Talk:Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud/Archive 1

New Category
IMO there's a difference between what Ted Cruz is saying that we need to "investigate election fraud" and that the election result is unknown and those like Mccarthy who are claiming that Trump outright won the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Similarly there is a big difference between Rubio’s neutral comments and a denunciation of Trump. By the way, the first of three citations about Rubio doesn’t actually mention Rubio. The second and especially the third categorise his comments as a neutral stance. - Elcalebo (sorry forgot password to login)

More than 150 former national security officials sign letter opposing delay recognizing Joe Biden as president-elect
"A group of more than 150 former national security officials who served under President Donald Trump and other Republican and Democratic administrations is warning that the government’s delay in recognizing Joe Biden as president-elect poses a 'serious risk to national security.'"

The Republicans among the 150 signatories should presumably be added to the list in this Wikipedia article, if they have not already been. 81.187.246.160 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the article to 12 November, but I'm not including all names mentioned in the letter, because it's a primary source. It would require me to check on each of the 161 names to check if they are Republicans or not. I've only done that with those mentioned by Politico, and most of them were Democrats, Independents or had no Wikipedia page, so I've not expanded the list. Thanks for the suggestion though! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2020

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  Heart  (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud → Claims of election fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election – This article has clearly moved beyond just discussing Republican reactions to the claims and is now a fairly comprehensive article discussing all aspects of the claims themselves, including reactions to it. The need to for this broader coverage has been already discussed somewhat in the Talk page above and in the closed deletion discussion. I am open to alternative titles, but do feel that a move to a more appropriate name is needed. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. No, this article is only about the reactions of prominent members and leaders of the Republican Party to Donald Trump's 2020 election fraud claims. Not about the claims themselves. Not about everybody else's reactions to the claims. Only about other GOP members to their own nominee's claims. This is a GOP affair. I've already extensively argued for creating a separate article on the claims themselves, including the reactions to the claims coming from election experts, scholars, journalists and anyone else who is relevant. It's possible to integrate such an article into Lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election, or at least have it strongly tied to it, because this is about what Trump and his team are using the claims for. The Republican reactions, as well as the international reactions, merit their own articles. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons above. Mgasparin (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point I would move this to something like Republican reactions to Donald Trump's 2020 election fraud conspiracy theories. BD2412  T 03:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Surely not, per Nederlandse_Leeuw and BD2412. Feoffer (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article currently documents exactly what its title suggests it does. However, I agree with the nominator and  insofar as the claims themselves are notable enough and have been significantly covered in reliable sources enough to warrant their own article.  I don't think it's a titling issue, I think it's an issue of forking out content to a non-existent parent article.    SITH   (talk)   17:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, I found this article because it was linked from Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results, which may be a more appropriate article to add information to regarding general claims of election fraud. Wdougs (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC) There is also the article Stop the Steal. Wdougs (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the closed deletion discussion, where many if not most of the comments were in support of keeping but moving the article to something similar to what is proposed here. Dylanvt (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the rationale of Nederlandse Leeuw. Morgengave (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current Republican AGs join SCOTUS lawsuit
These 17 or so AGs should be added to the list of supporters. Zazpot (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Could we add a date to when Republicans reacted?
I think it would be illuminating to add a date clarifying the timing of when Republicans denounced or supported Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. After all, there is a difference between congratulating Biden shortly after he has won the race, and doing so 2-3 weeks later (after allowing Trump to try his best at overturning the democratic election results). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It would be quite a lot of work, though. Probably best done in conjunction with transforming the bulleted list into a table, which would allow the entries to be sorted by date of support/denouncement. Zazpot (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC); edited 17:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I really think a table is needed at this point. In particular, given that more than half of Republicans in the House just lent their support for subverting the election. ProPublica has a full list of the Republican members of Congress who wanted to subvert the election results. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Split out "Background" section
Can someone split out the "Background" section out to its own article? or maybe to Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results.

This current article should only focus on the "reactions" to the fraud claims and should not have the actual list of day by day fraud claims. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Representatives who joined SCOTUS lawsuit
Seems like we should add the U.S. House of Representatives Republicans who signed amicus briefs for the Texas lawsuit: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/12/12/list-the-126-congress-members-19-states-and-2-imaginary-states-that-backed-texas-suit-over-trump-defeat/ Mark Taylor (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability
How can "Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud" be notable as a standalone article if "Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud" doesn't even have its own article? It seems to me that this article should either be 1) deleted, 2) merged into 2020 United States presidential election, or 3) moved to something like Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, with a section on reactions. Dylanvt (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, maybe even generalise the article to "Reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election"?  Nixinova   T   C   02:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Dylanvt, the reason for that is very simple: almost all US major news outlets have been discussing this phenomenon within the Republican Party unfold in the last few days, which is unique in American electoral history. An article about Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud in general may surely be written, an any Wikipedian who would like to write it should feel free to do so. But this is an important subtopic that the media have chosen to discuss as a Republican Party affair. Many if not most of the headlines of articles referenced make clear that this is the focus of the media's interest: :
 * "Donald Trump's baseless vote fraud claim opens cracks in Republican ranks". The Guardian.
 * "GOP divided over Trump's baseless claims of election fraud". Associated Press.
 * "'This is getting insane': Republicans say Trump's attacks on election integrity are dangerous". USA Today.
 * "GOP begins pushing back against Trump's false election claims". Politico.
 * "Trump's False Election Fraud Claims Split Republicans". The New York Times.
 * "Republicans react to Trump's election fraud claims". Reuters.
 * "Some in GOP break with Trump over baseless vote-fraud claims". Star Tribune
 * "U.S. Republicans divided over Trump's election-fraud claims". Reuters.


 * Etc.


 * It's not the case that I as a Wikipedian arbitrarily focus on how Republicans are reacting by grouping a set of otherwise unrelated statements (which would violate WP:SYNTH, and is a common objection to the creation of certain lists), it's the choice of all major U.S. news media to focus on the reactions of Republicans as a group, and thereby they established it as a phenomenon; I'm just documenting what the media report. Again, if anyone wants to write about Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud in general, go ahead. But this is notable enough as a subtopic of that more general topic. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's all at least to some extent reasonable, but this still just feels like an excessively particular topic for an article. Is there any analogue to such an article? That is, (Particular group of people)'s reaction to (particular event), especially considering that (particular event) is not even yet (more or less) assuredly notable in and of itself (as a standalone article)? Dylanvt (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. As you may have seen, I originally created this as the List of Republicans who have denounced Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, analogous to the List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, the List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, and the List of former Trump administration officials who endorsed Joe Biden. But then someone created the List of Republicans who have support Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud and simply copypasted my introductory text but instead listed a number of Republicans who supported Trump's claims rather than denounced them. That seemed WP:FORK to me, so I decided to merge that list into this one and rename it without the word 'List' and using the term 'reactions' instead so that it could encompass both denouncing, supporting and remaining neutral or silent about the claims. I also decided to further expand the Background section in order to explain the complexity and sequence of events of the various reactions; that seemed to do much more justice than two separate lists with little additional information. As for whether there is any precedent for this type of (Particular group of people)'s reaction to (particular event) article, I haven't specifically looked around for that before renaming it. But articles starting with 'International/National/Domestic/Media reactions/responses to (event)' have been common on English Wikipedia for many years, as a cursory look at Category:Reactions to 2010s events will show. Interestingly, the subcategory Category:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic adds the adjectives 'Medical', 'Military', 'Political' and 'Scientific and technical' to that list. There is also a Democratic response to 2006 State of the Union address, written in 2006, although that has been tagged as possibly containing original research. So it may be a relatively rare kind of title or subject of an article, it's certainly not new and seems to be commonly accepted. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: There is also a List of Democrats who opposed the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign and a Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008 article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I really do not think this is worthy of being its own article. I say we create "Allegations by Donald Trump of fraud in 2020 election", and have this be a section of it. I also think that title would also be more encyclopedic than this. Cpotisch (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYN in its entire construction, so OR ultimately. It's a list at the end of the day. Fail to see why this article is necessary. Acousmana (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Truly one of the most absurd articles I have ever encountered. This is the epitome of WP:NOTNEWS. I understand if we had a "Reactions to the 2020 Presidential Election," but this article is pointless and it serves no long-term purpose. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I support the existence of this article. Republican Party reactions to Trump's claims of fraud have received wide international coverage because the world wants to know: will the party he belongs to prioritize loyalty over facts and support him (possibly to the point of mounting a coup to keep him in power, risking a second U.S. civil war), or will they instead prioritize facts and the stability of their country? Whatever the outcome, historians and psychologists will look back on these events with interest. Wikipedia's job, as a tertiary source, is to collate and summarize what multiple reliable secondary sources say about notable topics, and that is exactly what this article does. 81.187.246.160 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is clearly propaganda and should be deleted. It repeatedly states there was no fraud without mentioning the mountains of evidence that at a minimum leaves the question of fraud unanswered. The assumption of there not being any fraud taints the entire article. 70.185.25.91 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "McCarthy": From Steve King:  From Political positions of Donald Trump: Colman McCarthy, Trumped Up Assault on Indian Gambling, Washington Post (October 26, 1993). 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

All 10 living former defense secretaries declare election is over in forceful public letter - Add GOP defense secretaries?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-election-defense-secretaries-public-letter/index.html

Do we add the former Republican defence secretaries who wrote the public letter to rebuke the allegations of fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip Samuel (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Former Republicans now turned independents are currently included in this article
Until recently Richard Painter, Joe Scarborough, and David Durenberger, as former Republican officials now identifying as Independents, were all included in this article. Just Piping In appears to have decided to unilaterally overturn this status quo practice without discussing it beforehand, and by deleting only Joe Scarborough, who notably has called Trump's post-election-defeat actions an attempted coup d'état.

JPI first said “I don’t see a problem with adding him [...] but let’s discuss on the talk page before adding”; but then when I reverted (though acceded to indicating Scarborough's current independent status, which I hadn't noticed), pointing out that it's actually the deletion of cited content through a change in established practice which would require discussion beforehand and pointing out the other now-independents already listed, said “Current scope of article is only independents” (?) and “The other independents can be removed as well.”

Obviously, this isn't the way Wikipedia works; one editor can't, on personal cognizance, change the WP:TOPIC of an article from current and former Republicans to “current and former Republicans who have never acted on doubts about the integrity of the party” and then demand that everyone else has to justify the original topic; that's backwards. So Just Piping In, do you have any better arguments than you have expressed in edit summaries? -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 17:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124;, where does it say current and former Republicans? If we are going to add former republicans, it must say that as part of the description of the article. The 2020 Republicans who oppose Trump says that in the first few sentences. I’m not against adding them, but there is currently no consensus to add them. Let’s come to consensus before they’re added. Not “one editor’s opinion” but a fact that it says members of the Republican Party, not current and former members. Just Piping In (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries of your reverts of my cited changes actually say “Former” in them, to start with just one place related to this article where it's documented as listing the reactions of former Republicans. I'm having a great deal of difficulty taking your confusion as to why I would think this article's topic involves the reaction of former Republican officials as a good faith representation, when to my browser's count the word “former” appears in it 39 times currently.“One editor’s opinion” is exactly what you are advocating, since your position is that you should be able to, on your own cognizance alone, delete cited content at least over the editorial positions of myself and one or or two other editors who added Painter and Durenberger.Since you keep repeating  I'm going to restore my edit and you would be demonstrating good faith and respecting the status quo ante to leave properly cited, relevant material in place until the conclusion of this discussion.  I'm certainly willing to abide by whatever consensus is arrived at, but you don't get to “pre-enforce” consensus you think might arise and which is actually contradicted by the current state of the article. (Full disclosure: I'm the editor who added the guideline  back in the aughts, but obviously it has stood the test of time so far.) -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 03:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Struthious Bandersnatch, good for you. But, if you look at the guidelines of the article, there is nothing said about adding former Republicans. General editing etiquette is that you discuss on the talk page and come to a consensus before deciding to add former Republicans as well. Also, it’s not my responsibility to remove all former Republicans. If I see something that doesn’t conform to an article I can remove just that one thing if I’d like. There’s no requirement for me to make a certain amount of edits or anything like that. To avoid an edit war, I’ll give you a chance to show me where the article currently states that this is a list of former and current Republicans’ reactions. If you are unable to do so, I will delete the former Republicans again and I will start an rfc so I can get some consensus on Wikipedia. Saying it’s “one editors opinion” is exactly what you are doing as well and your opinion is that former Republicans should be added to the list as well. This is something that should be discussed before you, one editor, singlehandedly decides that former Republicans should be added and stay. If I’m missing a spot where it says that former Republicans should be added as well then I will admit I am wrong and apologize, but if not, you must understand that we need to come to a consensus first instead of continually adding back a name that is not within the scope of the current article. Just Piping In (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just Piping In: —where does it say this? Where are “the guidelines of the article”?And no, you can't just go around deleting pertinent cited material from articles on your personal cognizance; you don't have a right to edit war, or something like that. is a form of tendentious editing, which is a form of Disruptive editing:


 * “I am enforcing non-consensus” is no more of a valid excuse to remove pertinent, sourced material than is “I am pre-enforcing possible future consensus”. If you don't even think it's your responsibility to make the article conform to article-specific standards you're supposedly seeing somewhere by removing other listed now-independent Republicans, I don't know why you'd think it's somehow your responsibility to edit war with me over just one of them.You also don't get to make up rules for how other editors have to edit an article, enforce them, and only then conduct an RfC. If an RfC arrived at a consensus that “former Republican officials” as included in this page means, in the future, only something like “former Republican officials who have never acted on doubts about the integrity of the party” I would abide by that consensus; but you can't do it backwards and assume the consensus first.I think you perfectly well understand that there's no going on here; IP user User:81.187.246.160 added Richard Painter and... oh, look, you're the one who added Durenberger. Playing both sides, huh? I guess you're guaranteed to win that way.You are also awfully strident in dictating how things work around here, for someone who has only been editing for a few weeks and claims they don't object to the inclusion of the material in question. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 14:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Struthious Bandersnatch, where does it say former Republicans should be included? If you can’t show me where in this article criteria where it says “current and former Republicans” than I’m deleting all of them. It’s not “reliably sourced information” if the source doesn’t say he’s a democrat and the article is “Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud”. If it doesn’t say in the criteria that former Republicans should be added, then they shouldn’t be added until discussed on the talk page. In that case I would admit that I was wrong to add Durenberger. Nothing should be added outside of the scope of the article. We discuss on the talk page and then we can expand the scope or make an exception if needed, but neither you nor I nor any editor should add to the article former Republicans if it doesn’t state that former Republicans should be added. This is your last chance to show me where it says this before I delete and then we discuss on the talk page. Just Piping In (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We're going in circles now. To quote myself from above, and  And again, “in the criteria”, and “the guidelines of the article”—what are these things you are referring to? Because it sounds like you're just making them up at this point, when you're ignoring the 39 instances of the word currently in the article and ignoring my inquiry into what you're specifically talking about.You have not quoted a single Wikipedia policy, guideline, or explanatory supplement to support your contentions.  This is all coming from you—but the fact that you have the power click a button and remove other editors' work from the encyclopedia is not the same thing as WP:P&G. Things like not haphazardly removing valid encyclopedia content created by others just because you want to is actually above the level of P&G, it's in the fourth pillar (WP:5P4) of treating other editors with respect—but you do not seem to be taking the care to follow just P&G.  As that passage currently says, if you don't want to wait for WP:CONSENSUS here before making your edits, “there are 6,206,339 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss”.Your “last chance” “before... we discuss on the talk page” histrionics and I've-been-here--weeks-but-have-authoritative-self-contradictory-content-veto-powers finger-wagging are completely absurd here because, to repeat, <u style="text-decoration-style: double">you're the editor who initially added a former-Republican, now-independent to the article and explicitly set the precedent, if indeed one even needed to be set. Whatever future edits you may make to the article, “I am enforcing non-consensus” and “I am pre-enforcing possible future consensus” are not valid rationales for removing pertinent, reliably-sourced content of the same type you yourself have added in the past—in fact these would not even be valid rationales for removing contributions you yourself have made, as you released that material under open licensing terms when you pressed the  button.Again, I remind you that as a subject within post-1932 American Politics, this article is governed by discretionary sanctions. So, if you choose to act out to the letter the description I quote above from the “tendentious editing” explanatory supplement to WP:DISRUPT, those are the circumstances you're choosing to do it in. The fact that you have the third-highest number of edits for this page as of current revision 993735393 and that it's your own third-highest edited page as of yesterday also starts to take on the appearance of a WP:OWN issue. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 13:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I was woken from my slumber by this Teahouse post. I have since tried to understand the circular arguments above, and have skimmed through the article's lead. I am in the UK and, apart from a few sarcastic replies I've sent in response to Trump's recent deluded Tweets (he didn't answer back, for some reason), I know nothing of American politics. Coming here to this article, my expectation is to read about people who can be shown to have reacted in one way or another and who are either currently serving Republican politicians/governors/senators/whatever-you-call-them in the Republican Party, or have been during Trump's reign over the last four years, but have since left or resigned in that time. I would not expect to see, for example, a Fox News reporter who was once a minor politician/member of the Republican party mentioned, but is no longer holding office. Had Dick Van Dyke been a Republican Party member back in 1970, or even held some sort of Republican office back then, and had commented recently on Trumps fraudulent claims, I would certainly not expect this article to be bulked out with any such trivial mention from him, no matter how well-cited. But I would expect to see included well-cited mentions of any notable Republican official (is that the word for a Republican politician?) who had held a political post since Trump came to office, including those who had stood down, lost their seat, or otherwise resigned from the Party who had been documented as reacting one way or another to his claims. Obviously, current post holders are included, but former Republicans should be excluded from this page unless they are so significant in a historical context that omitting them would clearly be ludicrous. Had Hilary Clinton once been a Republican in ages past, I would also not expect to see her reactions included and cited here. Including pre-2017 Republican members or office holders is, in my opinion, also somewhat ludicrous, and would need a good reason for inclusion (former Presidents/governors etc). Bulking out an article with trivial people simply lessens the encyclopaedic value of the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My apologies: my words have been swallowed somewhere in the Internet and have disappeared. I shall try to recreate them. Springnuts (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is my 3O.

Dear fellow Wikipedians, As a Brit I should probably steer well clear, but since no one else has put themselves forward let me do so. For the record I have not edited this article, nor, as far as I’m aware, have I interacted with any of the editors involved.

I believe the question at issue is relatively simple: should this article, titled “Republican reactions to…“ Include the reactions of those who were not, at the time of their reaction, Republicans. In my opinion the answer is straightforward: no, it should not.

It should include only anybody who was a Republican when they reacted including any whose reaction was to cease to be a Republican. It is this specificity - that it deals with the reactions of Republicans – which makes the article of particular interest.

If the consensus is to keep the reactions of (some ... which?) former Republicans in the article, then my suggestion would be that the article is given a new title to indicate that that is the case. That would be coherent, but not, in my opinion, as interesting.

If the consensus agrees with my opinion then a spin-off article about former Republicans would, it seems to me, be called for.

That is my opinion, if you don’t like it, that is your right, but please don’t bite me for having it. Wishing you all happy editing,

Springnuts (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Springnuts, thank you for taking the time to respond regardless of your opinion. While your comments should by no means be considered a consensus, it proves that there is still conflict on whether former Republicans should be added. Until this is resolved, I will be deleting them. Struthious Bandersnatch, you have every right to start an rfc and try to get people to give their opinions on the talk page on who should or should not be added. But, until this consensus on a criteria can be proven, former Republicans are outside the scope of this article and will be removed/not added any further. Thank you! Just Piping In (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Just Piping In account [ indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet]. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 20:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been a bit much for me to follow, but to comment on the original issue: I would expect that formerly Republican figures, who have become Independent recently, and if not for him presumably would still be members of the Republican Party, colloquially the "Never Trumpers", would be included in this article. It's still arguable that there's a split between the traditional conservative Never Trump faction and a pro-Trump faction in the GOP, but it isn't like these peoples are embracing social democracy and becoming progressive Democrats. Their argument is that the GOP has left them, not the other way around, and I'd consider their input here salient. It might perhaps make sense to set a limit to those Independents who've left the party only since Trump's ascendance in 2015-16'ish and leave the rest to a less specific article. Perhaps the responses of these former Republicans should be split out into their own specific section and not mixed in. ThirdDolphin (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Signed Affidavid about US Embassy in Rome.
The Geller Report (A republic news network) posted a story about a signed affidavit from the US Embassy in Rome. Wanting to start a discussion about it as a signed affidavit is a major legal document and this one states a who, what, when, and how to an election fraud scheme. Here is the original report: https://gellerreport.com/2021/01/%f0%9f%9a%a8-sworn-affidavit-personnel-at-us-embassy-in-rome-engineered-voter-fraud-%f0%9f%9a%a8.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

A google search of "leonardo spa italy election fraud" brought up a decent amount of information about it, so IMO, it should be added (Probably one of the only true election fraud claims that will be on the article). Elijahandskip (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Pamela Geller? Really? Also, the courts have shown through adjucating the Trump campaign lawsuits over the past two months that garbage affidavits are meaningless. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreement on contemporaneousness of article
This has been touched on by a couple of threads here on the talk page, but I think it might make sense to come to an agreement as to the criteria for inclusion here.

Namely, should we be using a person's political party and/or employment status at the present time or at, or immediately before the time they made their comments?

I'm not an admin or anything, but maybe there should be a vote? I think it would give more direction as to consistency and also might preclude some disputes. Michael Vastola (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As for me, I really think their erstwhile status should be used. The entire reason their party and "Present" vs "Former" status are relevant is because they convey how much weight the reader should give to their comments (due to how far out on a limb they're going by stating their point of view).

Those who change their party on the principle of this matter are those taking the most decisive stand on it. (I would include anyone who switched to or from the Republican party here). Basically the same thing applies to anyone who left their job (be it resigning or being fired) because of their position. Michael Vastola (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
"Big lie – propaganda technique used for political purpose" under See Also should say "purposes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.52.95 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Fraud is Subjective
I see the left once again is trying to manipulate public opinion through Wikipedia. Over 70% of Republicans in the United States and a third of Independents believe there is evidence of election fraud. Furthermore, we have concrete examples from Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Minnesota of LAW ENFORCEMENT taking action against some levels of election fraud. Whether the fraud would have altered the election is in dispute - not the existence of fraud. Credible organizations like the Election Integrity Project have put out evidence for such fraud. Two independent audits in Michigan discovered that 60% of adjudicated ballots contained major errors. The Arizona GOP tried to issue subpoenas but the Democrats in Maricopa County refused to abide by the legal subpoena process. The Wisconsin Supreme Court also recognized how Democratic officials behaved in accepting ballots illegitimately was unconstitutional - but didn't offer recourse. Over 5,000 sworn affidavits were signed alleging massive Civil Rights violations in Pennsylvania and Michigan. In particular, black and Indian American observers independently corroborated that Democrats in Detroit were intentionally removing anyone perceived to be 'white males' because of their demographic association with the Republican Party. To date, none of these affidavits have been redacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.140.175 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article title specifies "Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud." Trump claimed there was sufficient fraud to tip the election results, so that is the sort of claim this article focuses on. Trump argued in court 86 times about frauds big and small with the intent of accumulating enough small victories to ultimately overturn the election result. All his lawsuits failed, suggesting that the factual answer is clear-cut: there was no significant fraud. (It isn't subjective.) It is relevant to this article that a majority of Republican voters believe the opposite, and it is, indeed, already the fourth sentence in this article (68% of Republicans polled by Fox News said "the election was stolen from Trump"), with a citation.
 * For the half-dozen claims you provided above, citations would be useful. The information belongs on Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election (if it is not already there). That article has details related to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. The information doesn't really belong on this article which is more narrowly about Republican reactions to the claims/lawsuits. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Struck through names
What is the purpose of the strike through applied to some names? Is it explained in the article? If so, where? If not, it definitely should be. --Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Khajidha, why are the names struck out? If the article mentions why I must have missed it. Please clarify. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like one random IP address spent late January and early February striking through names that switched their position on electoral fraud at a later date, link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/162.191.7.231 I would argue that the article is not making an effort to discern between those who reversed positions, and these strikethroughs are not necessary but I'll leave it to you to figure this one out. Xenomorph 001 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed.--Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This does not explicitly say it's Republicans
Should it be included?

soibangla (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Loeffler is a Republican. Who brought this issue to the judge, these nine plaintiffs? Garland Favorito? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "The judge’s order stems from a civil case brought in December by Garland Favorito, co-founder of a group called Voters Organized for Trusted Election Results in Georgia," but I don't see him or his group characterized as Republicans. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Article lends legitimacy to claims of fraud
Trump's "fraud" claims have been widely dismissed, we should not be lending the least bit of credence to this conspiratorial nonsense; which is what this article does essentially. What Republican politicians think about WP:FRINGE nonsense should not explored in a Wikipedia article, doing so is ultimately WP:OR. Acousmana (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where then? Everywhere in the article, from the intro above to the sources below, it states that the expert consensus is that there is no evidence at all of large-scale fraud. This article isn't about the claims themselves, it's about the Republican reactions to the claims. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * expert consensus would seem to suggest that the existence of an article on "election fraud" is unnecessary, there is no fraud, it's figment of someone's imagination. What we have here is a list of individual names, framed under headings 'Denounced' or 'Supported,' with some WP:SYN prose added, it's not an article and it's not a list. Acousmana (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Claims of there being no evidence of fraud are completely false and biased. Are you now claiming, without any evidence at all, that every one of 500 people who have signed sworn affidavits alleging over 11,000 counts of fraud in multiple states are lying about what they saw? If so, then who is the conspiracy nut? Pat34lee (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As now represented in the article, as you frame it one “conspiracy nut” would be William Barr, Trump's own United States Attorney General who directed investigations of possible fraud:""-- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Barr made that statement on 1 December 2020. There has been a world of change since then. There is an abundance of evidence of mismanagement, mishandling, illegal activity, in many states. 70.185.25.91 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Barr said on December 1st that there was evidence of fraud but he didn't believe it overturned the election; he also stated the DOJ could not really get involved in pursuing these allegations because election law is dictated by the states. It's really kinda pathetic how people misattribute him to claim there was no voter fraud when we have arrests in TX and PE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.140.175 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s the age of the internet. You can find many unverified and not RS sources supporting your fantasy. It is pointless to argue with your confirmation bias considering you will only accept evidence that supports your insane, preconceived notion. Can we close this discussion please? Tyrone (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)