in the election you’re not going to get anywhere. As for why Barr is notable, he contradicted the president rather than going along.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying remarks which contradict Trump is allowed and remarks which recognize Trump is not allowed? If that's not a double standard, what is a double standard? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Text already says he and his admin are saying these things and that RS call them false. That’s not a double standard, that’s reality. There’s no reason to quote specific trump officials making bogus claims - as was already pointed out to you before. You might want to read wp:FALSEBALANCE.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Matt, you asked: "Are you saying remarks which contradict Trump is allowed and remarks which recognize Trump is not allowed?"
 * No, that is not correct. We actually do document both sides of such issues when RS have written about them, and this is a case where myriad RS have done so. If it were a matter where there was some legitimate doubt about the matter (not everything is black or white), but there were differences of opinion, we would present both sides and let readers make up their own minds.
 * In cases like the one under discussion, where the contrast is literally truth vs disinformation, we still present both sides, but we do not present falsehoods as if they were true. We present the false claims (still only citing RS that mention them) and show how RS have debunked them. In that case, if a reader still chooses to believe the falsehoods, Wikipedia cannot be blamed for being inaccurate or fake news.
 * Ermenrich is correct. We do not present a false balance here. Not all information has equal validity, due weight, or truth value. You and I may not agree on what is true or false in this case, but I doubt you would think that presenting truth and error as if there was no difference would be a good idea. That is something we really try to avoid. Can we agree on that? -- Valjean (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can agree on that. Because of the dominant mainstream media, letting the time speak the truth might be a better option here on the Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Being partisan (as in avoiding reporting certain types of news) does not make a media automatically unreliable, so citing a media being left/right is the least argument you should use in such discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Split of timeline
I would like to figure out if the timeline article should be split, so I started a discussion at Talk:Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox after Electoral College votes

 * Just to let you all know, after everyone in the Electoral College casts their vote on Monday- we should change the College_voted parameter in the infobox from "no" to "yes". Doing this will change the "Projected electoral vote" header to "Electoral vote". I also recommend we add a footnote to the infobox saying, "These Electoral College results will be officially counted by Congress on January 6, 2021" (see my sandbox for an example). Prcc27 (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, somehow I posted the wrong link to my sandbox. Now it should link to my sandbox. Prcc27 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2020 (2)
The first paragraph should be amended for it is a disputed election, the widespread election fraud leaves the final outcome of who becomes president in the hands of the judiciary via pending litigation, the state legislators right to decertify, U.S. Congress on Jan. 6 as per the U.S. Constitution, and President's plenary power to declare emergency powers/martial law. 62.219.236.102 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not bloody likely.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The only widespread fraud in this election is the claim of widespread fraud. --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Plenary power" is the new "hereby."  Acroterion   (talk)   17:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We're gonna have to deal with this incessant whining well past 20 January 2021, aren't we? --Khajidha (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing how the birthers never quit after Obama left office...yep. ValarianB (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest we do add what was proposed by 62.219.236.102, or at least partially as per WP:NPOV because the election is still being disputed. Of course we'd need citations, though. Dswitz10734 (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don’t spread conspiracy theories here. The election is not “disputed”. One side is just being egged on to say it is because the current president has too fragile a mind to admit that he lost, bigly.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV requires us to write a balanced article, according to what the sources say. The overwhelming majority of sources say the election is not disputed, therefore that's a point of view we don't highlight, per WP:FRINGE. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing the word "Coup"
A coup de' tat is "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." The Biden Administration is not the current "government", so how could Trump be stealing the government from himself. This needs to be changed (Aricmfergie (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC))
 * May I weigh in here? If we go by your definition of a "coup d'etat", it doesn't matter what Biden's current status is. That's not relevant at all. The Constitution states that a president voted out of office has a definitive end to his term, and is replaced by a duly-elected successor, so any attempt on the part of the current president to stay in power, delegitimize the results of the election, or avoid having to yield the trappings and privileges of his office to his duly-electeequd successor by the appointed date constitutes the textbook definition of a coup d'etat, as you yourself laid it out. The terminology used in this article clearly defines how Trump is attempting a coup d'etat to keep himself in office and avoid yielding the powers of the presidency to Biden by the appointed date is a coup d'etat, and the cited sources support that definition as utilized in this article. Consequently, the phrasing in this article relative to that is accurate and consistent with what's noted in cited sources. And when in doubt, Wikipedia content goes with what the sources say. Simple as that. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If he already holds power, he can't be "seizing" it. Thus, this fails on that part of the definition. Calling this hilariously drawn out temper tantrum "sudden", would also be wrong by definition. Finally, no violence has been used as of yet. There may be a word for what Trump is trying, but "coup" is not it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RS widely describe it as an attempted coup, see autogolpe (self-coup).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said. Aricmfergie, you should be at Talk:Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results‎.
 * Trying to keep power he has lost in "the most secure election in U.S. history" can be seen as a soft/bloodless coup, and since many RS use the term to describe Trump's power grab and attempt to steal the election from the clear winner, we are required to document this use of the word, so your objections fly in the face of our policies. -- Valjean (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a RS using "government" to describe the Biden team? If not, it should not be used. EDIT: "the" and "team" were added. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Matt, what is the exact wording in the article that you find problematic? Also, your removal of "administration" from your sentence now makes the sentence incomplete. -- Valjean (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought Aricmfergie said that the word "government" is used in the article to describe the Biden team. I stand corrected.
 * John Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence, said that there are across-the-country issues of election fraud and "we'll see who is in what seats and whether there is a Biden administration." I agree with him. In my view, this whole thing is not over and whether there is a Biden administration remains undetermined. For making the sentence of my previous comment complete, I just added "the" and "team". --Matt Smith (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Aricmfergie, please look up Self-coup. NO MORE HEROES    &#9880; TALK  08:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I thouhgt this was already discussed a few weeks ago. By no stretch of the imagination is this a coup. Trump is still constitutionally the president. If he makes some attempt to stay in office beyond 20 January, then maybe. But until then, pursuing legal avenues is perfectly within his rights, however far-fetched they may be. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why it's an "attempted coup," (i.e. "attempted self-coup") no matter how "legal" it might be. In the unlikely event he somehow succeeds it will no longer be attempted. Specifically, the OP appears to object to the following well-sourced sentences. The first is in the lead:
 * The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress, still continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by filing dozens of legal challenges in several states, most of which were dropped or dismissed by various courts, spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud, pressuring Republican state electors and legislators, and refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition, all in what was described as an attempted coup.*


 * The second in the body: Many commentators described Trump's actions as an attempted coup d'état or self-coup.
 * On what grounds can we exclude these sources? Maybe some of them are objectionable, but I don't see how they can all be thrown out.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to saying that others have described it as a coup, I only object to the idea of saying it in Wikipedia's voice as it demonstrably does not fit the definition. The weird term "self-coup" (which I had not seen before this Trumper tantrum started) seems to have the correct meaning, despite being etymologically dubious. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no question that it's an attempted coup, but as another editor stated, self-coup is the accurate description. The question now is what terminology should we use according to how RS's have described it? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The second in the body: Many commentators described Trump's actions as an attempted coup d'état or self-coup.
 * On what grounds can we exclude these sources? Maybe some of them are objectionable, but I don't see how they can all be thrown out.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to saying that others have described it as a coup, I only object to the idea of saying it in Wikipedia's voice as it demonstrably does not fit the definition. The weird term "self-coup" (which I had not seen before this Trumper tantrum started) seems to have the correct meaning, despite being etymologically dubious. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no question that it's an attempted coup, but as another editor stated, self-coup is the accurate description. The question now is what terminology should we use according to how RS's have described it? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no question that it's an attempted coup, but as another editor stated, self-coup is the accurate description. The question now is what terminology should we use according to how RS's have described it? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If I may, this discussion seems mainly driven by the fact that some users' misunderstanding of the word 'coup'. Obviously a coup can be carried out by somebody already in power, and it can be bloodless. So the arguments against "coup" based on Trump being president, or not having resorted to violence, are as null and void as Trump's lawsuits. Jeppiz (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think has hit the nail on the head. What Trump is doing can’t be described as a ‘coup’ in Wikipedia’s own voice (it’s not per dictionary definition and ‘self-coup’ is risible) but what the article can (and in my opinion should) say that is that his attempts at subverting the results of the election have been described by sources as an attempted coup. It’s a fairly obvious point that the sources are using the term as a metaphor to give a sense of the extreme lack of legal basis for Trump’s claims. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I support removing the "coup" language. All of the avenues Trump pursued were legal recourses he was entitled to. They were based on nonsense and had no evidence but they were still the legal avenue for challenging the results in a court of law. That's not a coup by any stretch of the imagination. Basil the Bat Lord (talk)
 * Again, Wikipedia's "voice", including tone, content, and substance are based on a neutral point of view according to sources that meet Wikipedia standards of neutrality. The sources as cited clearly lay out both the fact that the lawsuits brought by Trump strain the bonds of legal credibility and have no proof. And all of these efforts, not well-planned, lacking in evidence, and thus dismissed on every level, are an attempt by Trump to retain power above and beyond what the Constitution legally allows. The sources cited define this as an attempted coup by Trump, and Wikipedia goes with what the sources say. So my respectful suggestion to anyone that objects to the terminology used here as supported by reliable sources is to do the research and put in the work on your end for sources that would justify the belief that describing Trump's actions as a coup are unwarranted. The burden of proof in this case should be borne by those objecting to the terminology. With the case clearly laid out in support of the usage of the term, based on the sources cited, anyone who objects to the current terminology can feel free to compile resources in support of whatever other wording they can get behind. But either way, until a consensus decides anything to the contrary, the sources as currently cited support the description of Trump's actions in this case as a coup, so the onus is on those who object to that definition in those sources to present other sources to support whatever terminology they'd prefer. That is consistent with Wikipedia policies on this matter, insofar as I understand them correctly. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources in question are not neutral. I think most editors know that, they just won't admit to it because of their own political persuasions. This is a problem with Wikipedia as a whole when it comes to political issues, when the sources in question are overwhelmingly biased in favor of one side (and are even more so, because Wikipedia deprecates sources if it's considered "unreliable") then it's no surprise that Wikipedia will be biased as well. I'm not saying it's Wikipedia's problem what sources are writing, but I am saying it's a major systemic problem with Wikipedia's purported dedication to neutrality which most editors seem uninterested in paying any attention to, again likely because they value their political persuasions more than any actual dedication to neutrality. As for sources which refer to the legal efforts as something other than a coup, what exactly are you expecting to see? I'm arguing that it is not appropriate for the efforts to be described as a "coup", therefore are you suggesting I show you articles from reliable sources which do not use the coup language? Because there are plenty of those. Or are you suggesting that I find articles which refer to the efforts as some other thing, but not a coup? If an article is not going to use the hyperbolic language of "coup" then it's just going to say "legal issues" or some other such term. Genuinely not sure what you're asking for. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Basil the Bat Lord, here are a few things to keep in mind:
 * According to our NPOV policy, neither content nor sources must be "neutral". Very few are, and they are really boring. We want to say more than "duh". It is editors who must edit neutrally. We present what RS say without censoring or neutering them. We must not get in the way of their bias. We should present what the source says, with its bias clearly in view. That is how editors stay "neutral". Read more about this at my essay which digs deep into this aspect of the policy: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
 * Don't get bogged down in what is "true" about this. It makes no difference. This is about an opinion that is widely voiced in many RS, so we document it. We don't take sides. We just document the phenomenon, and we also document those who object to it. That's what we do here. We should not violate FORUM by getting bogged down in long discussions over "the truth" of the matter. We only care about "verifiability, not truth".
 * This discussion is at the wrong article. This is a mother article, whereas the spinoff fork for the subject of controversies over this election is found here: Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results. That's where we find a larger section dealing with the subject of "coup" verbiage.
 * I hope that clears up a few things. -- Valjean (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Valjean, it is just so difficult for me to believe that this standard of "Don't worry about whether the sources are true or not" would be used if the shoe was on the other foot and this discussion was instead about using language from sources that apply some ridiculous hyperbolic language about someone on the left, or indeed if the reliable source in question was one which leaned conservative (but I assume that would never happen anyway because a source like that would probably be deprecated). I think that because the subject here is someone on the right (and specifically Trump), that most editors think that disregarding the truth on articles related to him is acceptable and that "all is fair in love and war." You may not think that's a fair statement for me to make, but I have seen nothing on Wikipedia thus far to convince me otherwise of any kind of commitment to fairness on these kinds of matters. I noticed on your page you have a userbox specifically about your opposition to Trump. Respectfully, how can anybody trust you to be fair and neutral on an issue like this? I genuinely don't mean that as an ad hominem, I just can't believe that this is the standard for neutrality that we are asked to abide by. I really wish I could view these kinds of situation differently but the reality stares me straight in the face: Wikipedia is biased and editors don't care. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You may request for comment if you believe the editors supporting the inclusion of “coup” is because of political bias. But let me remind you, Wikipedia never promises fact/truth in its articles, it just reports what accepted sources say. I would make a horrible analogy to Scotus rejection to Texas lawsuit on ground of the US Constitution, not because they believed there were no voter fraud. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think those references also are not free from neutral policy because they do not imply the supporter of Trump or people who are against of using 'coup' word (not in Wikipedia). I understand that by 'neutral policy', there should be no controversies when we use that word. And sources that were given in this article which describe Trump's action as 'coup' can be interpreted as 'Bias in sources' which is also part of the NPOV -- Wendylove (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding what "Don't get bogged down in what is "true" about this" is supposed to mean? We have a duty to the truth, that can be verified. People all across the world look at this and its extremely dangerous to put opinions as truth. (Aricmfergie (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC))
 * We document and attribute opinions all the time here, true or not. That's part of our job. If RS say an opinion is false, we document it, sometimes by actually adding words like "false" or "baseless", if that's what RS say. We do not present facts as opinions or opinions as facts. -- Valjean (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove the word "coup" until there is verifiable sources claim that there are/were discussion of a coup in the Trump circle. Up until this point it has just been the news media using their word to describe the actions of the Campaign. (Aricmfergie (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC))
 * No, we document what RS say, true or not. -- Valjean (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IF we want to add the Coup section from Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results I think that would be better because it discuss both sides to the argument, instead of unilaterally describing the actions as a "coup" on the introduction (Aricmfergie (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC))
 * We should summarize that section extremely shortly here, and that's all. The other article is for in depth coverage.
 * In fact, that single sentence we have does it nicely. -- Valjean (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As Valjean has repeatedly stated, Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say, regardless of Wikipedians individual opinions about whether or not it is true, or whether or not the sources are correct in saying what they do. Several reliable sources have called it a coup, self-coup, soft coup, or attempted coup, which the current section sums up succinctly. There is no need to either expand upon or remove the current section. Builder018 (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, a more neutral solution could be making it clear that the said "coup" is the mainstream media's opinion and terminology. That's less controversial than simply asserting that it is a coup. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article makes two references to it at the moment. In the lead it says “described by some as” and in the body it says “many commentators” have described it as such. I don’t see anywhere where it’s ‘simply asserting that it is a coup’. I can’t really see what the problem is. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to point it out but by the time you made this comment, the version of this article 2-hour earlier had already employed the language of "described by some as an attempted coup" and "Many commentators described Trump's actions as an attempted coup d'état or self-coup". You are consistently raising questions of non-issues or issues have long been fixed. I would recommend you to read through the latest version of the article before raising another question in the talk page, so it does not give other readers the impression that our editors bias towards a specific political party. -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that and I'll be more careful in the future. As for whether some editors bias towards a specific political party, I would say yes because I have seen editors in this talk page asserting blatantly that the election is "the most secure election in U.S. history", there is "no evidence" of fraud, etc, without attributing those opinions to a source/person. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Matt, I have added quotation marks to my comment above so a future editor will realize I'm not just stating my opinion. That was an accurate description made by the top election official in the United States. His agency had examined all available evidence and that was his summarization. Of course, such a statement of fact was not what Trump wanted to hear, so he fired him. That's what Trump does. Speak truth that offends Trump and get fired; lie all the time in ways that please Trump and get promoted and pardoned. That's what we've seen for the last four years. -- Valjean (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're naive if you believe that. There's plenty of legitimate evidence that the election was stolen. It's not a conspiracy. Illegal changes to voting procedures in key swing states + never-before-seen numbers of low-integrity mail-in ballots flooding the system + lax counting controls on election night. That's all it takes to sway an election on a national scale, and there's evidence to back up each one of those points. Just look at what the Wisconsin Supreme Court said the other day. Hundreds of thousands of people voted in Wisconsin without having to show an ID because your exalted election officials falsely told them they could claim indefinite confinement due to COVID. That was illegal. Only 20,000 votes separate the candidates in the state, easily enough room for Trump to have won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.75.141.214 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are again making personal opinion on the subject. The statement about "the most secure election" was quoted from federal agencies and reported by news media accepted in Wikipedia. I am not weighing in how true the statement is, no users should ever do that in either article or talk page. Other users may make it sound like their own opinion on the matter, only for reducing rhetorical redundancy. I don't think your behavior have violated the disruption policy (yet), but certainly does not contribute towards a constructive editorial environment. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I did not intent to make personal opinion. Maybe my wording or phrasing was not accurate enough due to not being a native English speaker. My comment about the issue of bias was to reply your comment which sounds like none of the editors here is biased.
 * I knew the quote was quoted from a federal agency. The reason I found the quoter biased is that he did not attribute the quote to the federal agency, and that lead to his comment looking like a common fact rather than the federal agency's statement. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The article already contains language more than accommodating towards any person with a regard to reality, there is no need to further sanitise and censor it in order to meet the demands of those who misinterpret NPOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we didn't misinterpret NPOV. Articles describing terrorist attacks that can estimate who is behind them, or groups that can estimate which state supports them, also add explanations for them if the state or the hinterland denies it. If an early editor attaches data that Trump's actions are thought to be coup d'etat or that defines it as a coup d'état, it is natural to briefly explain an article or material that presents a contrary position. -- Wendylove (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn’t how neutrality works on Wikipedia. We don’t call it a coup in our own voice, so there isn’t a problem. It’s a widely repeated claim in RS, so we have to include it.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't call it a coup by own voice, but only citing references which define Trump's acts as a failed coup or coup attempt is a problem. Still, there are lots of Trump supporters (who think Trump's action is not a coup), and if we aren't going to add these claims, it negelects the other perspective. That's why I said 'natural' to add the article from 'contrary position'. If editor adds that, then there would be no debate for this 'coup'-relates problem. -- Wendylove (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the brevity of the mention (a total of two sentences that simply say "some call it"), that seems totally unnecessary. The place to do that (and where it is discussed) is Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results. And what Trump supporters think is irrelevant. Only what RS think. There are Trump supporters who believe the Democrats are controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles, but we only report what RS say about these beliefs, not what the Trumpies themselves do.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. We have exhausted the issue here, and it is no longer relevant. I'm going to close this thread. -- Valjean (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt Smith, no editor is expected to be neutral in real life or on talk pages. People like that are extremely rare, boring as hell, quite ignorant, and, if they go so far as to claim they are "neutral", have no insight into themselves. It is only when editing an article that editors must put on their "neutral" hat. We have a certain amount of leeway in discussions before WP:FORUM gets invoked, unless the personal POV are fringe views from unreliable sources. That path can quickly become a violation of our prohibition against advocacy of fringe POV, which are automatically "at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy."

Discussions that have their background in what RS say are allowed, and editors don't have to reference every comment with a citation. That is only a requirement for article content, but not for talk page discussions, BUT, if an editor is asked for a source for their comment, they should supply it, as the burden of proof is on the person making an unusual claim. If the person asking is requesting a source for a claim that is not unusual (for RS), such as a "the sky is blue" type of comment, then they are revealing their ignorance of what most other editors know is an idea or POV found in mainstream RS. We often encounter that phenomenon with newbies and editors whose media diet is from unreliable sources. We often bear over with them for a short time, but if they refuse to listen and accept what RS say (yes, Wikipedia does expect that editors have a positive learning curve), then their continued dialogue becomes tedious and IDHT tendentious. Such editors often get topic banned, or even blocked. The lesson is to see Wikipedia and its talk pages as a classroom where we can learn from others and realign (an often painful process) our POV so they align with what RS say.

Obviously "some editors bias towards a specific political party" (your words). So what? Don't go further down that road as it borders on a personal attack: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." While it's okay to recognize that editors have left- and right- opinions, that should not be used as a personal attack. That cuts both ways. We have plenty of very opinionated editors who hold strong political views. Big deal. Fortunately many of them can lay that aside when they edit, and they can still be very valued editors. -- Valjean (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Indiana Elections Division "Final" totals do not match Certificate of Ascertainment
When balancing my totals against Wiki's totals, I discovered a discrepancy on Indiana.

The "Final" totals on the Indiana Elections Division of the SoS located here: https://enr.indianavoters.in.gov/site/index.html

The Indiana Certificate of ascertainment (referenced in your table) is located here: https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment-indiana.pdf

As you can see the vote totals are not the same. I'm not sure which takes precedence but just informing you of the difference. Probably the Certificate, but you may also want to link to the SoS-Elections page since it too is listed as "final." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed that too, but the difference is only 6 votes. The official canvass previously cited in the table is also different by 30 votes. I prefer to use whatever the FEC uses when it compiles the national results, which should be available next month. I think that it will be the certificate of ascertainment, but if not we can adjust the numbers at that time. Heitordp (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the FEC didn't use the certificate of ascertainment in the previous election, so I changed the numbers and source to the Indiana Election Division. Heitordp (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Typo in "Subsequent Events" section, could someone fix it please ("ligitation")
Near the end of the "Subsequent Events" section, a sentence refers to "ligitation" led by the Trump campaign. Of course, this is supposed to be "litigation." Could someone with editing privileges please make this minor correction? 97.127.33.227 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 00:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump's lawyers claim that a dump of 600,000 votes in Pennsylvania votes went 99.5% for Biden
In this video, Trump's lawyers claim that in Pennsylvania, there was a dump of 600,000 votes that went 99.5% for Biden.

I have not seen this claim addressed, confirmed, or debunked by the mainstream media. I don't know why reliable sources have ignored this. At the minimum, they should at least report on the claim. And at best, they should either debunk it or confirm it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGGlnHe3Rgc

Reliable source fan (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not every claim is a valid claim; people can make any claim they want to. Unless and until there is an investigation that gives such claim validity, it doesn't need to be specifically mentioned.  -- Jayron 32 17:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Pennsylvania vote has been counted and recounted. If there is a problem with 600,000 votes it would certainly have turned up. Trump's lawyers claim all kind of things, particularly in public videos where they can say anything they want because they are not under oath. If they take this claim to a court, and present their evidence, then we could mention it. But this is just PR talk. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not only Pennsylvania, it's other states as well. Have you heard the hours of testimony on the topic of Voter Fraud?  They main stream media doesn't want to cover this because they want to keep the people who's only source of information that is, from the Nightly News for example, in the blue.  There is more going on then people realize.  I follow PT News Network ( https://www.ptnewsnetwork.com/ ) and sometimes the Epoch Times.  PT News has been streaming the testimonies and there's Republicans and Democrats coming forward to say it was fraudulent.  Now if you search you will find ABC and CBS and CNN all saying this is leading nowhere.  The reason is because thats what they want you to think.  Believe me or not, there is more going on that the Left doesn't want to have the rest of the world hear.  I personally believe the election was fraudulent and every single day there is more evidence backing it up.  I'm honestly excited to see what happens when Trump gets the next 4 years he won.  No doubt there will be some angry people. Baseplate RBLX (talk) 10:51, 5 December, 2020 (PST)
 * , the sources you follow are unreliable. They are lying to you, or at best they are giving you only the details of stories that you want to hear for your own confirmation bias. There is no evidence of fraud. The Trump campaign has won one lawsuit and lost 46 as of this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , they need to lose those cases. The courts where they are being taken are controlled by the Democrats who will push it away.  For it to go to the supreme court these lower courts need to turn them away.  These sources might as well be as unreliable as ABC and CBS, the "non-bias new". Baseplate RBLX (Talk) 1908, 5 December, 2020 (UTC)
 * It is so ridiculous that you believe this. You usually go to court to win cases, not lose. When cases are thrown out "with prejudice" because it lacks "factual proof", it's not getting to SCOTUS, no matter how conservative SCOTUS is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's called the Appeals Process. This article will explain it.  https://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/appeals-process-trial-court-supreme-court/ Baseplate RBLX (Talk) 1927, 5 December, 2020 (UTC)
 * Well...it's been over a week and the cases that got to SCOTUS were shot down for the very reasons Muboshgu (talk) mentioned. This didn't age well, did it? Moral of the story: Trump is lying to his supporters. And let me also clue you in on a few things:
 * 1) Trump and the GOP have lost 59 cases and won one.
 * 2) "Losing cases to win cases" is utter garbage and is a Trump line designed to keep his supporters donating to his "cause", whatever that's purported to be.
 * 3) There is no "widespread voter fraud". The FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Bill Barr and the DOJ, and every single ELECTION OFFICIAL ON THE PLANET have stated this, AD NAUSEAM.
 * 4) Affidavits aren't "proof" and the ones introduced in court didn't hold up. And another thing...
 * 5) Those laughable "hearings" Rudy and the club held? Those weren't actual "hearings". They're glorified pressers. Aside from the fact that "hearings" don't usually take place inside a Holiday Inn ballroom...
 * a) There was no judicial process for any of the "hearings".
 * b) There were no judges present.
 * c) Nobody was under oath, meaning that ANYONE who "testified" could lie with impunity -- including Rudy or any member of the GOP who was present.
 * d) There are no case dockets for ANY of these "hearings".
 * e) There are no judicial records for any of these "hearings".
 * f) There are no official court transcripts for any of these "hearings".
 * 6) No, there's nothing that can be done by Trump or the GOP to stop Biden from being President. They cannot sue (any litigation is now moot), the GOP cannot "block the count", and if they try to stall it, the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) becomes the new President until Biden is eventually confirmed as the POTUS.
 * 7) The Epoch Times and that other one you mentioned (I've never heard of it and I don't care) are not reliable sources and have lied before and have been WRONG before.
 * Trump isn't going to have "four more years". Trump lost the election. He's lost nearly 60 cases. The Electoral College is set to certify Biden's win tomorrow -- and, YES, that WILL HAPPEN despite what you might be told by anyone who is floating around in your bubble with you. I implore you and other Trump supporters to wake up and embrace reality. The denial on your part isn't just disturbing, it's very unhealthy. AntiHeroDwight (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all of the courts are controlled by Democratic-leaning justices. More than a few were Republican appointees - including by Trump himself.  https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-philadelphia-d9c96c4593ec278f3b1d4bc564068df6 24.184.25.101 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you're such a fan of reliable sources, then why are you pushing nonsense that has no reliable sources? If the reliable sources "have ignored this", then it is WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

BaseplateRBLS the sources you consider"reliable" are lying to you, or at best they are giving you only the details of stories that you want to hear for your own confirmation bias. EPicmAx4 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Edit Request
What's up with note "n" of the article (which is used in the state-wise results table)? I think it should have "Many" as the first word instead of "May" unless I'm misunderstanding it. 45.251.33.129 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "May" is correct. I have revised the note to make it a complete sentence.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox destroyed
The infobox is destroyed. FredModulars (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue has been fixed. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary?
On the top of the infobox it says the turnout is preliminary. What does that mean?SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally tally, isn't official. I'm guessing. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It means that the figure isn't official. The FEC will release final turnout figures when it releases the final results of the election in 2021. Herbfur (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

306 or 302?
According to he got 302 electors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , did they perhaps say Biden had 302 before Hawaii cast its four ballots in the last hour? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not follow closely, just watched the figures on the screen and listened a bit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw it listed as 302-232, with Hawaii's votes not yet cast, a couple hours ago, so it may be that. I do believe the final total now is 306-232. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hawaii made it 306. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Voter turnout
In many countries voter turnout is calculated based on registered voters and they are practically the same as eligible voters, but in the United States a significant number of people eligible to vote don't register. US sources vary greatly in the denominator they use to calculate voter turnout: some states use only registered voters; the Census uses the US citizen population of voting age; the FEC uses the entire US population of voting age; and unofficial sources (such as the US Elections Project currently cited in the article) attempt a more accurate estimate by also excluding US citizens ineligible to vote due to a criminal conviction and including US citizens residing abroad. The sources also differ in their numerator: the states tend to use all votes including invalid votes; the Census asks people if they voted (which is quite inaccurate); the FEC uses only valid votes; the US Elections Project does two estimates, using all votes and using votes for the office with the highest votes (not necessarily for president).

I agree that it doesn't make sense to use the entire voting-age population in the denominator because it includes a lot of people who can't vote (mostly non-US citizens), but Wikipedia articles on previous elections tend to cite the turnout from the FEC because it's a US government source, and the FEC calculates the turnout that way. In the article for this year, I added an estimate based on voting-age population for a proper comparison with numbers shown for previous years.

In my opinion the US Elections Project does the most accurate estimate (although I still find their estimate of US citizens abroad excessive) and it's the most appropriate for a comparison with other countries, but it's not a US government source. If you think that it should be used instead of the FEC, I suggest also changing the articles on previous US elections. Heitordp (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Idea
I think all the predictions on each state result page should be updated to November 3, 2020 under the “as of” column that is already there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.76 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"Coup d'état" instead of "Coup"
In the introduction, it says in which some have described as an attempted coup. Shouldn't it be coup d'etat or no?SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Why? Also it’s better described as a self-coup or autogolpe.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the usage I am familiar with, the full form coup d'etat is almost extinct. Virtually all sources I've seen about this use "coup", although some agree with Ermenrich (and myself) that "self-coup" or "autogolpe" is more appropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think we should change it, I was just being pedantic.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The FAQ
Now that the Electoral College electors have convened and cast their votes, and there are no further pending lawsuits (from the Trump campaign that we know of), should Q1 on the FAQ be removed or amended? --WaltCip- (talk)  17:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe change to "Q1: Why does the article call Biden the President-elect?" and then answer with the Electoral College vote results? ~EdGl   talk  17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Q1: Why does the article call Biden the President-elect? A: Because reality. --Khajidha (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given how much trouble the election has attracted, amending is my preferred option. The current answer is a bit wordy, but it does explain why pretty well.  --Super Goku V (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Coup" hyperlink suggestion
As best I can tell, the word coup, which links here, should instead link here, where the incident in question is a listed example.2A02:C7F:CC28:E900:B135:F226:27F1:E7D4 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree - there's an RFC at Talk:Self-coup about including it there, and that's honestly the best description (rather than soft coup).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2020
For the summary, I think it's time to add that this was the first election since 1960 where Ohio voted for the losing candidate (https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/electoral-college-pledges-ohios-votes-trump-columbus/6511002002/], ). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:48BC:EA26:DB13:6E4D (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ohio is no longer a bellwether state, this political canard is pretty much irrelevant in 2020.. ValarianB (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to 2020, because this is the first time in decades that Ohio is no longer a bellwether state (although technically Trump lost the national popular vote last time). Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)