Talk:Stop the Steal/Archive 1

Far-right?
Hi, I feel that the 'Stop the Steal' conspiracy theory isn't necessarily a far-right conspiracy, considering the motive of the theory is to get Trump back into office for a second term, which is somewhat alluding to Trump being far-right. Perhaps just right-wing would be a better term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachylan (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When it comes to some of his conspiracy theories, Trump is far-right. Check out Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

On the far-right
None of the sources cited in the article states far-right. Until anyone provides a reliable source on the usage of the term, I'm going to remove it. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  22:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. perennial sources page says that its statements on politics should be attributed before adding it; see WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Also, Media Bias/Fact Check says that its left-oriented. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  22:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue why it's far-right has been settled in the section above this one: It's another far-right conspiracy theory peddled by Trump. There's ample precedence calling Trump's many conspiracy theories far-right, and this is no exception, with how it's basically directed at sabotaging the democratic process and democracy in the US (which is how CNN's Chris Cuomo has referred to this conspiracy theory numerous times on air during the past few days). The "left-oriented" FB group is an opposing parody/trolling group. --2003:EF:1703:A500:DCFE:12AD:5D6D:AB1F (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some potentially useful sources for describing the group as right-wing in the lead section:, , , and even this right-wing Murdoch tabloid . Captain Calm (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think tea-party affiliations as well as the fact that even Murdoch tabloids distance themselves from them is enough on its own to render the group and conspiracy theory far-right. Even the Murdoch tabloid literally speaks of "far-right associations". --2003:EF:1703:A500:DCFE:12AD:5D6D:AB1F (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NY Post is listed as "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP, and I haven't been able to find a reliable source for "far-right", so it's probably an unhelpful description at this point. But I've added "right-wing" to the lead section, with two RS. Captain Calm (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What about a different title?
In keeping with our typical way of dealing with conspiracy theories, how about Stop the Steal (2020 conspiracy theory)? -- Valjean (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Parentheses would be useful if there were more than one conspiracy theory called "Stop the Steal". (By now there may well be, I wouldn't know.) It could also get renamed next week to avoid blocking on social media. The Sharpie Conspiracy theory was more specific, but it sank without trace after a few days. Since "Stop the Steal" is no more than a vaguely-worded slogan, we might usefully combine the clearly articulated theories into a Conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election article, and include a section about the Facebook page (and the hoax page). Captain Calm (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you've said. The parentheses are indeed superfluous. -- Valjean (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this article title might be too specific (does everyone who believes malfeasance is happening against Trump inherently believe Stop the Steal? What is the scope of that particular phrase?) and would be better served covering all conspiracy theories related to the election. I would recommend renaming it to Conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election or Conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States general election. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Cathedral sources
Notice how all the sources in this article are from the Cathedral cabal or progressive power. Le wik is such a good means of repeating mainstream propaganda. I think that more balanced sources should be used, to give the article a more politically balanced pov --79.106.215.81 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the Cathedral cabal? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A good name for a doom metal band? Captain Calm (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable secondary sources for the content that you believe should be included. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Fox News "fair and balanced"? - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize/expand article
I suggest rolling the content of this article into a broader article, named perhaps “Allegations of fraud in 2020 presidential election,” which would also include content from 2020 United States presidential election which is growing rapidly with new examples each day. Today’s fake fraud is voting machines: No, Dominion Voting Machines Did Not Cause Widespread Voting Problems soibangla (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is already (or rather has been) discussed a few sections above. Praxidicae (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you seen Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election? That sounds awfully similar to the article you're suggesting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Fake News
Hi, the writers of this article are most obviously biased, when a Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Present both sides, only the liberal, democratic Biden-Supporter side is presented here. There is many legal cases filed by the Trump Campaign that have yet to be proven false as well. While it may not be true, this is far from a conspiracy theory. Also, look at the sources used, while they are big news organizations, a lot of these organizations are very anti-Trump, as most media these days are. Maybe the wise thing to do would be to wait and write this article AFTER the 2020 election process is completly done and legal challenges are settled. Fairwiki2020 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks, FairWiki2020
 * This is covered extensively in multiple sections above, if you want to grief people about it, go to Parler or wherever the "fake news" folks scurried off to. This talk page isn't a forum. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you feel like there is a different perspective represented in reliable sources that is not adequately being represented in this article, please show the sources that support that. Otherwise there is nothing actionable about this complaint. Note that you will probably wish to first review WP:RSP to check if a source is reliable before presenting it here.
 * Also, we do not assume something is true until proven false; that completely contravenes our reliable source policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is one of many news articles showing the bias - I don't see anything on this election dispute on the Wiki https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-election-2020-senate-georgia-lawsuit-marco-rubio. I wish you would concider rewriting the article, you can keep your content, just be mindful of both sides.Fairwiki2020 (Fairwiki2020 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)020|talk]]) 19:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC) FairWiki2020.
 * As I mentioned, you should check WP:RSP. Per WP:RSP, we do not use Fox News as a sole source to verify contentious political claims. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. How come you can use CNN then? They are just as bias on your side.Fairwiki2020 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC) FairWiki2020
 * If you would please just read the page you would see it's all explained there. WP:RSP is where we summarize the general consensus of the Wikipedia editing community on a source. The general consensus on Fox is that it should not be used for contentious political claims; however the general consensus for CNN (WP:RSP) is that "news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable." GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides, more than half of the lawsuits have already been dismissed or thrown out of court, partly within a matter of mere hours. Plus, not a single one of those lawsuits is about false ballots, they're all about supposedly unfair voting laws, many of which have been introduced or upheld by Republicans in the first place. It's all just an angry guy in the White House kicking and screaming nonsense because he can't admit defeat. The only semi-realistic route out of his clear defeat ahead of him at this point would be to use the National Guard and his armed civil militia supporters to declare democracy over and crown himself the emperor of Trumpistan for life, and let's hope that's not his plan for which he's kicking up all this public unrest by calling it all a "steal". --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

right wing conspiracy theory ??? and no election fraud ???
why ? only because some news posted it ? at these articlesd they just CLAIMED it, without any PROOF. and for that election fraud is fake news.....well, we have usps/elections observers which claim that theyre was broken law acording to elections, and are ready to testify it under oath at court. there are over 10k dead ppl reported who voted for biden only at ga alone. and why fb is actively banning "stop the fraud" groups ? WHY NOW ? why fb promoted same groups at 2016 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:96D0:36CA:8C7A:F23:EC25:3D54 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia operates by representing what is documented in reliable sources. This had been debated before; reliable sources demonstrate that there is no substantial fraud and that this is a conspiracy theory. — Czello 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semantics
"the steal" might be a conspiracy theory; "STOP the steal" is not. that's like saying the kennedy INVESTIGATION was an assassination! 66.30.47.138 (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's like saying, "While The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be a conspiracy theory, Der Stürmer is not!", and then go on to compare the Stürmer to the Warren commission. An even better comparison may be the Nazi party, which was a movement based upon a conspiracy theory (besides the one from the Protocols, another part of their conspiracy theory was the Stab-in-the-back myth, which is rather similar to Trump's claim he hasn't been defeated in this election), just like this insane Stop the Steal movement. Okay, fine, Stop the Steal may not be conspiracy theory per se, but they're the militant movement of nutcases that's built upon the conspiracy theory. 2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * exactly! a movement built UPON the theory.  not the "theory" itself. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Although those "semantics" inherently grant a form of seeming legitimacy without requiring factual proof, of the form "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Nothing in this statement gives proof that there was any wife-beating; yet the statement in itself strongly implies that the "you" who is addressed had been involved in wife-beating, and thus to accept the statement unchallenged reinforces that implication. In the same way, to insist on the phrasing "stop the steal" is to grant a seeming legitimacy to the idea that there might have been a steal at all -- without proof. Hence, conspiracy theory. Really, the tactic is a fairly common politician's trick to introduce an accusation without factual substance, which does not stop it from being an effective trick in manipulating public opinion. Incidentally, many of Trump's tweets use the same format to grant seeming legitimacy to a wide range of accusations. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i have no idea what you're on about. i'm just trying to correct the glaring syntax error of the title.  66.30.47.138 (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Syntax and semantics are not at all the same thing. Nor is there any syntax error in the title, glaring or otherwise. There are, however, both a glaring semantic error and a glaring logical error in your OP. Can you spot them? - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * no, i cannot spot them. i'm just trying to get this back into proper english.
 * covid is a virus. anti-covid POLICIES are not.
 * global warming is an environmental crisis. the Kyoto Accord is not.
 * a movement BASED on a conspiracy is not a "theory". it is a movement.  why can't we correct the title and lede?
 * "Stop the Steal" is a movement based on the conspiracy theory that...."
 * something like that?
 * the current version just sounds illiterate. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Stop the Steal" is a movement based on the conspiracy theory that...." okay, I can see that. Set all other discussion aside. Since the article is semi-protected now, I will request an appropriate phrasing in a new section below. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Origins of Stop the Steal from Roger Stone / 2016
Prior to the recent 2020 election cycle (and just after) the only results for Stop the Steal brought up the page for Roger Stone. There is a paragraph, quoted below, describing the origins of the "Stop the Steal activist group" preceding the 2016 election cycle. I believe this is important information regarding the provenance of the "movement" and the term that should not be lost during its revival during 2020.

My recommendation is to add a section to the beginning of the Stop the Steal page paraphrasing the origins and linking to the section in the Roger Stone page. An alternative is to move the text from the roger stone article to this page given the undeniable notability and then update the Roger Stone article to link to this page.

Apologies if I have violated any of the processes but I was alarmed that this provenance information was lost on the current page and only had references to the latest usage of the term.

Text currently seen in the Roger Stone article related to Stop the Steal:

In April 2016, Stone formed a pro-Trump activist group, Stop the Steal, and threatened "Days of Rage" if Republican party leaders tried to deny the nomination to Trump at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.[106][96] The Washington Post reported that Stone "is organizing [Trump] supporters as a force of intimidation", noting that Stone "has ... threatened to publicly disclose the hotel room numbers of delegates who work against Trump".[96] Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said that Stone's threat to publicize the hotel room numbers of delegates was "just totally over the line".[107]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone
 * Right now, this is original resesrch. You need verification that these earlier activities of Stone have some connection to the current Stop the Steal movement. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article from Right Wing Watch gives a bit more detail on Ali Alexander, a main organiser of the current "Stop the Steal" and co-organiser (with Stone) of one of the same name in 2018. I haven't yet found a solid source to verify that Stone is behind the current operation, but the 2018 one is worth mentioning here, as part of a sentence or two on Alexander's role in organising and funding some of the protests. Right now the article only mentions Amy Kremer's Facebook group, implying that all of the street protests happened spontaneously after the FB group was closed down. Captain Calm (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN has now reported something similar. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/14/roger-stone-stop-the-steal-campaign-trump-drew-griffin-ebof-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/ - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Classification as a "movement" seems to be the direction that the conversation is heading but the older sources are currently missing. If this is the case then this article will eventually document the chronology of the movement which has well-documented origins during the 2016 election. This article is, indeed, not directly about Stone's organization Stop the Steal, Inc. or Stone at all but the movement that it spawned that has continued into 2020 with a non-organic revival. There are multiple reputible sources that credit Stone for the origins of this movement in 2016 (emphasis added). In 2016 The New York Times published in 2016 that "Mr. Stone is one of the people behind Stop The Steal, a movement of 500 volunteers ...". Here is a source from ABC news that quotes Stop the Steal (Stone's stopthesteal.org) as a movement. The events were planned as "Stone also said there will be demonstrations and protests that will be part of "Stop the Steal" movement and described the event as "days of rage" on social media." In 2018 Buzzfeed published additional information about the trending of #StopTheSteal on Twitter during the elections. Also in 2018 the Miami New Times published an investigation into the link between Stone and the #StopTheSteal and election-related unrest. During 2020 a Bloomberg article, along with the CNN source above, link the 2016 movement to anticipated action around the 2020 election. There is also extensive information about 2016 operations including the hashtags used, company names, etc. documented in the legal challenges published by the WSJ. The narrative is being spun that this is an organic movement and while it is a conspiracy theory my vote is to treat it as a movement and to provide the facts about when, where, and why it started, reoccurred, etc. as the analysis makes very clear. The sources provided here corrorbate this narrative and may serve as the basis for the historical portion of the page. If there is someone coordinating this (as this should be a high-priority article given the ongoing events), these links can serve to reinforce the narrative. I am willing to write a version of this page if it would go to good use.

There Is Clear Bias With This Page
Right-wing conspiracy theory is way over generalizing. Who said only right wingers are pushing it? Who says it is a conspiracy theory? The page also goes on to say the claims are false, which isn't exactly confirmed. It also goes on to say right-wing extremists made "Stop The Steal" groups, which is completely inaccurate. I suggest to remove bias from the page, so that it gives a nice neutral stance on the topic. I want Wikipedia to be as credible as it can be, which is why biased pages like these bugs me. Also, to reply to Czello up there. I wouldn't call articles like from Buzzfeed News, Vox, and Right Wing Watch reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.250.211 (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is literally covered ad nauseum in pretty much every section on this talk page. It isn't a forum. Praxidicae (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.250.211 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to be neutral, but no one ever said Wikipedia isn't biased. And in this case, yes, we have an extreme bias toward facts, not screed from the depths of the right's fairytales. Praxidicae (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia has bias on facts. Does not mean that Wikipedia has bias on opinions. Everything I pointed out are opinions and assumptions. Things that should not be in a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.250.211 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because you can't be bothered to read doesn't mean you're right. Praxidicae (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I did read; I read this article, the page you linked, and the page I linked. I also read your reply and determined that you are immature and should not be editing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.250.211 (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. How can anyone say the claims are false, when it's not been determined. This is not how facts work. WildPonana (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

New source on far-right, rather than just right-wing
It may not be about the original FB group, but the BBC has now referred to a November 14 pro-Trump protest march in Washington, DC based upon the conspiracy theory of Biden only winning by means of false ballots (where a sizeable number of participants referred to the march as part of the Stop the Steal movement, although others also called it "Million MAGA March" and "March for Trump") as led by openly "far-right" groups: Million MAGA March: Thousands of pro-Trump protesters rally in Washington DC. --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article says no such thing; it says that, and I quote, "Flag-carrying demonstrators were joined by members of far-right groups including the Proud Boys, some wearing helmets and bullet-proof vests," and, "As well as more mainstream Trump supporters, members of the far-right Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia group were among the marchers. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones addressed the crowd." The article makes no claim or statement that the rally itself is far right, and thus oppose its use as evidence of such a claim. Builder018 (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite
Please note that I did not fold in all the existing references, although I think that part should be fairly straightforward. One section needs to be expanded from the CNN article (Roger Stone), and specific references need to be added about the protests (especially last night's DC clashes), as well as about the 2016 tweeting allegations of illegal voting, mail-in ballot patterns, and the specific allegations (eg Sharpiegate). I am sorry, I don't know how to present this so the code does not express (which is also one reason I did not fold in the references), so I took the headers down one level from what they should be in the article. This should also resolve the earlier semantics discussion.

BEGIN ARTICLE REWRITE

Stop The Steal is a right-wing movement in the United States which is based on false claims that there has been widespread electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election and that US President Donald Trump won the election. Some Trump supporters have asserted the conspiracy theory that large-scale voter and vote counting fraud took place in several swing states. However, multiple investigations, surveys, and lawsuits have found no evidence of significant voting fraud. All mainstream U.S. news agencies have projected that former vice president Joe Biden is the president-elect of the United States.

Background
"Stop The Steal" is a right wing movement which falsely claims that there has been widespread electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election. Supporters of this conspiracy theory hold that U.S. President Donald Trump is the real winner of the election, and that large-scale voter and vote counting fraud took place in several swing states.

The U.S. presidential election is decided by the electoral college, based on electoral votes determined by state. Winning the popular vote within a state also wins all the electoral votes of that state, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, which split their electoral votes. A candidate must achieve 270 electoral votes to win the election. Consequently, a few swing states can determine the final result of the election.

Mail-in balloting has been a significant part of U.S. voting from the country's inception. In post-2000 elections, the mail-in vote tends to lean Democrat, while in-person voting tends to lean Republican. Since more in-person voters on election day tend to vote Republican than Democrat and since mail-in ballots are counted later than in-person ballots in many swing states, this can result in a gradual Democrat shift which expresses over several days.

In the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden has been projected by all mainstream U.S. news agencies as the president elect of the United States. This resulted partly from a slow Democrat shift which switched several states from red to blue two or more days into the counting. If all electors cast their votes as pledged, Biden will become the 46th U.S. President.

Origin
"Stop the Steal" was originally created by Republican political operative Roger Stone in 2016. [This part needs expansion -- also the QAnon link]

Focus
The "Stop the Steal" movement alleges four major forms of widespread electoral fraud: ballots cast by persons not entitled to vote, ballots cast by deceased persons, selective rejection of votes cast on election day, and the casting and counting of mail ballots.

The false allegation that significant numbers of ballots were cast by people not entitled to vote began with Trump's 2016 tweets that he would have won the popular vote except for the illegal vote. in the 2020 election, "Stop the Steal" insists that every legal vote should be counted and every illegal vote should be discounted. This allegation often ties in with allegations about mail-in ballots.

Tucker Carlson has claimed that several thousand ballots had been cast in the name of deceased persons. However, many of the people he has cited have turned out to be alive.

Selective rejection of votes cast on election day includes false allegations that voters were denied ballots because their names had been marked off as having voted previously. In Arizona, "Stop the Steal" followers allege that ballots marked by Sharpies could not be read by the machine (Sharpiegate).

"Stop the Steal" alleges that mail-in ballots have been indiscriminately sent out regardless of a person's voting status. Widespread theft of mail-in ballots and consequent voting fraud is another false concern. "Stop the Steal" also challenges the right of states to choose the cutoff postmark and receipt dates for allowing ballots to be counted. One early expression of this challenge, "Stop the Vote," falsely claimed that mail-in ballots which had been cast after election day were being counted.

Online organization
"Stop The Steal" began as a Facebook page which was created during the 2020 counting of votes by Amy Kremer, a former Tea Party movement activist who co-founded the pro-Trump group "Women for America First." By November 5, it was reported to have been adding 1,000 new members every 10 seconds, reaching 300,000 followers at its height.

Facebook shut it down the page on November 5. All subsequent "Stop the Steal" groups have since been removed from the website by Facebook moderators due to threats, incitement to violence, and discussions of extreme violence, all of which are violations of Facebook's community standards. Several of these groups had been founded by right-wing extremists after Donald Trump published tweets on Twitter encouraging his supporters to "Stop the Count."

Shortly after the Facebook groups were removed, some leftists created a fake "Stop The Steal" group to attract Trump supporters. Once a large number of supporters had joined, they changed the name of the group to "Gay Communists for Socialism," in an attempt to troll the members. One administrator told the group that they changed the name "to avoid censorship."

After the Facebook crackdown, many members of these groups moved to Parler, leading to a surge in its popularity. Parler is a right-leaning alternative social networking site that markets itself as a "free speech" haven.

In person demonstrations
Demonstrations and protests to "Stop the Count" and "Stop the Steal" began outside counting centers on November 4.

As of mid-November 2020, "Stop the Steal" groups are protesting in multiple cities across the U.S. On November 14, a clash between "Stop the Steal" protesters and counter demonstrators in Washington DC resulted in violence and more than 20 arrests.

END ARTICLE REWRITE - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a complete NPOV violation. Praxidicae (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which parts specifically do you see as non-neutral? If you give me specific examples, I can address them. Please note that much of the wording is exactly what is already in the article and sourced. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 66.11.165.101, do you mind if I move this draft to a separate draft page and then include it here? That way you can edit it without making a ton of edits to the talk page, which clogs up the watchlist for those of us trying to keep an eye on discussions here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do what you wish with it, but don't worry about including me. I only wrote this up because the whole "Stop the Steal" issue seems significant enough to deserve more than a four paragraph stub, and because I became loosely involved with the Semantics discussion above. Seeing another side of it, I promised to see what I could do, and here it is. With this overhaul (and the new single paragraph lede), I figure my part is done. Personally, I see this rewrite at least as neutral as the original page was, if not more so -- don't generally like saying outright "false" etc, but with this article, the references do strongly support that assessment, and so I feel it appropriate to use that language. Most of the references for what I wrote already exist, and the others are easy to find. (Most of them have wandered onto international media, including the Tucker Carlson reference.) If Praxidicae or anyone else identifies specific NPOV issues, other people can deal with it. (I usually avoid any kind of actions on protected articles, long story not needed here, but it goes to the heart of WP's core tenets and IP editing.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you don't intend to edit it further I'll leave it be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * [laugh] I don't generally edit or even ask to edit articles which are semi-protected, for obvious reasons. In this case, I do get why it is semi-protected, but I decided to write this overhaul anyway, for reasons I mentioned above. You offered to make a draft, but what I wrote is pretty damn solid in itself, and others will be quick to expand or amend various parts in as they see fit. (This is after all the nature of cooperative editing.) All I really left, pre-posting, was for someone to fold in already-existing references, which could have been done in less time than it took to write these responses to me. (It's only cut and paste, after all.) The current version of the article is -- shall we say very kindly, less than optimal? You will also notice that no specific NPOV identifications were made? As it happens, I am about as neutral as it can get on this issue: not only trained so in my observation and my writing, but I also have no dogs in this hunt. You can do what you wish with my words here -- as, indeed, is the essence of WP -- but make no mistake, your "leave it be" is also a statement of *your* intent, in this case your active choice to preserve the article's current wording. End of participation here -- getting back to what they are lately calling "essential work". - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted to call attention to the history of the movement that may be included as a part of this rewrite draft. Some resources related to the 2016 origins, 2018 revival, of this movement have been collected under another heading on this talk page.

All Caps "STOP" the steal
I've seen that prominent organizers of this on sites like Parler stylize the "movement" as STOP the steal - with all caps for STOP. Should this be reflected in the text of the article? 2607:9880:1A38:138:2066:70E6:DF46:A024 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question. The manual of style tells is to not use all caps if only one word of the title is (WP:TITLETM). Given  that it's a stylization and its capitalization does not cause ambiguity (unlike WHO and Who) we should keep it as Stop.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also haven't seen that casing reflected in reliable sources, so I agree we should maintain the current capitalization. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree to maintain current capitalization; Stylization differences are not by themselves cause for changing an article's name, and there's no ambiguity caused by leaving the title as is. Builder018 (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we follow the secondary reliable sources, not the primary sources. Waggie (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia or a left-wing libel tool?
This lemma really shows how ridiculous Wikipedia has become! AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue of bias has come up time and time again in this talk page with no new results every time. I suggest you read the guide to addressing bias and familiarize yourself with the other posts like yours before presenting your argument; accusing Wikipedia of being a "left-wing libel tool" won't get you taken seriously. Builder018 (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I find it funny more than anything nowadays. Wikipedia had a chance to be an open-source collection of the fraud that was documented on social media. And, to be fair, they could include rebuttals as necessary. Instead, it seems like China's editor team is out in force right now. But hey, I don't have any ownership here in Wikipedia...if they want to lose credibility, that's on them. It's a shame, since it used to be a great site. 24.26.218.181 (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content, by foundational policy, is based on reliable sources, not conspiracy theories spread on social media. Sorry that we're not going to help spread desperate partisan lies fabricated by extremists who can't cope with the fact that they lost a free and fair election. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

§== many fake ballots & thrown away ballots in 2020 election ==

The 2020 election has many fake ballots & thrown away ballots. In Wisconsin over 100,000 fake ballots delivered past the deadline which were 100% for Biden. Conservative poll watchers prevented from legally entering at poll places in Philadelphia & other cities. TalentedTwin (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , . I think these claims you put forth with no sourcing are bunk. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.lucianne.com/2020/11/04/very_odd_michigan_found_over_100000_ballots_and_every_single_one_has_joe_bidens_name_on_it_47495.html TalentedTwin (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike many parts of the internet, Wikipedia requires reliable sources before we will blindly repeat a claim. With an emphasis on reliable, I might add–that means publications with editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking, not "a talking head I saw on Fox & Friends". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I edit conflicted with you while explaining to you that we require reliable sources. Feel free to give a skim through that policy and also a list of some major sources and whether they're considered reliable. Hint: "DaddyO" making a post on Lucianne.com linking to a RedState.com article that has since published a retraction of these claims is not a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t allow me to post my other link. I was trying to post two links in my initial post that you commented on, but I was prevented with an error message that said “Error, edit not saved”. TalentedTwin (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did it specifically mention the link as an issue? If not, it may have just been a loss of session data and you can retry. If so, the link is probably blacklisted, a process we reserve primarily for the poorest quality sources that should under no circumstances be used on the project, and spam links. If a deprecated source and a blog post citing a retracted article on an unreliable website is all you have to support this claim, you might want to take a step back and reconsider its veracity... GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have many reliable sources that I can share (that are not biased). CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, & even somethings with Fox recently, are all liberally biased. It’s a well known fact. TalentedTwin (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Feel free to post any sources here that you think support these claims, provided they're considered reliable. — Czello 19:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, please see WP:RSP for the general consensus on the reliability of all of those sources. You might also want to read WP:BIASEDSOURCE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If Fox News is too liberal for you, you may as well consider editing for Conservapedia instead. What is with the surging but still perplexing conception that Fox News is now left-wing anyway?  Free Media  Kid!  19:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Fox News acknowledged that Joe Biden is president elect. That is apparently a cardinal sin in the right wing bubble. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It just so happens to be something I am not unfamiliar with, due to the political environment that I grew up in. While my question above was partially rhetorical, at the same time it was my being genuinely astounded by the direction of conservatism. One would think that I would have been used to mainstream conservatism in the United States always being like that by now, but as I look at past conservatisms since Barry Goldwater, I observe that it has evolved from Reaganism to "Reagan was too liberal" and even from the Tea Party to "The Tea Party has been superseded by the alt-right". Just know that the peers in my political circle (and I suspect most other conservatives) do not align with the alt-right or subscribe to any of human history's blights, just that many of them agree with the ideologies of One America News and Newsmax, which makes center-right people like me look strange. To avoid my using this page as a forum, I will cut it here and just focus on the discussion's topic instead, which looks as if it is already answered and dead anyway.  Free Media  Kid!  23:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Change the Word False to Unsubstantiated
I don't know why I have to do this, it's just a word.

The word unsubstantiated is used in the first reference, America Votes. I think this word will improve the page due to the fact that the voter fraud, no matter how you feel about it, has not been confirmed to be false. I don't want the page to be misleading and incite more controversy than it already has. Change the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master106 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The first reference also uses the word "falsehood" twice. The majority of the sources also describe it as false, making it the more accurate descriptor. — Czello 19:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It uses unsubstantiated, I do not see why not use that word. I do not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master106 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they have been proven false. Unsubstantiated would violate NPOV because 1.) that is not what RS say and 2.) unsubstantiated means yet to be proven - the claims have been proven false, over and over. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is your proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master106 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The citations in the article. Wikipedia operates by representing what they present. — Czello 19:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

None of the citations disprove voter fraud. They only suggest that either it hasn't been proven yet or it might be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master106 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, they literally are. They have been disproven and your "Wear them down by screaming about the fake news media" tactic isn't going to work here. Also learn to WP:SIGN your posts on talk pages. Praxidicae (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The citations clearly call it false. Also, please read the endless previous discussions above as this has been discussed many times. — Czello 19:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the bullshit lawsuits have been thrown out in PA, GA, and AZ. There is no legal or other basis for us to claim it's unsubstantiated and not outright false. Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What is so bad about changing one word? Also, you don't have to attack me Praxidicae, I choose to remain neutral on this page. If I were biased to the other end, I would be like "change it to completely true". But I am not. Also saying "yes they are", doesn't change the fact that nothing has disproved these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master106 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Because changing that one word would be incorrect. Why would we change it, when the sources say something clearly different? — Czello 19:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, sign your freaking edits by adding ~ when you are done. And as I have already explained, calling something unsubstantiated and calling something false are two different things. They have been proven to be false, they are not unsubstantiated because that implies that they have yet to be proven one way or another and I have already pointed out by way of dozens of sources and a more recent one - they have been proven false by reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The word false, is incorrect due to the fact that voter fraud hasn't been proven false. Look, I think we should come up with a compromise to this, if you don't want to change that word. What do you got? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master106 (talk • contribs)
 * I'll tell you one more time, sign your edits. They were literally proven to be false by the fact that they have been investigated and thrown out in nearly every filing. Want to change it to unsubtantiated? Bring the actual reliable sources (not screed from Breitbart) that state they are either true or unsubstantiated. So far, they've been proven to be completely false. I'm tired of this discussion and you're well into WP:TE territory, so I suggest you stop. Praxidicae (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I consider the word false to be WP:TE territory. I didn't know signing was a thing. Since we are at an impasse, I feel like we should come up with a solution to this. Master106 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy dictates that we report things as reliable sources do. That is what is in the article. We as editors aren't here to assuage the feelings of readers or other editors because someone can't be bothered to actually read sources or policy, or you know, fact. Praxidicae (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "false" is correct because our duty is to report on what the sources say, not disregard them when we personally disagree with them. The solution is to leave the word in. — Czello 19:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if it is misleading? No, we can't leave the word false in because it is being disputed, we need a rewrite. I feel like a small rewrite could fix this problem because that word is just not working. Master106 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Provide sources that show that it is misleading. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It being disputed seems to be by you: not by reliable sources. It being misleading also appears to be your personal opinion. Again, our duty is simply to report what reliable sources say: and they clearly use the word "false". — Czello</i> 19:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. It is not in dispute as per reliable sources - reliable sources say false, judges say false, courts say false. It would be misleading to say anything but false. You need to take your complaints to social media or Parler or wherever, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. Read this and stop using this as a personal forum. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This source says unproven. How about use that word? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/10/congress-trump-election-fraud-claim/ 19:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Master106 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Unproven" does not contradict "false". If the vast majority of sources used "unproven" or synonyms, perhaps an argument could be made to prefer that wording, but that is not the case here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This one says unproven and unsubstantiated as well. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-share-obits-of-dead-people-alleges-voter-fraud-axios-2020-11 Master106 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't have weighed in here at all, to be honest. It's quite clear that your argument does not have consensus, and finding two sources does not tip the scales towards "vast majority of sources". GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RSP BI isn't an RS and that's also from the day of the election, since then nearly every lawsuit has been thrown out and the sources all largely report false. Stop with this tendentious bullshit. Praxidicae (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020
This is not a conspiracy theory. 132.62.88.130 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020
Change is a right-wing conspiracy theory in the United States

to

is a widely supported movement to stop Democrats from sealing the 2020 presidential election using invalid absentee ballots, destroying ballots from Republican Districts, and having dead people and out of state voters vote for Joe Biden. Stopthesteal (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ this is unsourced conspiracy theory. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020 (2)
change

have promoted false claims

to

have demonstrated with video, signed, motorized affidavits, and sworn testimony valid claims Stopthesteal (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is a "motorized" affidavit?
 * There are claims such evidence exists, but none has been brought forward, neither to judges nor to journalists. When that happens, come back and we can consider putting it in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think he means notarized. Still not going in the article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL I did not even notice that. Motorized affidavits! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020
Please stop calling claims of massive voter fraud 'false'. There have been over 1000 'whistleblowers' who reported credible incidents of voter fraud nationwide. Their testimony is under oath. The pattern to many of these allegations points to a concerted effort by democrat operatives to 'steal' the election. Please stop calling the claims of these brave American's 'false' unless you have listened to each one of them. 2600:1700:14B0:4D60:6D56:613A:1143:2A4F (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a short version of the 'evidence' - it is a whittled down version of all the red-blooded American's who stepped forward to report fraud and election manipulation. It is just a 6 hour video. Each affidavit represents one claim - not a 'false' claim, just a claim. You are not the judge and jury. Why don't you watch some of the hours and hours of witnesses to voter fraud before you say it is 'false' or a 'conspiracy theory'.

Open your eyes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:14B0:4D60:6D56:613A:1143:2A4F (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m glad I’m not alone.
I created this account just so I could attempt to fix this blatantly biased article. I was naive to the notion that Wikipedia was safe from biased information, but alas I was wrong. I’m glad that I’m not the only one who noticed and tried to make some changes. Wikipedia is a FACT based site, solely on information that has been given at this certain point in time. This article, at least the first paragraph, needs to be fixed. While I agree it is mostly a right wing concept, it is no conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are based on just that, theories; no substantial evidence. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of affidavits that claim there was sketchy activity occurring on and after November 3rd. There are whistleblowers who claim the very voting software used in this election, and many others around the world, is full of election altering features. Now of course, none of this has been proven in court, but it is still consider evidence. That’s how courts work, to see if the evidence is substantial enough to allocate a victory for the attorneys bringing it forward.

This article has vocabulary that doesn’t stay neutral on the subject it’s describing. It is not a theory, nor a conspiracy. The claims have not been proven false. There is loads of evidence being ignored. And to even mention mainstream news sources calling Joe Biden “President-Elect” is even more misinformation. He is currently the “projected President,” and will become “President-Elect” once the electoral college votes him in, if they even do so.

Keep Wikipedia free of bias. Thoroumout (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence
I am repeatedly seeing "no evidence" in the 'Article' and 'talk' pages. An Affidavit is considered evidence in the United States Court Systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit ). Since there are over 300 of them now (Known), stating that there is "no evidence" is a False Statement. Personally I am an Independent, but the bias of this article is over the top. I was under the assumption that Wikipedia was supposed to be an unbiased platform...? I will be sending no more money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.103.156 (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Again with conspiracy theory
Obviously if you use a source that is a left wing anti-republican source such as Vox, it's going to say that it is a conspiracy theory. I'm old enough to remember when in 2016 it was all over the news about how Trump stole the election by colluding with the Russian Government. After 3 years and millions of dollars of investigation, Robert Mueller determined that there was ZERO evidence of collusion by Trump or any member of his campaign with the Russian government. After the election was over, Vox posted an article talking about how there was tons of evidence of Russian Collusion with Donald Trump, which has now been proven to be false. So why are you using an opinion news source such as Vox to post factual information. I'm not saying that you should put into the article that there's tons of evidence of voter fraud and the election was stolen from Donald Trump. What I'm saying is make the wikipedia page accurate to what the facts are. The facts are that the "Stop the Steal" is not a conspiracy theory. Russian Collusion was a conspiracy theory, as proven by Robert Mueller in his special investigation, and you cited someone who called it something with tons of evidence. Vox is an opinion news source, and should not be used any more then a Tucker Carlson should be as some sort of factual information. Using a source such as Vox to add an opinion to what's supposed to be a factual article, makes you no better than a Tucker Carlson. Which are you? An opinion news source, or a factual free encyclopedia. Final statement is that a protest can not be a conspiracy theory. You may think what they're protesting is a conspiracy theory, but to say that "stop the steal" is a conspiracy theory does not mean what you're trying to say it means. Calling "stop the steal" a conspiracy theory would mean that people saying stop the steal is the conspiracy, as in it is not actually happening. Your undermining of the facts for this joke of an informative article is disturbing, and I honestly hope and believe that you are better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoli342 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased or inaccurate article promoting one side of a debate still in litigation. Language needs to be "cleaned up".
The statement "have promoted false[2] claims of widespread electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election" should read "have promoted or espoused claims of widespread electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election" as said claims are still in the process of being litigated, and until due-process has run its course, the adjective "false" is inappropriate.

Likewise the statement "These supporters have asserted without evidence[3][4] that Trump is the winner of the election,...". There is actually a great deal of evidence, currently under review by various groups, courts and other entities (for example,. Until an official ruling is made regarding the validity of this evidence, the statement "without evidence" is incorrect. The sentence should read: "These supporters have asserted, citing evidence currently under review, that Trump is the winner of the election,..."

The statement "The Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Decision Desk HQ, NBC News, The New York Times, and Fox News have projected that former vice president Joe Biden is the president-elect, having at minimum the 270 Electoral College votes needed to claim victory. However, the number of electoral votes a candidate receives is not official until the Electoral College meets and votes. Currently the date set for the 2020 vote is December 14." Gr8tfulEd (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Gr8tfulEd
 * This is already a settled matter. Reliable Sources call it false, so Wikipedia calls it false. Wikipedia does not publish original research, including analysis not supported by citations. I recommend reading the above posts, as well as the archive, where this is already discussed at length. Builder018 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Page Not Encyclopedic In the Slightest
This page is not encyclopedic in the slightest. Let alone its one-sided writing, let alone the question of whether various claims are true will not be decided until a President is actually selected by state electors, the page is poorly written and poorly sourced—-for an encyclopedia, that is. For a piece written by, say, CCP part-owned Lead Stories, this is a terrific piece that effectively smears the right people and ensures they seem to be universally ridiculed except by right-wing nut cases. So I won’t go into details, but this page is not encyclopedic in the slightest. It should be rewritten to be factual and informative and compliant with Wikipedia guidance. And if President Trump is indeed ultimately re-elected, it will have been in large part because of Stop the Steal and this page will have to be massively overhauled—-precisely because right now it is not encyclopedic in the slightest. --Lawfare (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Trump lost the election. It's over. The networks called it over a month ago, the states have certified their results, the Electoral College does its thing on Monday, and all WP:RS refer to Biden as the president-elect. You don't have to accept that, but we will reflect the sources. I see that you presented none. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That raises an interesting point that likely applies solely to this page. Stop the Steal is about stopping the stealing of an election via various means, including, politicians of any party who do nothing to expose any potential for election fraud, media that falsely report that an election has concluded simply because media says so, election systems that are programmed to switch votes and demonstrated to do as much on video, political parties that are programmed to steal elections including grabbing huge containers of uncounted ballots and counting them after poll watchers and media are told the polls since they were closed for the night, etc. The interesting point is this: the Stop the Steal page is replete with the very same false media reports about which Stop the Steal complains. Further, even your comment here does the same: “all WP:RS refer to Biden as the president-elect.” So, right in a supposedly encyclopedic write up of Stop the Steal that also complains about media credibility, media reports are given the very credibility about which Stop the Steal complains.  Heck even CNN is mentioned in the text of the page, let alone just footnotes. That’s not encyclopedic in the slightest.
 * And no where do we see the recent successes by Stop the Steal. MoveOn is good for a one-sided encyclopedia, but this is Wikipedia. This page is not encyclopedic in the slightest. --Lawfare (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So, right in a supposedly encyclopedic write up of Stop the Steal that also complains about media credibility, media reports are given the very credibility about which Stop the Steal complains. Yes. We don't just stop using sources just because conspiracy theorists don't like them. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 23:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Czello is correct. The sources remain reliable even though conspiracy theorists don't think so. I don't think the issue is unique to this page, as there are other media conspiracy theories that would have the same issue on their pages. Also, soibangla is correct that nothing that you posted, including those allegations of vote stealing, have any factual basis. I am not aware of any Stop the Steal "successes". Most of the lawsuits have been thrown out. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have recited a litany of false and unsubstantiated accusations that have been consistently and quite brutally smacked down by dozens of courts nationwide. This article is certainly not MoveOn, and it won't be an episode of Hannity, either. soibangla (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You all have made this a personal thing about me instead of an effort to improve a page. Soibangla, from which law school have you graduated? You represent an example of the likely reason why this page is not encyclopedic in the slightest. --Lawfare (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually describing your comments doesn't make it "a personal thing".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest users stop engaging in this section until chooses to provide reliable sources which support the changes they want to see. On Wikipedia we don't complain about things being wrong, but fix them ourselves. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I said more than merely about RS rules. And Wiki-approved RS cleverly sets up media likely to address the issues as not reliable.
 * People may discuss here what they like without admonitions such as yours. Personally, I simply choose to speak in comments to reach consensus, knowing people like you will reverse any change they personally disapprove.  So I made no changes in the page. The page needs major edits.  It is not encyclopedic in the slightest. And clearly no one cares. Those who do are bullied out of existence, as is happening to me here. --Lawfare (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge
This article smacks of wp:recent, and can be wholely contained in the already existing article on trump's conspiracy theories 2607:9880:1A38:138:30B1:7875:10F1:E060 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC) — 2607:9880:1A38:138:30B1:7875:10F1:E060 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose - WP:Stand-alone lists should be just that, a list of notable articles and topics. Please also see WP:MERGE for guidelines on merge proposals: I'm assuming that this proposal is for merging with List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump.Captain Calm (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a number of proposals at WP:Articles for deletion/Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud for renaming that article, some of which might be suitable targets for merge of this one, if WP:RECENT is the main problem. Captain Calm (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, definitely an example of recentism. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose this is a major conspiracy theory being pushed by a large portion of the GOP and their voters and has gained significant, lasting coverage. It may not be to the breadth of pizzagate (yet) but it's notable enough for a standalone article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose will probably have more development in the following days, due to Trump's lawsuits. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Slightly agrees with the proposer that maybe WP:RECENTISM, but meanwhile this is a controversy largely covered by the media. I can see a potential that this could be a huge topic of the 2020 US election. --219.78.190.156 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This material is not worthy of consideration outside the Trump universe and the normal encyclopaedic coverage of elections. Potential for POV fork-ism is very high. GPinkerton (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. There is very little to say about this, and it has no demonstrable long-term informative value. Songwaters (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional oppose, assuming the proposal is to merge this into List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. There's more info than is appropriate for a list article. If the proposal is to merge it somewhere where it could have a full section of its own, I could see doing that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This "movement" has only been around a week and I think we should see how long this lasts before deciding whether to merge this article. If Trump concedes in the next few days, then it was a momentary social protest and it should be merged. But if this lasts weeks or months, then it deserves a stand-alone article. Right now, it's too soon to know how substantial a movement it is. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would oppose merging it into List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump due to the fact that the list basically mentions the theories by name, without providing detailed information on them. And the reason is that all of those conspiracy theories have their own separate articles. In short, merging this article with that list would make the latter look very unbalanced. However, as GorillaWarfare mentioned, a merge into a more appropriate article would be possible. Keivan.f  Talk 17:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Liz. Mgasparin (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a variation: content from this article should be merged with 2020 United States presidential election to create Allegations of fraud in the 2020 United States Presidential election soibangla (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No legit reason I have seen not to merge.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is more than a "conspiracy theory promoted by Trump", it's a central component of the propaganda the GOP is using to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election, it warrants expansion as a standalone article - failing that it could be merged with content from Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, or indeed any resulting article that explores attempts to deligitimzie the 2020 election. Who knows, there could yet be a 2020 American coup attempt, US has had plenty success abroad running coups, why not at home for a change? Acousmana (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Especially as the news cycle continues. I'm willing to bet that this will cease to have noteworthyness after the current media cycle evaporates, at which point it would no longer be noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 03:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose msm has turned this issue into a conspiracy. It deserves to be a stand alone article until an electoral vote is certified.  CalmSaysItAll (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This conspiracy campaign is definitely going to be around for at least the entirety of Biden's first term. Love of Corey (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support I think a lot of the above comments are getting out their WP:CRYSTALBALL to predict that this is going to become bigger. I think it should be merged, but I do agree with that this is a bit lengthy for a list article. Still, I think that's a room for improvement for the destination article rather than a genuine reason to oppose a merger. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 08:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging into a "List of" article which is itself a collection of WP:BLUELINKs. How would you merge this in? Add a Redlink bullet? It makes no sense. Maybe Rudy can explain that to me... --LaserLegs (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this particular conspiracy theory is significant enough to have its own article. Maybe that will change in the future but that's not what we're talking about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The list of conspiracy theories is mainly a list of articles. If anything, the list should be merged with the category. Caleb M1 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
I have restored "conspiracy theory" in the lead as it is not a political movement, it's a debunked conspiracy that there was election tampering. Further, we may want to reconsider calling it a disinformation campaign but Vox among many others call it a conspiracy theory (and with a mixture of disinformation campaign). I suggest it stops being removed until a consensus is reached here. Praxidicae (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will not revert again but there are now eight reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory. Other edits, please engage here instead of continuing to whitewash the article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Debunked by who exactly? The investigation is on-going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.211.197 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There are lawsuits in 6 states filed by high-powered firms, hundreds of sworn witnesses who have risked perjury charges, data anomalies that have been published. That is not a conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense. I understand well that you don't like it, but that doesn't mean you can throw around baseless labels. One opinion article from one author at Mother Jones - or 8 of them - doesn't undo the above. Muirchertach1 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The words "conspiracy theory" are widely used for this in WP:Reliable sources online, several of which are cited here. Captain Calm (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet none of them have panned out. We summarize what reliable sources say, not legal documents filed by conspiracy peddlers. Further, there are articles from CTV, Vox, Washington Post, TechCrunch, NPR, Fast Company, The Guardian and many others. That's more than enough to substantiate the claims in the lead and as far as I can tell, none of them are opeds, but written by their editorial staff. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 'None have panned out.' We're a week out from election night, and two of the suits were just filed yesterday. Litigation will take at least a month, maybe longer. Let's see what happens before we throw around baseless labels.Muirchertach1 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there some form of compromise wording that can be used in place of "political movement" or "conspiracy theory? Captain Calm (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because as I pointed out we summarize what independent reliable sources say and they largely say right-wing conspiracy theory and disinformation campaign, anything else would not be neutral. Praxidicae (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Mother Jones is a political publication, independence and reliability is questionable. Most more centrist publications simply characterize it as litigation, and that Biden was projected the winner. They don't characterize the claims as false in a knee-jerk fashion, since lawsuits will determine that (and hundreds of affidavits and counting is not minimal evidence). That's all that's really going on here, your mouth-frothing opposition notwithstanding.Muirchertach1 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please learn to indent. Second, as I pointed out numerous times and the article itself states: there are more than 8 other reliable sources other than Mother Jones, most of which are bipartisan, like CTV. Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a far larger, probably ten- or hundred-fold larger number of articles from centrist publications that describe the matter as an unresolved legal dispute, and correctly state that media outlets have projected Biden, which is where we should leave the article. Whether the evidence of fraud is valid or not remains to be seen. Are you really going to waste our time and make us dig all those sources up (which I will do if you impishly insist) so that you can preserve your politically slanted version? Muirchertach1 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, then you should establish that before changing it to "movement" where every single supporting source calls it a conspiracy theory instead of whatever silly bullshit you're trying to whitewash it with. But you know what? If you want to further push more election disinformation and no one else wants to do anything about it, be my guest. Praxidicae (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've stopped editing the article so as not to engage in an edit war and I'd request you revert as well since we've yet to establish what it should be called, despite 8 sources calling it a conspiracy theory and disinformation campaign. Calling it anything else violates NPOV. And while I admire your attempt to compromise, it shouldn't be about what we as editors want, it should be what policy dictates and what helps readers. We summarize what independent reliable sources say and the bulk, as I've pointed out many times, call it a conspiracy theory, not election dispute. Praxidicae (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the version which represents reliable sources. We do not "compromise" with editors, but with reliable sources——here, they are all in agreement that this is a false right-wing conspiracy theory. The content has been disputed repeatedly by anonymous editors who have not made the case in Wikipedia policies for their preferred version and this is the reason why the article is now semi-protected; it is not a reason to pander to them in our article content. We do not bend to the beliefs of the majority, but to the beliefs of the majority of reliable sources. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race, but just wanted to note that I added an inline comment directing people to this talk page to try to encourage discussion rather than edit warring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * with 70% of republicans saying they are doubting the results, it hardly classifies this as a far-right conspiracy theory https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488 BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That poll is hardly determining how many people believe in this "Stop the Steal" conspiracy theory. Hell, I have my own doubts about the freeness and fairness of the election due to actual, documented instances of voter suppression—that does not mean I also believe there was widespread electoral and vote counting fraud or that Trump is the actual winner. The poll surveyed <2,000 people, some percentage of which were Republicans. 70% of those Republicans didn't believe the election was free and fair. Out of those, ~70–80% had concerns about voter fraud/ballot tampering. At this point we're talking about a couple hundred people. Furthermore, a lot of people believing something doesn't disqualify it from being a conspiracy theory. QAnon is unequivocally described as a conspiracy theory, and there are millions of members of QAnon groups (though obviously this may not be 1–1 account–person, but it gives a sense of scale). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, neither "conspiracy theory" nor "far-right" means "minority-held belief" and so the poll does not dispel the accuracy of either of these descriptors, even leaving aside the difference between an election being free and fair and this particular reasoning for it not being free and fair. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess for me, I have a hard time labeling this as a conspiracy theory until all the legal actions are settled. If the "stop the steal" movement sticks around after that, then it would be considered a conspiracy theory because all claims would have been investigated. I’d rather just see this page deleted all together BlackBird1008 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that a lawsuit was filed is meaningless. You can file a lawsuit for anything in the United States. It does not mean anything will come of it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This isn't a conspiracy. This is a movement that I suppose could be argued is motivated by a conspiracy theory. I prose that the introduction is changed as such. Calling it a conspiracy theory is like calling a prosecution team's argumentation a conspiracy theory. It's too biased. I think this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy and spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acanizales1 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As for polling, it seems to depend on which Republicans you're asking. According to a national Reuters poll, 60% of the Republicans polled recognized Biden's victory in the popular vote: Whereas 80% of Americans did overall, BTW. --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And as for the supposedly "on-going investigations and lawsuits" allegedly "taking weeks and months" (where somebody pretty much claimed we're not allowed to say anything about dismissal, rebuttal, or call it a conspiracy theory prior to next summer or so, until which we would have to handle the supposed election swindle as pure fact), a number of those (9 out of 17 lawsuits so far) have already been closed (with negative findings), dismissed, and/or appealed, partly within a matter of hours, see Presidential election results subject to lawsuits and recounts on Ballotpedia. Those two lawsuits that resulted in an actual court order didn't change anything about the outcome, they only slowed down the process by not allowing to count votes faster (such as counting mail-in ballots first). --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So editor Praxidicae reverted my edits, got me banned for 3rr when he was the one who was reverting, then after I was banned commenting here, pretended he and his handful of cohorts won the discussion. So typical. FYI guys, everyone knows this site is controlled and not to be trusted for any topic of remote controversy. You're not fooling anyone who matters.(and Dark Clouds, it isn't 'whinging,' it's laying out what actually goes on in these battles, so outsiders can be aware of it)--Muirchertach1 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1.) I'm not a he. 2.) I didn't get you "banned", you got yourself blocked. 3.) you clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works. Why don't you go fuck off to Parler? Praxidicae (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because I'm curious, the English Wikipedia is edited by tens of thousands of editors like yourself from all around the world. How, exactly, are we all controlled? Because I'm not getting any memos and my checks haven't cleared. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (GorillaWarfare: I'm casting aspersions? But the editor who says I believe in mind-control chips, that's not an aspersion, and that's allowed to stand; what a joke.) No, it's actually fairly mundane. There is a tiny clique of editors (perhaps a few hundred or few thousand, in any case well under 1% of editors) who swarm any articles of remote controversy within minutes or hours. They manufacture a consensus for one another on talk pages, and work together to get any dissenting editors promptly banned for edit warring, when they themselves are always the ones who initiate the repeat reversions. In fact, I've run into a number of these specific editors on at least a dozen occasions, on articles that are of controversy, but beyond that have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. One of them who has swarmed my (and others') edits is Doug Weller, who unsurprisingly is involved yet again on this article. Whether some in this clique have some association or allegiance I'm not aware of, I won't hazard a guess at this time.Muirchertach1 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for more or less removing the aspersions. If you are genuinely concerned about a small group of editors manufacturing consensus, etc., feel free to start a discussion at one of our many noticeboards such as WP:ANI to get uninvolved editors' help. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that would be a complete waste of time. The small group are the same ones running/dominating discussions on the noticeboards, getting articles and 'non-notable' biographies deleted, etc.. It's a shame, but Wikipedia at this time is a controlled farce, and not easily reformable. Hopefully there will eventually be enough good, independent editors to overwhelm the bad, but what working person has time for all the jargon and Byzantine rule system?Muirchertach1 (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, your choices are either a) do something about your concern by asking for outside assistance, or b) stop casting aspersions. There is not a third option to continue wasting editors' time and good faith here by making baseless accusations, but not actually do anything about it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand that passions and opinions run deep on this issue, but unless the objective of the article is to sway opinions one way or another, isn't it better policy to stick to more neutral language until things have settled down and people have regained their objectivity? The article on Adolf Hitler is more neutral than this one and I think that most people can agree on who he is. ScottMillerCo (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, your passions are running deep on this issue, such that you've proven Godwin's law. There is nothing POV about describing the accusations of fraud in the 2020 election as a conspiracy theory, since the allegation a massive conspiracy to steal the election has no factual basis and there is no evidence of any fraud, outside of two people who tried to vote Trump twice in Pennsylvania. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)