Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 28

is the moratorium still in effect?
is the moratorium still in effect? Historicalinterest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, I asked if the moratorium was still in effect. I didn't get any answer so I assume that no censors are watching this page now, since if they were they would have gently told me hey watch what you say.  So I am assuming I can express my opinion freely on this page now. If I'm wrong just let me know and I am happy to delete this comment.  Historians can find my opinion in a written journal I've mailed to my friend in Argentina, it's hard to hide things forever, or maybe they'll never find it, doesn't matter.  For me I care about my cats and dogs, I care about my garden, I care about my husband's employment and don't want to see him fired, etc.  So I have a lot of things I'm worried about and that is why I asked if it's all right to talk about things first!
 * In terms of an historical account, the current version of the Wikipedia page is very low quality. The 2020 election was the most contested election in United States history, with one party contesting, and maintaining vehemently, unparalleled levels of widespread voter fraud.  The way this is portrayed in the article doesn't really match an objective historical standard.  In my personal experience I find that censorship was very active over this same period.  Since I have a lot to be worried about I don't mind waiting until I am allowed to speak.  I have a lot of interests such as the tomato vines in my garden.  I'm a huge recipe collector, and I love to share with my community and friends.  So if this is still a restricted topic I don't want to investigate it anymore, but if I am allowed to speak about it I consider from an historical perspective the article in it's current form falls short of academic standards. Historicalinterest (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I didn't know what "moratorium" you referred to. We aren't going to treat the allegations of voter fraud any differently than the reliable sources do, which is to say essentially what is said: that the allegations of fraud are bunk, that some Republicans tried to challenge a legitimate election, and that the Big Lie led to an insurrection at the US Capitol.
 * And the 2020 election was not the most contested election in United States history. Please read about the elections of 1824, 1876, and 2000, for instance. I'll grant you that the 2020 election is the first one where the losing party refused to admit to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry!! I've deleted my comment. Historicalinterest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, per WP:REDACT, talk page comments that someone wants to delete are crossed out as opposed to wiped entirely with a few exceptions. "Any deleted text should be marked with, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted ". I've left it uncrossed out so you can decide if youd rather cross it out or leave it as is. Thanks. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did as you suggested ("so you can decide if youd rather cross it out or leave it as is") and crossed it off. Historicalinterest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did as you suggested ("so you can decide if youd rather cross it out or leave it as is") and crossed it off. Historicalinterest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Party listings in Template:2020 United States presidential election
The way the additional parties that supported Biden (Independent Party Working, Families Party) and Trump (Conservative Party, Right to Life Party) makes it appear that the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, involved these parties, which they did not. Perhaps find a different manner of including them in the infobox, or exclude them altogether. But the current manner they are included is pretty problematic. SecretName101 (talk) SecretName101 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Military Mail-In Ballots
Hello everyone, I was wondering if the inclusion of the topic of Military mail in ballots is necessary to include in the postal voting section. I found an article from The Washington Post that talks more about the significance of the Military's mailed ballots. Columbus128752 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Information about active-duty military ballots may be worth adding to the article, though inclusion of "the topic" in general is somewhat vague. Are there particular statements which you would like the article to include?
 * It may be worth noting that the linked article was written at the height of uncertainty about the election outcome (November 5th). Now that the election process is complete, it would seem preferable to use sources which also take into account the results of the process, rather than just predictions about the results while the process was ongoing. 2001:480:91:5401:0:0:0:543 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Racial Unrest" edits
I'm a new Wikipedia user, so I apologize if I'm doing something wrong. However, I was thinking that it may be helpful to include mentions of the Black Lives Matter movement in the "Racial Unrest" section of the article, as the Black Lives Matter movement played a significant part in the protests and following politics. Further, it could be helpful to mention what people wanted to achieve from protesting, as this would help readers to understand why Biden's promise of a police oversight commission was important. In the same vein, it may be helpful to include what Trump thought about police reform. BlueMoon2432 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and think that we should mention the movement became mainstream as a result of the George Floyd events, while highlighting the importance of it. Ill try my best to edit it. RickyLol (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not doing anything wrong, and I support the inclusion of BLM into that section. I also would generally support minor phrasing changes but will leave the passage as is for the current moment.Przemysl15 (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

New potrait?
Any ideas when we'll get the official POTUS portrait for Biden? I'm getting sick and tired of seeing a nearly decade-old photo plastered all around Wikipedia. As I find it doesn't resemble his current image - and frankly, appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyijfvbjfg (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * even when we get a new portrait, we'll probably continue using the current one in this article - we tend to use pictures of people before elections for elections, unless the newer photo is clearly superior. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Small Edit to the Opening Text
In the third paragraph, the method by which major news networks called a state is discussed. However, it is done in the present tense, whilst the election happened a little over five months before I write this. Should it be moved to another page, or should it be converted to the past tense?86.166.180.35 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is talking about how the results are called by the networks in presidential elections generally, not just this one - so the present tense is correct. MFlet1 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not even really clear to me why this paragraph is necessary. It provides context on why and how networks project election results but it's not clear how that's related to the article or why it's necessary. I think it should be removed as it comes off as fluff at the moment. The purpose of the article and its lead is to describe the 2020 election, not teach people about how news networks make electoral projections. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How the news sources project victory is important to the election because Trump claimed victory the night of the election before news outlets gave projections, and the difference between this election and prior elections and why that caused a delay in projections beyond the normal few hours it usually takes is important for any description of the election as in depth as this article is and should be. However, the opening paragraph does not mention that a 3.5 day delay is unusual, nor tie this into Trump declaring victory before projections, and I think the addition of those two things for context into why projection methods are important would bloat the lede too much and that this entire section should be moved to the body of the article, or incorporated somewhere else. I disagree that it is unnecessary, but I dont think it has enough weight to be in the lede. Przemysl15 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Third party candidates
Third party candidates Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins need to be added but i don't know how to add them because I'm not very good at source editing. Can someone either explain to me how to do it or do it on my behalf please. Chewie1138 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to the infobox, since they are mentioned in the article. This is repeatedly asked, and the answer is that there is a consensus that candidates must get 5% of the vote to merit inclusion in the infobox. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. I just thought that maybe they should be featured since they were for a short time but then removed by someone Chewie1138 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Incitement?
Since the scholarly opinion is currently split on whether the former president is guilty of inpeachment should the article specify that the allegation is disputed rather than outright stating that he is guilty? here are some reliable sources that go against the guilty verdict and some which agree with it


 * The pieces are not academic studies, but opinion pieces. The rioters themselves say they were obeying Trump's instructions, some proudly saying so, others not, but they say it- and almost all Senators, even the ones who voted not guilty on technical grounds, concede he did(including Senator McConnell). This is why most independent reliable sources don't say allegedly, a weasel word. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's reasoning here. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, outright stating that the Trump campaign and its allies "incited insurrection" in this article is loaded language, particularly when the proper legal process concluded that Trump himself was not guilty of doing that (regardless of whether you personally think that was an appropriate outcome or not). We should go with neutral, fact-based language instead of partisan rancor. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My current understanding of the consensus within reliable sources is that a large enough majority of reliable sources use the language "incited" without "allegedly". Among the minority that do not believe he incited the riots, a significant amount are opinion pieces rather than straight news reporting "incited". If this is correct I would be in favor of not weaseling out but I want to make sure my view of reliable sources on the topic is accurate. Przemysl15 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Trump has not been subject to any legal processes regarding his actions related to the riot. Impeachment is a political process akin to a job performance review, not a legal process. In any event, most Senators who voted not guilty did so on technical grounds, and many said Trump did it. Again, many of the rioters themselves say they were listening to Trump- leaving aside what independent reliable sources say. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As this is highly controversial and disputed information which has both scholars and reliable sources arguing both sides. I would propose that the sentence that states he incited the insurrection be rewritten to show the dispute and be expanded with additional sources showing both sites of the argument. rather than just the Daily Beast.

Sources saying he didn't

and of course his trial.

I'm not attempting to argue that he is or isn't guilty as charged but as the verdict is by no means agreed upon it shouldn't be written like it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent Presence (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Message text. in this speech we can Senator Mcconnell describes the event as "probably not incitement" even though he agrees Trump is responsible for the insurrection, In addition can you name any other republican senators who voted to acquit trump who have stated he is guily of incitement I know Senator Scott described him as not guilty however. Transcendent Presence (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a specific statement like that because most of them simply said their vote was on technical grounds. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should avoid saying this as Trump was acquitted.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As the consensus is now 4-3 in favour of not referring to trump's conduct as incitement can I now make the change?Transcendent Presence (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Third party candidates
Third party candidates Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins need to be added but i don't know how to add them because I'm not very good at source editing. Can someone either explain to me how to do it or do it on my behalf please. Chewie1138 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to the infobox, since they are mentioned in the article. This is repeatedly asked, and the answer is that there is a consensus that candidates must get 5% of the vote to merit inclusion in the infobox. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. I just thought that maybe they should be featured since they were for a short time but then removed by someone Chewie1138 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Incitement?
Since the scholarly opinion is currently split on whether the former president is guilty of inpeachment should the article specify that the allegation is disputed rather than outright stating that he is guilty? here are some reliable sources that go against the guilty verdict and some which agree with it


 * The pieces are not academic studies, but opinion pieces. The rioters themselves say they were obeying Trump's instructions, some proudly saying so, others not, but they say it- and almost all Senators, even the ones who voted not guilty on technical grounds, concede he did(including Senator McConnell). This is why most independent reliable sources don't say allegedly, a weasel word. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's reasoning here. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, outright stating that the Trump campaign and its allies "incited insurrection" in this article is loaded language, particularly when the proper legal process concluded that Trump himself was not guilty of doing that (regardless of whether you personally think that was an appropriate outcome or not). We should go with neutral, fact-based language instead of partisan rancor. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My current understanding of the consensus within reliable sources is that a large enough majority of reliable sources use the language "incited" without "allegedly". Among the minority that do not believe he incited the riots, a significant amount are opinion pieces rather than straight news reporting "incited". If this is correct I would be in favor of not weaseling out but I want to make sure my view of reliable sources on the topic is accurate. Przemysl15 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Trump has not been subject to any legal processes regarding his actions related to the riot. Impeachment is a political process akin to a job performance review, not a legal process. In any event, most Senators who voted not guilty did so on technical grounds, and many said Trump did it. Again, many of the rioters themselves say they were listening to Trump- leaving aside what independent reliable sources say. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As this is highly controversial and disputed information which has both scholars and reliable sources arguing both sides. I would propose that the sentence that states he incited the insurrection be rewritten to show the dispute and be expanded with additional sources showing both sites of the argument. rather than just the Daily Beast.

Sources saying he didn't

and of course his trial.

I'm not attempting to argue that he is or isn't guilty as charged but as the verdict is by no means agreed upon it shouldn't be written like it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent Presence (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Message text. in this speech we can Senator Mcconnell describes the event as "probably not incitement" even though he agrees Trump is responsible for the insurrection, In addition can you name any other republican senators who voted to acquit trump who have stated he is guily of incitement I know Senator Scott described him as not guilty however. Transcendent Presence (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a specific statement like that because most of them simply said their vote was on technical grounds. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should avoid saying this as Trump was acquitted.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As the consensus is now 4-3 in favour of not referring to trump's conduct as incitement can I now make the change?Transcendent Presence (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Add context to claim in the opening paragraph?
In the opening of the article, it states that "Federal agencies overseeing election security said it was the most secure in American history." This feels a bit out of place without context, so should we specifically mention that this is in response to increased suspicion about election security thanks to mail-in voting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITeoti (talk • contribs) 14:03, April 7, 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. That sentence is a bit out of place, hanging at the end of the first paragraph. Moving it into the fourth paragraph, after the allegations of fraud, might be the best way to make sure the context is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

New Biden portrait
The new official portrait for Biden has been released, and with that has come the inevitable flurry of edits replacing photos of Biden across the encyclopedia. Some editors have changed the photos on this page and the state subpages, which I've reverted as being against consensus (see the consensus link for Biden's photo at the top of this page). I'm starting this section to discuss using the new portrait in the 2020 presidential election series. I'm against this as it didn't exist at the time of the election. ― Tartan357  Talk 02:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that the precedent set by the past few elections clears up the issue of whether or not a photo taken after an election should be used. The 2016 election page uses former president Trump's official presidential photo, the 2012 page uses former president Obama's 2013 official photo and Senator Romney's current photo, and etc. I believe that the proposed change is in line with precedent. Branedc14 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , precedent isn't really a part of decision-making on Wikipedia; see WP:OTHERCONTENT. These decisions regarding images are typically made on a case-by-case basis. ― Tartan357  Talk 02:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , I do see your point in raising WP:OTHERCONTENT. However, I mention it because it the post-election issue seemed to be your main concern. I would also say separately, though, that the new picture just makes more sense. Biden frankly looks like a different man in the 2013 photo – it was taken nearly 8 years prior to the election, whilst this new one was taken just 4 months after. Given that we've used post-election photos in the past, and that this new official photo is more in line with the Biden people know today and knew during the election, is it not more fitting? ––Branedc14 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a more reasonable way of approaching it. Personally, I think he looks pretty much the same in both. However, the Vice Presidential portrait was dominant in the media throughout the campaign, and is therefore more reflective of the election coverage. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Understandable, though I take issue with using the media as a barometer here. There was not necessarily a media consensus around use of the photo. CNN, for instance, used their own updated photo of Biden in election coverage graphics. And between MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, only MSNBC used the photo of former president Trump that is used on this page. Biden himself is what is most reflective of the election coverage, and that 2013 photo represents a completely different Biden in a completely different pre-Trump, pre-COVID political environment. He is physically different and situated in a different era. – Branedc14 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do there exist good photos from before the election but sooner than 8 years ago? Przemysl15 (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , as far as official portraits go, there's only these two. There are plenty of good photos of Biden from the campaign trail, but we decided to use his official vice presidential portrait for the general election article to match Trump's. ― Tartan357  Talk 04:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems silly to only use official portraits when surely there would be better images from the campaign trail. Thanks for your timely response, tho. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm a fan of the campaign trail photos myself. I think we did a great job with them at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. The issue was with Trump, who is honestly not very photogenic. Most of the candid photos of him involve weird facial expressions. ― Tartan357  Talk 05:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am of the opinion we should use campaign trail photos then, as even if most of Trump's photos are silly there surely is 1 decent looking one we can use. Otherwise, I don't see why we cant use official portraits for Trump and campaign trail portraits for everyone else on the basis that there exist no free professional campaign trail photos of Trump. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Branedc14 that his vice presidential portrait was not dominant. A Google search of, for example, debate lineup graphics, shows a variety of pictures used for Biden. I would argue that the dominant portrayal of Biden was through speeches, debates, and photos on the campaign trail, thus the more recent photo is more relevant. In addition, a presidential portrait is more relevant to this election than a vice presidential portrait, as this was the election in which he became president. There is a direct link between the results of the election being shown in the infobox and the new portrait.AJD2002 (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , he was former Vice President Biden at the time of the election. He didn't become President Biden until after the election. ― Tartan357  Talk 19:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For 2012, we used Romney's official photo as a Senator from Utah for his image as opposed to his official photo as Governor of Massachusetts, so what's your point?BazingaFountain42 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , what are you talking about? Mitt Romney didn't become a senator until 2019. The photo of him used in the 2012 United States presidential election article is not a senate photo. That is just false. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This morning, which was the last time I checked, his photo there was a Senator from Utah. It's been changed since then, so that's probably a separate matter that is under discussion. However, there are other examples, like how on the 2016 United States presidential election page, the photo we used for Trump was his official photo as President even though he was businessman Trump at the time of the election and didn't become President Trump until after.BazingaFountain42 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , and that shows the folly of trying to rely on "precedent" to support arguments. An IP editor changed the photo of Romney a couple of days ago from the one that had been in use for years. Other articles are not relevant here. I wish people would try explaining why their preferred photo is best for this article, instead of simply pointing to other articles. We can all come up with examples like that. It's not a productive way to discuss, and has no basis in policy. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we should update the photo because it is the most recent photo. And pointing to other articles is a very good reason why. Maintaining precedent helps with consistency. Biden's photo from 2013 isn't as relevant to 2020 as his official presidential portrait. Using a vice presidential portrait next to a presidential portrait when the vice president is the one that won looks weird. You seem to be the only one that says we should keep his 2013 photo.BazingaFountain42 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, pointing to other articles is not a good reason because anyone can change any article. Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT, which I linked to: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you still seem to be the only person here against changing the photo. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , what's your point? ― Tartan357  Talk 22:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that you are the only person that is opposed to this. There is no reason why we shouldn't change it: The Biden shown in the presidential photo looks way more like the Biden that people thought of than the one shown in the VP photo. The argument that we shouldn't use the presidential photo because it was taken before the election is from silly. If it's more relevant to the period, use that photo. The presidential photo is more relevant to 2020 than the VP photo, so we should use that.


 * Yes official portraits for government officials are preferable. I think that is what we should for the main BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , both are official portraits, so I don't understand what you're trying to say. Also, this is not the talk page for Biden's BLP. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Normally you use the most up to date official portrait. Make sense now? PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to 2021 - We chose Biden's '13 picture because it was the newest official photograph of his. Now that we have a newer (and more relevant to the 2020 election) official photograph, we should use it. Nojus R (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * my bad, I didn't notice the discussion. Anyway, IMHO we should use the 2021 official portrait, even if it was taken after the election, as we also did in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004 and 2000 for the elected president. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Change to 2021 The 2016 election page has Trump's presidential portrait. The 2020 page should follow that for Biden. I thought it was a no brainer? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to 2021 Joe Biden's presidential portrait is far closer to the time period he was elected in than his vice presidential portrait. With this portrait released, it now makes little sense to use a picture outdated by 8 years, even if it is official. Aeromachinator (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we please get all the County Results for every State put on Wikipedia put on please?
It's been like 5 Months and I don't know where to find the County Results or how to make a table of the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutcho1424 (talk • contribs)
 * It was pretty much decided, in this discussion, that county-by-county results are not needed in this article. Could I ask why you want them? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I should have Clirified that there is not the county results on all the individaul articles of the State Results of the 2020 U.S. Election. For example in Virginia. (Hutcho1424 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC))
 * County results tables are available on most of the individual state election articles. For the few that don't have them, they'll likely be added soon; in the meantime, you can probably view them on the Secretary of State's website or on Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Having a county list on this article would simply be clutter. – chri (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Revised election results in New York
New York has amended its certified election results, adding about 20,000 more votes to their total. Is there a way we can have this updated in the article? https://www.elections.ny.gov/2020ElectionResults.html Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the revised results. Most of the difference is from Suffolk County, which was already known and noted in the table in the article. I didn't think that the state would ever fix it.
 * Currently the article cites a report from the FEC, published in February, which used the earlier numbers from the New York. I prefer to cite the national total from the FEC, even if it's incomplete, instead of recalculating a new total based on multiple sources. For now, I added the updated numbers from New York in the note but kept the FEC numbers in the table. The FEC is expected to publish a more detailed report later this year as it usually does, and if it updates the numbers we can update the table here as well. Heitordp (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, we should use the most accurate information and we can decide whether or not multiple source calculations are WP:SYNTH. I wouldn't mind adding the 20k votes to the table and not the total with a note or something, but the idea that we should use outdated information on the basis that it makes our lives harder is silly. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think we should use the revised results. The best option in my opinion would be to just swap the results around and put the totals from the FEC document in the footnote. Rogl94 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Incitement
As Before the archival of the discussion on incitement the consensus was for not describing President Trump's conduct as incitement I will now be making that change Transcendent Presence (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Turnout data for US elections based on Voter eligible population instead of Voting Age Population
There's been some talk on prior pages about using VEP vs. VAP. VEP is clearly a better source, since there are people that live in the US that can't vote because they're not a citizen. The Census Bureau releases voting statistics for every election that includes data on the US and every state with a column for "Percent Voted (Citizen)" in table 4C.

Is there a way we can uniformly change every Federal election page to include this statistic? Because right now, it seems like an incredible hodgepodge of turnout stats, especially when you start looking at turnout by state.

Here's how the last 5 Presidential elections would change on Wikipedia of Census VEP data were used:

2004: 63.8

2008: 63.6

2012: 61.8

2016: 61.4

2020: 66.8

Bartboy919 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that within the political science field, the VEP v VAP debate has not finished with one side conclusively winning, and as such I do not consider VEP to be clearly better. I agree that we should have a standardization of turnout stats across Wikipedia, but I am not certain what the consensus among reliable sources is. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The California presidential results pages have both Registered voter turnout and VEP statistics, I don't think it would be difficult to add that data for all modern elections using government data. Is there a process to implement that addition? Bartboy919 (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know. I've been wanting to propose wider changes to modern elections but I don't know. Przemysl15 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath : claims of fraud and fundraising
The section barely enlight the intense, massive and successful fundraising these claims fraud allowed, and are therefore missing the deep motive. The article value would raise when the link between election fraud claims and sustained fundraising gets structurally visible (within section titles) and duely explained (Trump campaign was deeply in the red on electionday, and after 2 months of Big Lie was able to get back to positive). Yug (talk)  07:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had seen some information about how Trump took money to fund debts, do you have reliable sources to build this section? (Not that they don't exist, we just need them for an article as I'm sure you're aware) Przemysl15 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Director of National Intelligence report
"Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states.[20][21][22] Attorney General William Barr and officials in each of the 50 states found no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the election.[23][24] Federal agencies overseeing election security said it was the most secure in American history."

Yet the Homeland Security report published on January 19 2021 clearly states there was significant cyber interference in the elections from China and other nations, completely contradicting the claim about it being the most secure election in history. None of the governors in any of the states have fully audited the mail in ballots using the ultra violet watermarking technology currently being used in Maricopa County or conducted signature verifications which could fully prove the claims are false. The truth is that the report was published a month late, a day before Trump left office, and was too late to be investigated. Officials in different states know that the changes to the law with mail in ballots because of Covid was a shambles, which is why numerous states have swiftly passed laws ensuring it won't happen again. † Encyclopædius  15:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * According to | the Official DHS website, there were not any reports published from the DHS on January 19, 2021. I do not see any reports on election interference from the DHS within the timeframe you are discussing, nor am I familiar with "ultra violet watermarking technology". Reliable sources state that Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election results by falsely alleging widespread voter fraud, despite the fact that the AG and other federal agencies overseeing the election said it was the most secure in American history. If you have reliable sources that dispute these claims, then I think a conversation about presenting a more nuanced narrative in this area could be warranted, but I could not find anything on this Jan 19 2021 DHS report nor on UV watermarking technology nor anything else you stated, so perhaps I simply did not understand what you were trying to say and could not find what you cited these claims from, but until you can provide reliable sources backing up your claims, I stand by the article as is as I feel it accurately represents the opinions of reliable sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Przemysl15, legitimate US ballots were specially watermarked which can only be seen using an ultra violet system and checked for authenticity, that's what is currently going on in Arizona, contrary to what the media claims about conspiracy theories. If there were a lot of fraudulent ballots they will be easily identified during an audit.


 * The report was by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe I think, did I get my wires crossed with Homeland Security, I don't know it was supposed to be published on December 20 I think but ended up being a month late. Mentioned a delay and debate over it in The Washington Examiner and Washington Times mentions Ratcliffe accused intelligence analysts of playing down the interference from China see and confirmed in this here
 * I believe Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Italy and a few countries were also implicated. There is a legal case in Italy involving a hacker claiming to have switched votes from Trump to Biden, the top Italian lawyer involved gave a statement here. His affidavit has been sent to Congress. There's been massive cyber attacks against the US in the last year, 30,000 odd US institutions were hacked a few weeks ago, healthcare insitutions and hospitals are currently being hacked regularly in particular, San Diego was down for a few days recently. The election based on the evidence I've seen was not exempt, as much as I know many people think Trump and his team are completely lying about interference and the media claims the election was as clean as a whistle. But there's a big difference of course between genuine fraud cases and a completely "stolen" election by as many as 7 million votes as Trump claims of course.


 * Mainstream "reliable sources" are controlled by the left who of course will say the fraud claims are completely false, and we discredit (and rightfully so) right-wing outlets like Newsmax and OAN. CNN and MSNBC and numerous mainstream media sources controlled by the left are as unreliable as those in my opinion when it comes to reliable content about Trump and Republicans as they're heavily compromised by the people funding them and clearly have an agenda. I guess we're completely limited by the media and what is covered in sources at the present. But Ratcliffe definitely confirmed there was interference.† Encyclopædius  11:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend viewing Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, as Scribd is most certainly unreliable and the Washington Examiner is questionable at best. YouTube obviously cannot be used either, so the article would need information from reliable sources, especially for the claim that "30,000 odd US institutions were hacked a few weeks ago, healthcare institutions and hospitals are currently being hacked regularly in particular, San Diego was down for a few days recently", which you provide no sourcing for. Currently, we consider MSN and CNN to be reliable, or at least biased but not to the point of unreliability. If you want to challenge the consensus you can do so on the associated talk pages. I am not claiming you are trying to edit in bad faith, but all the opinions you have seem to come from dubious places, which do not meet the requirements for inclusion into Wikipedia. If this information is true, I'm sure you can find better sources with which to implement it, whether they are mainstream or not. Przemysl15 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree, they're biased well beyond the point of reliability on issues related to Trump, they've been proven to have made a series of false claims to pursue their agenda. That story about Republicans killing that police officer with a fire extinguisher at the Capitol for instance was completely false yet they milked it for all it was worth. How long did CNN pursue the Russian collusion thing without it ever being proven? The opinions I have come from dubious places?? Do some research Przemsyl, seriously. Even the mainstream media globally has been reporting on the cyber attacks, the most recent was on the pipeline in the southeast. Economic Times of India source there on the 30,000 attack by China. NBC there on San Diego the other day China is being blamed for ongoing massive cyber attacks against the US, except the US election of course, that's a completely false claim... I read Ratcliffe's report directly from the official government site when it was released. If it's no longer there you might want to ask why that is. Ratcliffe, the Director of National Security confirmed interference from China, not my opinion.†  Encyclopædius  12:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, if you are going to violate WP:PA and insinuate that I am not well researched, please spell my handle correctly.
 * Second of all, "that story about Republicans killing that police officer with a fire extinguisher at the Capitol" was not "completely false", as prosecutors prosecuting the insurrectionists did claim that "Robert Sanford, 55, threw a fire extinguisher at a group of police officers on the Capitol's western terrace". CNN never claimed that he killed the officer, they reported that two men assaulted the officer, one of whom had a can he claimed contained "bear sh*t", and they even state that "the court record doesn't mention Sicknick's [the officer's] death, or how the spray may have contributed to it.", and when more information came out, they reported that he died of natural causes.
 * Third of all, "the Russian collusion thing", better known as the Mueller investigation, had many things proven, as it found that Russia interfered in our election in 2016 and dozens of arrests were made, and according to Time, Business Insider, ABC, USA Today, and others, the number of those indicted, convicted, or who gave guilty pleas is 34. Mueller was never instructed directly to look into indictment, just into Russian interference and anything that came about during that investigation, of which collusion was one possible thing that could have come out of the investigation.
 * Penultimately, I stated that your opinions come from places that do not meet the requirements for inclusion into Wikipedia, and as dubious is a synonym for doubtful, questionable, and uncertain, I feel that the characterization of the sources you use as being dubious is justifiable given that consensus here is that those sources do not contain reliable, verifiable information in enough quantity to justify acceptable use for sourcing on this site, something that at the very least should make those sources questionable. As I stated previously, I can't find this report you're talking about, which is not to say it doesn't exist, only that I cannot find it to verify any of the information you're talking about. The NBC article does not mention China, only a hack. Certainly, there was a hack at Scripts, but I see no indication that this was a hack by a foreign government, nor that this has any relation to interference in U.S. elections. I certainly am aware of U.S. hacks, but, as stated previously, "the AG and other federal agencies overseeing the election said it was the most secure in American history". I do not see how any of that disputes that claim directly. As for the TOI article, the consensus at WP:TOI finds that the Times of India tends to be biased toward the Indian government and thus the consensus on that source is somewhere between "no consensus and generally unreliable". You constantly pull from dubious sources that have information that is not found in any other reliable sources. If you have any information from reliable sources that dispute the election results, then there is something to go on, but I simply don't feel that exists.
 * Lastly, if you do feel that the problem is what sources are considered legitimate, and that MSN and CNN are biased well beyond the point of reliability on issues related to Trump, feel free to attempt to change that consensus on WP:RS/PS. I doubt you'll get any of WE, TOI, or the others, but I think that you could get somewhere with MSN, as it has a few failed fact checks. CNN is a little less probable, especially given that most fact checks they have issue with are on the TV and we generally source from the website, but again feel free to try. Regardless, in my personal experience, on any of the election pages I work on, nothing from CNN or MSN has been demonstrably false, although certainly they both use loaded words which are best to avoid for WP:NPOV concerns, but generally again all of the information from those sources is factually accurate and so long as we don't use the same biased language as them, I don't see any issues. Przemysl15 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

An official report from the Director National of Security is the opposite of being a dubious source, it directly claims China interfered with the elections.. Radio.com via MSN says "Herridge DNI Ratcliffe confirms China election interference "   Catherine Herridge of CBS News said: "Well DNI Ratcliffe leads the 17 intelligence agencies and he has access to the most highly classified information that is held by the US government. And he told CBS News that there was foreign interference by China, Iran, and Russia in November of this year and he is anticipating a public report on those findings in January. " It directly contradicts what Krebs said about it being "the most secure election in history". La Stampa, one of Italy's oldest newspapers confirms that the man who hacked votes against Trump has been in jail since December 5, you can't access all of the article there in Italian but can see enough. Quoting Trump's recent post "The Fake News media refuses to cover the greatest Election Fraud in the history of our Country. They have lost all credibility, but ultimately, they will have no choice! " What do you think he means by "they will have no choice"? Keeping in mind Trump signed Executive Order 13848 in September 2018, titled "Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election". † Encyclopædius  14:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but TOI, Washington Examiner, Scribd, and YouTube are dubious sources. I have never heard of Radio.com or La Stampa and neither has WP:RS/PS, and The Spectator largely consists of opinion pieces, of which this is one. You still haven't given me coverage of the report in a reliable source and given that CBS published a story on their actual website here where Ratcliffe was interviewed titled "Intelligence chief Ratcliffe: No proof yet of election interference", a sentiment he echoed in the interview itself, I still fail to see why you believe that Ratcliffe is certain China interfered in the election. Now, that piece is from December of last year, so there may be more modern pieces that analyze the report, but CBS has not done a follow up story that I could find, so again, if you can find any reliable sources who dispute the article's claims, feel free to put them here. Surely, if China interfered in our elections, there would be coverage in legitimate sources. Otherwise, please stop throwing bad sources at me, as again, anything accurate would be echoed through legitimate sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * La Stampa is most certainly what we would call a reliable source, it's one of the big Italian newspapers. Scribd is a scan of a formal document, not the source. We're going to look awful silly later in the year if unquestionable evidence starts to come out and Trump is right about the media having no choice but to cover it.. Time will tell...† Encyclopædius  11:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that La Stampa isn't a reliable source, just that WP:RS/PS has no info on it. Furthermore, this is obviously the English Wikipedia, and while La Stampa does have an English site, it is not fully in English and as a result is less navigable than a source that has English as a primary language. WP:NOENG talks about how English language sources are preferred over the alternative, and this combined with the lack of a consensus on the reliability of La Stampa means that it better to source from other, more reliable, English language sources.
 * As for Scribd, the fact that it a scan of the document is the problem, from the entry on WP:RS/PS, "Anyone can upload any document they'd like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated. ... If a particular document hosted on the platform is in itself reliable, editors are advised to cite the source without linking to the Scribd entry". Again I am not saying that the document has been manipulated, only that the original source should be used and we should use primary sources to interpret the document as otherwise that would violate WP:OR. Currently, it does not appear significant interpretation of this document exists from reliable sources.
 * Lastly, I don't think we will look silly if more information comes out contrary to what is currently on Wikipedia, as the purpose of Wikipedia is to document, not trend set. From WP:RGW, "Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them". WP:SUSTAINED is useful for this as well, as it states that "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it"". Additionally, "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". If it does happen that this report is important and that the election was indeed manipulated, Wikipedia will not be the first place that it is documented, and as such, unless sourcing for this exists from reliable sources, which to my understanding it doesn't, then the article should stay the same. Przemysl15 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

FEC vs. U.S. House Clerk's Office vote counts
There are discrepancies with the Federal Election Commission count cited in the current revision of the 2020 U.S. presidential election article with the U.S. House Clerk's Office results. The former puts the total vote count at 158,383,403 while the latter has the total vote count as 158,481,688, because of this, there are also discrepancies in the vote totals for each candidate. I'm not an elections lawyer, but since the FEC's regulatory purview is campaign finance law rather than election canvassing, the reference cited is probably not the document that the 2021 Electoral College vote count was based upon while the U.S. House Clerk's Office results presumably were, and if so, the article should to be changed to reflect this. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Where is the other candidates?
They deserve to be on here. Barnacles14 (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article lists at least 10 candidates. Which other ones are missing?  -- Jayron 32 14:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , this editor is likely referring to the infobox, which is covered by Q3. ―  Tartan357  Talk 21:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No the infobox doesnt show libertarian and green candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnacles14 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , again, read Q3. ―  Tartan357  Talk 23:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry Barnacles14 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021
Can someone add a swing state compare graph (similar to the ones on the 2012 and 2016 election pages)? I want one showing blue and red arrows (like 2016). Can someone add a swing state compare graph for 2020? Please. 2600:6C48:427F:F84E:4514:FA68:199B:83B2 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Edit requests are not to ask someone to do something for you. As per the instructions, ""Please change X" is not acceptable" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  01:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms of Voting Machines by Major Media Outlets Prior to the 2020 Election
Should there be some sort of explanation as to the vulnerabilities of the voting machines prior to the 2020 election? Major outlets such as the New York Times, wrote exposés on the ability of the voting machines to be hacked prior to the midterm elections of 2018. These articles contained a large degree of emphasis on their flaws, vulnerabilities, as well as concern over how much one company controlled the electronic ballot market. The doubt over the safety of the voting machines had been expressed long before the 2020 election but the Wikipedia article gives the impression that it was something that occurred after the 2020 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7207:e0d4:c5b0:a9d8:4781:2d80 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see how this would be directly relevant and comes from reliable sources, so I would think this should be included in some form there. Przemysl15 (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Redundant leading sentences
I’m focused on this one which appears in the first paragraph:

"This is the most recent election in which the incumbent president has failed to win re-election."

I don’t think this is a necessary thing to state when this is the most recent election overall. Of course this is the most recent where the incumbent failed to win, there hasn’t been any further elections since. Thoughts? Psherman122 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Honestly, I don't see why we have this in the lede. Przemysl15 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Made this change to make it non-trivial (and accord w/ multiple RS).  Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC) ... p.s. correction, 5th not 4th such loss in century  --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 04:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

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

This sentence is phrased oddly, as the key word is "former," (implying that he was not the incumbent vice president during the election) is very easy to miss. This caption from Wikipedia phrases it much more clearly:

"Joe Biden is the second non-incumbent vice president to be elected president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.55.71 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That would add accuracy at the cost of clarity - unfortunately what we are trying to describe takes more words than that, if we expect the reader to understand without carefully parsing the words (an unreasonable expectation). Those two are the only examples of vice presidents who left office and later won the presidency. Jd2718 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I prefer IP 108.30.55.71's wording to the current wording, but I think Jd2718's last sentence above might be the clearest yet. I'd suggest e.g. "Biden became the second vice president, after Republican Richard Nixon, to leave the office and later win the presidency." --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 18:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support any of these three over the current wording. Przemysl15 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read this discussion when I changed the sentence the other day to the following: "Biden became the second former vice president, after Republican Richard Nixon in 1968, to be elected president without having succeeded to the office." (I included a link to the article on presidential succession.) marbeh raglaim (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021
I don't know how to add a file. Can someone add a swing state compare graph (similar to the ones on the 2012 and 2016 election pages)? I want one showing blue and red arrows (like 2016). Can someone add a swing state compare graph for 2020? Please. 2601:40A:8480:1750:1C08:BDC7:7966:2018 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If the file for this already exists somewhere on WikiMedia, please link it. Otherwise, someone would need to create it first. --allthefoxes (Talk)  00:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Number of Electoral Votes in Electoral Results Section
In the cartogram captioned "A discontinuous cartogram of the 2020 United States presidential election", Texas is given 36 electoral votes for the 2020 election but Texas had 38. Since the article could not be edited I wasn't sure where to post this but its an error which could be misleading to anyone who references this article.

209.166.123.68 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to update the cartogram on Wikimedia Commons. Be aware that it may take some time for the corrected image to display properly.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

About editorial values against Trump non-reëlection
While I'm quite the hater of Trump, as a Finnish Classical liberal (an economical rightist to be sure), the tune of this article doesn't seem quite right to me. It tends towards "beating up the losen, and history being written up by the winners". It has a certain unmistakable undertow which doesn't befit the encyclopedic tone of voice. Even if it's grounded in fact, emotionally and in prose it's indulgent, in the worst way.

Please clean this up. Revert as fuck, and rewrite. Because as a Finnish speaker and someone who comes from rather a different culture, I just can't and couldn't indulge, really. As it stands the article is a morass I couldn't even touch. Decoy (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What specifically about the article's tone is wrong? Could you provide some examples? Przemysl15 (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can help here with the "tone." Lines such as "Trump...and his surrogates and supporters made a series of observably false claims that the election was fraudulent. Claims that substantial fraud was committed have been repeatedly debunked" imply a particular political point of view. "Reliable sources" have become a hybrid of news and opinion instead of news being in section A of the paper and opinion existing in the editorial pages. So if those "reliable sources" give opinion in a news article Wikipedia editors should not make the same mistake.


 * Why not this instead? "Trump...and his surrogates and supporters made a series of claims that the election was fraudulent. Claims that substantial fraud was committed have been disputed." See the difference?


 * Although in truth, ongoing and future state audits of the 2020 presidential election will likely force this portion of the article to change, so no edits are really necessary at this time. I just wanted to clarify what I thought was the point the original poster was trying to make. 2602:306:B866:5510:C800:1331:AA97:8228 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This would create the false impression that there a lack of consensus amongst reliable sources, or that there is any reliable evidence of fraud. Wikipedia should not mislead on the level of consensus based on political concerns in any individual country, any disagreement with the facts should only have political ramifications on those making the claims, not ramifications on the reporting of those facts. Banak (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that information. I would like to point out, however, that several of the reliable sources dismissing vote fraud were written DURING the election, which essentially ran from November 3rd to the 7th. It does not seem credible to me that a "reliable source" can dismiss vote fraud BEFORE the election counting has concluded. Also, a reliable source that states "Fact check: Trump delivers most dishonest speech of his presidency as Biden closes in on victory" sounds more like editorializing and cheerleading than something worthy of being considered a reliable source. 2602:306:B866:5510:655A:872:B3D2:CBF8 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Tipping point states
Elli added "(tipping-point state for Trump victory)" (diff) to Electoral results » Close states. Another editor reverted, Elli added it back, with this edit note: "if Biden loses AZ GA WI it's 269-269. Trump needs PA for 270 (though 269-269 would go to the house who would pick Trump, most likely)"; I reverted, Elli added it back with a new reference, I sought to clarify, Elli reverted.

What is appropriate? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 05:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my version is clear and consistent with all other presidential election articles which use the same wording. A tipping-point state is inherently a hypothetical situation, "clarifying" that it is a hypothetical is unnecessary. This is useful information which is reliably-sourced. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not clear on why the info is helpful to our readers at this point (viz., 7 months after the election). As you say, “[a] tipping-point state is inherently a hypothetical situation.” But we now know that the antecedent of the if–then conditional (the “if” side) is false. In your edit note, you say “if Biden loses AZ GA WI it's 269-269. Trump needs PA for 270.” But as we know, and have known for months, Biden did not lose AZ, GA, WI, or PA. So what’s the point of this info? Similarly, If Biden had died before the inauguration, that also would have triggered some interesting situations (a hypothetical). But now that Biden did not die before the inauguration, we wouldn’t put that info into the article. Thanksforhelping (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * why even have the results then? Biden won, the margins in the states don't matter. The point is, it's interesting analysis, harmless to include, well-sourced, etc. There is no reason to exclude it, and as someone who was initially a reader of similar articles before jumping in to help write, I've found it helpful. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Elli's mainspace edit and talk page comments. When the tallying leads to an electoral tie, each candidate indeed has a different tipping point state (defined as the state that gets you to 270, irrespective of whether you could prevail in the House w/ 269).  Yes, this is indeed a subject of interest among RS and therefore not undue.  See 2nd para from Geoffrey Skelley at 538, quoted in the article in note 333 305  (stable version ) ("We can see just how large this advantage was....).  --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 23:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC); updated link 23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that RSs appear to find it interesting and thus is not undue. Przemysl15 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback everyone. I had come to understand the relevance of Elli's addition, which is why I sought only to clarify their edit after our initial back-and-forth. I think that the text as-is will be confusing for most readers, who are not likely to read the footnote. I suggest a slight modification to: "would have been the tipping-point state for Trump" for clarity. I understand that "would have been" is implied in the term ("tipping-point state") and is understood as such by political scientists and others with in-depth political knowledge, but most of our readers do not possess such expertise. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Przemysl15 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings, but I guess I'd omit the "would have been". I don't really see how it misleads in any way, and curious readers can clarify with a wee click.  (Speaking of which, I do think the lede of tipping-point state should mention how you can have two such states, maybe citing this election.)  --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 05:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "would have been" is superfluous, but the inclusion of the phrase technically isn't wrong. I also think the addition to the lede is good. Przemysl15 (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added some info to the lead. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have? Przemysl15 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe "added some info to the lead" was in reference to the tipping-point state article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand the confusion arises from the fact that if Biden's three narrowest states (WI, AZ, GA) had gone the other way, the electoral count would be tied at 269-269, and then most likely the state delegations which are majority Republican would have handed Trump a second term. On those grounds you could say WI was the tipping-point state even though it wouldn't have given Trump an outright majority in electoral votes. The problem is that this scenario is so rare that I don't think Nate Silver accounted for it when he first coined the term "tipping-point state" several years ago. marbeh raglaim (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * eeeeeeh - I mean, the claim that PA was the tipping point for a Trump victory was sourced to 538. While Trump probably wins 269-269, it's not a certain thing. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say it's certain. Any House member who did not vote to impeach Trump for the insurrection would have voted for him if the House picked the president.  The Republicans have majority in 27 state delegations, and except for Wyoming, a majority of all of those states' delegations did not vote to impeach, so Trump would have won at least 26 delegations.  I don't know what happens if the Electoral College and the House delegations are tied, but it doesn't matter. EvanJ35 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Years ago reports from conventions would include which state's votes put a nominee over the top. That was exciting. There were cheers when that happened. TV commentators, on the night of the election, would put the same focus, even more, on the state that put the electoral vote count over 269. That would lead to a huge news flash. Modern day pundits have tried to extend that tradition by calculating what they believe would have been the state to put the electoral vote count over 269. During the campaign strategists might seek to identify such potential states as they allocate resources. After the fact pundits might seek to identify it, essentially as trivia. But since they use different methodology, they obtain different results. And since tipping point state is purely hypothetical, there may be more than one. There is not "the tipping point state" but rather "the LA Times' tipping point state" or "Fox News' tipping point state" or "Nate Silver's tipping point state." In fact, as widely cited trivia, any claim from a RS should be included, as that source's claim. Editors should not calculate a tipping point state (that's original research) nor should we prefer one reliably sourced tipping point state over another. Jd2718 (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources following this history? I was under the impression that a tipping point state standardly was calculated by taking away the closest states from the winner until they no longer are winning, and the confusion comes from whether a tie or clear loss is needed. As "tipping point state" has a standard as is easily calculable, it should be governed by WP:CALC, not WP:OR. This is hardly as complex as something like compiling a chart using a 5 term running average supplemented by a linear trend line found after using regressions to correct for some inherent biases in the data. Przemysl15 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * there is only one definition of tipping-point state that is used in serious election analysis - not pop election coverage - and that is one purely calculable based off of the data - 538's definition. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is intrinsically hypothetical "if the election had shifted by an equal percentage across each state, at some point a state would flip that would change the winner of the entire election, and that is (or would have been) the 'tipping point' state." This is something that does not occur. The election does not "shift" - and if it did, it would not shift by equal percentages. Nate Silver deserves a lot of respect for calling 2008, but he's essentially a baseball guy, where making things up is cool. Here he has left us with kind of a mess, but prominent enough, even as trivia, that it has to be reported. But I repeat, take whatever Reliable Sources give. If a different RS reports differently, then use it, too. But calculating this on our own would constitute Original Research as the silly dispute above shows so clearly. Jd2718 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * no, it wouldn't constitute original research - it's an easy enough formula per WP:CALC, even if some people fail to understand it. Regardless, I wasn't calculating it - it has a citation in the article. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Results by county," "Election results by county," and "Shaded election results by county"
Since the page is about an election, the word "the map labels don't give the difference between them. "Election results by county" uses shading, so I think it should be labeled "Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote" where I took the label of the first map and changed "state" to county." "Election results by county" and "Shaded election results by county" seem the same other than the colors being darker for the latter. Does one map tell something that isn't on the other? EvanJ35 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

court outcomes
A phrase in the fourth paragraph states, "by filing 63 lawsuits in several states (all of which were later withdrawn, dismissed, or overturned by various courts)". 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not accurately worded. A court can overturn a previous court ruling, but it cannot "overturn" a lawsuit filing.
 * The structure of the parenthetical phrase makes unclear what all the prepositional phrase "by various courts" applies to: just "overturned"? the entire series "withdrawn, dismissed, or overturned"? Neither of these readings quite makes sense, as a court could dismiss a lawsuit, but presumably the plaintiff would be the one to withdraw it.
 * The list of outcomes covers cases that never received a ruling (withdrawn or dismissed) and (ambiguously) cases that received a ruling that was later overturned, but not cases where there was a ruling that still stands.
 * corrected the first two problems the day after I reported them (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=1031959790&oldid=1031913122), though this editor didn't reference this thread so I didn't notice it before. The third problem still stands in the new wording, which claims all suits were "withdrawn or dismissed".  This table shows that to be an incorrect summation: some of the suits did produce rulings. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we add turnout % to the results table?
It'd be useful to add the turnout % to the results table (and for consistency, all election articles) Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. 2020.pdf

Postal voting
I am a French citizen and therefore not really concerned by the American elections. However, the presidential election of 2020 has now entered our modern history for many reasons (former President not reelected, controversy over the result, etc.). So I tried to understand how Republican voters could have been so suspicious of Joe Biden's election. The postal voting was a key factor of this election. The importance of postal voting is mentioned in the related paragraph. But mostly with text (bla bla). I would appreciate to find more relevant figures. Here are some figures I have calculated with a “thumb precision” from available sources.

In-person votes (early or at Election Day): 34M for Biden vs 49M for Trump Postal votes: 47M for Biden vs 24M for Trump

Once again, my figures are rough figures and so I assume they are wrong but it should be easy to find the right ones. Nevertheless, my point is to show with factual figures how the postal votes have dramatically changed the result of this election. Bla bla is important but just a few more relevant figures may help to have a better understanding. I apologise for my poor mastering of your beautiful language. Alpeny (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly think that we could have a little bit on the numbers, so I would support inclusion of postal voting data. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Given this election was heavily vote-by-mail due to the pandemic, I feel like the data would improve the article. Prcc27 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

After several hours of search on the web, I could only get the total number of mail-in ballots: 65,642,049

I imagine this count comes from the US postal service, as a federal administration. But once again I may be wrong. For the rest, I only found percentages that I suspect to be the results of surveys and not counts. Eg, according to MIT election data, Biden got 59% of the mail ballots, vs 30% for Trump… (and so 11% for the other votes?). Therefore, I realise I have a very large thumb and my new estimation would now be the following: I have carefully read the official report of the FEC Federal Election Commission but did not find anything on the mail ballots. States, not the federal government, are charged with overseeing elections. Thus, the figures published by the FEC just represent a consolidation of the reports published by all the states. After checking a couple of state reports (New Jersey, Alabama, Colorado…) I observe: i) the FEC do not impose any framework or every state uses a specific framework ii) the state reports contain no detail related to mail ballots. State reports detail the votes counted by county, but from what I saw, the different modes of voting (in-person or absentee) are always aggregated in the state reports.
 * In-person votes (early or at Election Day): 42M for Biden vs 54M for Trump
 * Postal votes: 39M for Biden vs 20M for Trump

In conclusion, the figures estimated cannot be published as they are not sufficiently reliable. Initially, I thought it would be easy to get factual counts but I am afraid I was wrong. That’s probably the reason why the paragraph “Postal voting” contains mostly text and few figures. Sorry for this missed attempt. Alpeny (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Alpeny (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to harp on something in the original post, "[t]he postal votes have dramatically changed the result" is not a valid conclusion from your data, even were it reliable. The fact that more Dem than GOP opted to vote by mail does not imply that eliminating the option of voting by mail would have resulted in lower Dem turnout or a different outcome to the election. It only means that Dems were more likely to vote by mail rather than vote in-person when given the choice. This makes sense because President Trump asked his voters to vote in person instead of by mail. Also, you can't change a result that never occurred in the first place: there was only one result. At best you could speculate that access to mail voting "changed what the result of the election would have been", but even this is speculation with no factual support. (Your English is good, though "blah blah" means "the words that would go here aren't important" so I'm not sure what the first six words of that sentence mean, and it should be 'mastery' rather than 'mastering' but only because the word 'mastery' exists... and you're not far from mastering our language, though I'd say difficult and idiom-overloaded rather than beautiful—especially since French sounds very lovely to any English ear.) :)TricksterWolf (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump's Portrait
In most election wikiboxes, the incumbent's portrait is different from the one used when elected for example Obama's portrait is different in 2012 and 2008, George H.W. Bush's portrait is different in 1988 and 1992 and so on, so why doesn't Trump have a different portrait?

I propose we change it.

Question: Which of these photos should be used for Donald Trump's portrait on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:4000:1330:6438:32ba:c712:2298 (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Option A: The current portrait.
 * Option B: My proposal.


 * I don't see any need for a change here - we tend to prefer recent official portraits for these articles. This isn't a consistent rule - Bill Clinton has the same portrait in 1992 and 1996. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Depending on less biased resources
Wikipedia is scaled as a balanced / non biased resource.

On this article, I noticed a lot of talk about new agencies rather than (reasonable facts), which lead me to (trash) a lot of parts about this page. For example: According to CNN, people close to Donald Trump, such as his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and his wife Melania Trump, urged him to accept his defeat.

How would CNN verify that somebody's son in law privately tells him to do something??

What is the credibility of CNN? They were totally biased, paying to falsify many facts I highly recommend removing a lot of news channels noise and depend on more clearer facts!
 * No. CNN is reliable, per Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. ― Tartan357  Talk 06:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

NO TARTAN357 you are not telling the truth as it is

Media bias is this website https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

I asked a question, we cannot avoid "HOW DID CNN CONCLUDE THAT his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and his wife Melania Trump, urged him to accept his defeat."

These things cannot be on Wiki until they are proven logically


 * CNN concluded that through journalism. CNN is a reliable source. They are biased towards corporate interests, but see WP:YESBIAS. Neutrality means neutral editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

IF possible, could you get in contact with CNN & ask them to stop covering Donald Trump? GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased, as everything and everyone has biases. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to the reader so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. You are free to believe what you wish. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)