Talk:Stop the Steal/Archive 2

False Claims
While dubious and probably false they have not been completely debunked yet and should not referred to as such. HalalSquad (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Content in Wikipedia articles is based on reliable sources. Please present reliable sources which support your assertion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is, you can't debunk a claim without evidence, or rather, hardly anyone ever takes such claims serious enough to "investigate" whether the sky is green. It's the burden of the person making the claim to produce evidence, and so far none have been presented or surfaced, as also many Republican politicians and even Fox News keep emphasizing. All we've seen so far are a few angry words from someone who can't admit defeat. All legal suits that have been started by the Trump campaign so far (and often quickly dismissed by the courts, as has been the case already in a number of states) have nothing to do with Trump's stab-in-the-back myth of alleged voter fraud by means of myriads of false ballots, as all the suits are just whining about supposedly unfair voting laws. Laws which in many cases have been introduced or upheld by Republicans. --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree Fade2004 (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Most, if not all, the citations in this Wiki article are all opinion and entertain a left-leaning bias, they are not factual bi-partisan sources that provide proof these are false claims at all. Additionally, Sworn affidavits are enough to constitute evidence. The Trump legal team does possess a substantial number of these from direct witnesses in each of the states that they filed court cases in as evidenced in the hearings they participated in. The courts having dismissed those cases does not invalidate that evidence. There is enough questionable "standard operating procedure" incidents, other observations, and treatment of and from poll workers and challengers to prompt further investigations into the many allegations that are coming to light from the various State hearings around the country. Investigations are ongoing, and SCOTUS has yet to hear any cases related to this idea of "Stop the Steal." This Wikipedia article should be updated appropriately--at the very least a "possible" candidate for being categorized as a conspiracy theory. At the most, it should be categorized as possible voter/election fraud. cdaters (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please be specific as to which sources you believe are opinion pieces? We should not be using opinion sources (per WP:RSOPINION), so it would be helpful for you to point them out. As for them being "biased", reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (WP:BIASEDSOURCE. Affadavits may be enough evidence for you personally to believe the claims, but they are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia per WP:RS. Primary sources (which the affadavits are) can only be used extremely cautiously, and for uncontroversial statements of fact. In order to make an argument that the article wording about false claims should be changed, you need reliable, secondary sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I notice that the original citations of articles have been removed (there were eight of them or so) and have been reduced to just an editorial piece from CTV which was one of those eight or more. Catherine Triomphe, the author of that article writes as if it is a proven fact that these claims are false and this simply is not the case. She cites a few academia and professional personas who are expressing their opinions that this idea was initiated by a Trump team, not that they had evidence of such an idea. That same article goes on to highlight other "conspiracy theories" that have been debunked, but have not. It cites Biden as one of them. Biden still actually has to answer for the claims that have been leveraged against him and his family taking money from China, or the Ukraine issue. The mainstream media has conveniently glossed over or dedicated any actual airtime to those claims. Hilary Clinton also claimed that her election was stolen and made the argument during the 2020 DNC, "you can win the popular vote, but still lose the election," which has been an argument for the abolishment of the Electoral College. "Stop the Steal" is not a new idea, and it didn't originate with the Republican party. Is this article about a hashtag, or an idea? Where is the "proof" of the "falsehoods" with respect to the evidence that continues to mount regarding election interference and malfeasance in those contested states? It is one thing to say something is true (no matter if you are a reliable source or not), and another to have information to actually back it up. That is what distinguishes rhetoric from fact. Dominion Voting Systems refuses to respond to legislators requests to appear for questioning. Is that not odd? You would think they would want to clear their name? Dominion Voting refuses to allow a review of their hardware and software, and then there are the allegations of foreign influence/ties. Take Trump and his supporters out of the equation, and this would certainly be a different article all together. Insert Biden and his team. There is sufficient evidence (eye witness and otherwise) that has been brought forward to cast doubt on the entire process, no matter who was being voted for. The bottom line is that this article is suggesting that any claims of "Stop the Steal" are based on "false claims" and in fact, we don't know if these claims are false or not! —  cdaters   18:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, we report what reliable sources say. Individual editors' personal evaluation of the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the claims is irrelevant. The decision to describe Trump's claims about widespread voter and/or election fraud as false has been made at several articles after large amounts of discussion (see Talk:2020 United States presidential election [summarized in the FAQ section Q3 and discussed throughout the talk page archives], Talk:Donald Trump, etc.) You have not provided any reliable sources that contradict the suggestion that Trump et al's claims are false; only your own personal opinions (WP:OR). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What have I said above that you view as my opinion? Wikipedia promotes itself as an encyclopedia, but when in an article, the author can make a claim as broad as "Stop the Steal is a right-wing conspiracy theory in the United States in which some supporters of US President Donald Trump have promoted false claims of widespread electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election," who has determined those statements are false? Where is the evidence? Remember, Hilary also claimed that the election was stolen form her, so this applies in that case too? Citing someone's opinion as a "reliable source" is not evidence, and it is a disservice to the community as a whole to produce biased articles like this in a medium that promotes itself as an encyclopedic resource. I guess that is my opinion. I must be used to utilizing peer reviewed sources in this respect and so it is disconcerting that an unsuspecting visitor might come along and take a statement like that as gospel coming from a medium that promotes itself as encyclopedia when in reality, it is simply rhetoric with citations from sources you feel are reliable. You make the statement that I have not provided any reliable (these days, "reliable" is more or less a relative term)  sources to contradict those suggestions and while I feel it is more incumbent for people to do their own research, it is beyond the scope of this article presently to provide reliable sources as this is an situation that is evolving and we are not yet privy to the evidence that has been provided to the courts and state legislators beyond the videos and hearings that we have witnessed. But in the interest of something to look into...       And that is just a small sampling across the board. Unfortunately, none of the mainstream media outlets are giving any of this any airtime other than to voice their opinion at the falseness of it all, ignoring the mounting evidence —   cdaters   22:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have already linked you to where this has been discussed at length in other venues, and I have no interest in rehashing discussions that are done and dusted. However, Wikipedia not only has clear policy on what is considered to be reliable (WP:RS), but also a page listing general consensus on often-cited sources and a discussion board for any sources whose reliability is not yet determined. The suggestion that "reliable is relative" frankly doesn't work here—while you might disagree on the reliability of a given source, Wikipedia is run by consensus, and that consensus determines which sources are usable.
 * In that same vein, I will point out that none of the sources you have provided have been determined by our editing community to be reliable, and some of them have specifically been noted to be "marginally reliable" or even so unreliable they are prohibited from use for verification:
 * Heritage Foundation: Conservative advocacy group, described fairly unanimously in WP:RSN discussion archives as an unusable source due to its strong POV, questionable editorial practices, and scientific denialism (The Heritage Foundation)
 * The Washington Times: WP:RSP: Achtung-orange.svg Marginally reliable. There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics...
 * lutchman.report: Appears to be an obscure website with no Wikipedia article (Lutchman Report) and no history at WP:RSN:.
 * Fox News: WP:RSP: Achtung-orange.svg No consensus on reliability. There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics...
 * The Epoch Times: WP:RSP: Stop hand.svg Deprecated. The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors ... consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories. As is the case with Breitbart News and Occupy Democrats, this does not mean that The Epoch Times can no longer be used, just that it can never again be used as a reference for facts.
 * National File: Also pretty obscure. No Wikipedia article (National File), no history at WP:RSN: . The only mention of National File in Wikipedia mainspace is on Patrick Howley, a former writer for The Epoch Times (deprecated) and former editor-in-chief of Big League Politics (spinoff of Breitbart, "a far-right American media website which traffics in conspiracy theories") which does not bode well for the site's reliability if it were to ever be discussed.
 * You say yourself: Unfortunately, none of the mainstream media outlets are giving any of this any airtime other than to voice their opinion at the falseness of it all. It has become popular in some political circles to bash the "mainstream media" for various perceived slights, which often boil down to the fact that the MSM largely refuses to accept Trump et al's statements as gospel and requires some modicum of proof before they will report things as factual. However, the MSM that you are bashing have been largely decided by the Wikipedia editing community (see WP:RSP) to be reliable sources. This is precisely why the article is describing the claims as false; it is only the unreliable and highly partisan rightwing publishers who are giving any credence to these claims, and even some of those sources have started to express doubt of their own (Fox News, Drudge Report, etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I think that we are going to have to disagree. And now I think that you are assuming that I am a Trump supporter? I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere which is why I specifically had not linked to any other sources, but you asked...so I provided. I stand by my statement that this article presents "False Claims" like they are set in stone, they are not. Fact. It pains me that someone might see this on Wikipedia and consider it fact, when quite the opposite is true (it's opinion and therefore should have a disclaimer). In this context, Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia that it purports to be. It has become increasingly clear to me over the years that Wikipedia has become a victim of "group-think" with a "leftest" bias and the only resources you consider "reliable" are liberal and left-leaning and purely a matter of perspective ("us" vs "them" mentality), not "open minded" where users/visitors can make their own decisions. I cited articles showing that people are becoming disenfranchised with the main stream media for this very reason. Pew Research and Gallup polls show that people are tired of being force-fed opinion on a daily basis, and that is what our reporting today has become. I don't watch Fox News, I don't watch CNN. I prefer to research my own material and your (Wikipedia/general consensus) "reliable sources" are not always reliable. Prime time television is all about ratings, not making sure "the people" are informed. This is why the mainstream media doesn't give airtime to any of these contested results, it doesn't fit with their narrative. Shouldn't they be just as concerned about fraud? Like I mentioned earlier. If this wasn't about Trump, this would be a completely different conversation. I am not bashing the main stream media, they really are "cherry picking" the news they report. The are deliberately not reporting on things that the American public should be aware of. Reporting goes both ways. You can't choose to not report on Trump because of controversial content, and then choose to over look his opponent where there is controversial content. That is not responsible reporting. I won't belabor the point here. I agree that we don't have to rehash done and dusted conversations so I will bow out now. Thank you for your time. —  cdaters   (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
There are thousands of signed affidavits claiming voter fraud, and still cases in the courts. To claim that it is a conspiracy theory and using a source such as Vox as a credible source is not helpful in the slightest. This article should post the facts of the case as is, and not put political beliefs into the discussion. Should simply say that stop the steal is a right wing movement where Trump supporters who believe the election was stolen through voter fraud, protest to attempt to stop the election from being stolen. Thats all it should say. Anything other than that is putting your political beliefs into the topic and not what it should be. Besides, if anything, the claim of voter fraud would be the "conspiracy theory" if anything. Not a movement attempting to stop the fraud they believe is there. Nicoli342 (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been debated ad nauseum above and in the archives. We present simply what the sources say, and the sources say it's a conspiracy theory. — Czello 12:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020
info on protect is not accurate and bigoted---amp 172.8.20.25 (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

New Discussion From Yesterday Time Holed in Archive 2 Today — This Page Not Encyclopedic
A new section from yesterday was effectively censored today by archiving it—the next day. Archiving in a day is essentially an end run around deleting the discussion in violation of the rules. It was archived 12 minutes after the final comment before archiving. Twelve minutes. That doesn’t change that this page is not encyclopedic. --Lawfare (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2020
Replace the following: "Stop the Steal is a right-wing conspiracy theory in the United States,in which some supporters of US President Donald Trump have promoted false claims of widespread electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election."

With this: "Stop the Steal is Donald Trump attempting to steal the election while using Orwellian language to suggest he is the one from whom it is being stolen. Trump is attempting to steal the election by pressuring Republicans in power to retroactively change the voting rules, or to completely disregard the election results and appoint Republican electors just to make Trump win. If Trump is not successful as on December 8, the safe harbor deadline, democracy will be preserved and we can all go back to our daily lives." 172.58.92.238 (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I appreciate that this bogus request comes from the left wing, as the standard MAGA requests have gotten tiresome and variety is the spice of life. Still, no way. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden


Added image of GSA letter to the page, feel free to move it to a different location, remove it, and/or discuss. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the point of including it here. The quotes around "ascertain" also read a bit like scare quotes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! Right cite (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2020
Add page to Category: American political catchphrases Nekomancerjade (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for the request, . — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

remove the scare quotes from "free speech"
nt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:20C:7500:6:C0A9:8113:80A4 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per the article on Parler, there is widespread criticism and caution amongst high-quality reliable sources about Parler's claims to being a place for free speech. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with the IP here (sans the "fascist" comment). I think these are scare quotes. I think without the quotes we've still adequately shown the criticism you mention as we've worded it as a site that markets itself -- implying it's their branding, not a statement of fact. — Czello 15:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Czello, they are scare quotes. At Parler it currently says 'Parler describes itself as a free speech platform', without any quotes. William Avery (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done they were unneeded scare quotes. The irony of being called "fascist" on a page about an attempt to undermine a democratic election notwithstanding. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — Czello 18:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Leftist Groups?
This section was recently added to the article:

"Shortly after the groups were removed, a group of leftists created a fake Stop The Steal group to attract Trump supporters, only to change the name a day later to "Gay Communists for Socialism" in an attempt to troll the members."

However, the reference provided does not mention any "leftist groups" or trolling. It appears the author is upset with the results of the election.

Until a consensus is reached, I have removed the unsubstantiated language and kept the rest of the factual information the same.

Care to comment?

Pacificgov (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source says "one band of leftists" perhaps I should have said "a group". It was trolling and it was wonderful but in terms of Wikipedia, rollingstone literally says it. As far as your comment "it appears the author is upset with the results of the election." I hope you're not referring to me as an editor here. Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't negative either, the source literally says ...plan to troll conservatives with a fake Stop the Steal group. Your insinuation that I have any right-leaning political motivation here is actually pretty funny, as anyone who has interacted with me here or elsewhere can attest to the fact that it couldn't be further from the truth. As such, I've restored it as it's neutral and well sourced. If you want to argue whether it's WP:DUE or not is another matter and can be discussed. Praxidicae (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a "dubious" tag after the word "leftists". The Rolling Stone article does say this, and quotes some pseudonymous person as saying that they had planned to add left/liberal content to the group page, but it also notes that their actual affiliation is unclear. We need better evidence that they were actually "leftist" rather than posing as such to troll the Trump supporters. Captain Calm (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stone article says "leftists". This is the evidence. They have sufficient editorial policies that we trust that they have sufficient evidence behind the scenes to make such a statement. Claims that the people could simply have been posing as leftists are simply out of our hands—it's for reliable sources to decide, not us. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RollingStone included, it is still not a verified fact that the Facebook trolls were of any particular ideology, no matter what the content of the trolling ("Gay Communists") might suggest. The entire troll is undue though -- it tells us nothing about the subject of this article.  Feoffer (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Facebook troll is UNDUE
This article really doesn't need to cover the behavior of a Facebook troll, that material should be removed altogether or drastically abridged. Feoffer (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So you think the information is UNDUE and should be removed. I think the opposite—that the article is substantially lacking relevant content which, if included, would make the information a small enough proportion of the article for it to conform to DUE. — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That a facebook user changed his group to "Gay Communists" is not something anyone will care about in ten years, and it tells the reader precisely nothing about the subject of this article. Feoffer (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. soibangla (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020
Why is Wikipedia so leftist. You really are dishonest 96.85.195.40 (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We aren't interested in your complaining about how leftist Wikipedia is; we hear the same dead-end arguments on a daily basis, so go take it elsewhere. This is also an improper use of an edit request. Builder018 (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And the ignoramus fringes (left or right) need to realize that just because something doesn't align to your worldview doesn't make it "leftist". Wikipedia is neutral, and that is viewed as "leftist" by the rightwing fringe. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report. If you have reliable sources, or even evidence, then present it. So far, not even Trump's lawyers have been able to do that. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Coatrack?
In response to a comment on my talk page (read that thread there), I made this edit, but if someone wants to delete it as a Coatrack violation, I won't mind. -- Valjean (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a coatrack violation, but I also don't see how it adds value to the context of that paragraph. Doesn't every right-wing social media site consider itself a haven for free speech? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right on both counts. It's a "duh" statement. See how Mandy Rice-Davies Applies here. My edit can be reverted without losing anything. -- Valjean (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, mostly because it made the sentence read awkwardly. I've also adjusted the wording and added an additional source from Parler to establish that it's not just Facebook that has been restricting these topics. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for linking to that WP:MANDY essay. I didn't know about it until just now. It can apply to other articles I'm involved in, like criticism of Muhammad, which has perennial requests to include rebuttals from critics. Well duh, followers of Muhammad would have rebuttals, wouldn't they? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020
The reference that that states that claims of election fraud are a "Right wing conspiracy theory," are demonstrable false. A professional forensic audit, conducted by Allied Security Operations of Group vote tabulations in Antrim county, Michigan system of elections, has been completed(1) and the results have been released under a court ordered by 13th Circuit Judge Kevin Elsenheime.(2)

According to the audit: “We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.

The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud.

The statement attributing these issues to human error is not consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors. The systemic errors are intentionally designed to create errors in order to push a high volume of ballots to bulk adjudication. Research is ongoing. However, based on the preliminary results, we conclude that the errors are so significant that they call into question the integrity and legitimacy of the results in the Antrim County 2020 election to the point that the results are not certifiable.

Because the same machines and software are used in 48 other counties in Michigan, this casts doubt on the integrity of the entire election in the state of Michigan.”(3)

This is just one of many, irrefutable instances of human intervention taken to intentionally alter the results of vote tabulations for the 2020 Presidential elections. In conclusion I submit that more than enough empirical evidence exists to prove that the term, "Right wing conspiracy," used in this wikipedia.org entry is not only false, it borders on the contumelious and should be removed. Thank you very much.

JusticeFiter (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)B.R. Neeley

(1)

(2)

(3) JusticeFiter (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I will note that the first source you provided pretty well goes out of its way to discredit the third, and the second appears to be a self-published blog and therefore is not a usable Wikipedia source per WP:SPS, so I'm not seeing anything "irrefutable" here. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of note from the first source, "" Why would we consider their audit reliable?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Detroit Free Press piece looks OK to me, but doesn't offer anything conclusive, other than characterizing the third source as "a flawed analyses of voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election". The second source merely parrots the third. If there were more coverage on this (Detroit Free Press says that Dominion would soon testify in court about the allegations of their machines' unreliability) then we might be able to include something about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Michigan election officials slam report on votes in Antrim County, The Detroit News. I think any consideration of this "audit" is WP:UNDUE, unless we really want to go down the rabbithole on the WP:FRINGE theories being put forth alleging fraud. I might as well have audited Dominion in Antrim County. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To the extent that fringe theories get covered in reliable sources, so too should Wikipedia give that coverage due weight. We now have multiple sources weighing in on this faulty analysis of voting machine errors. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Only to the extent that they are relevant to the fringe theory that is the subject of this article, though. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"Allied Security Operations Group - a right wing conspiracy group
See this: "Everylegalvote.com lists its sponsors and financial backers as a coalition of right-wing groups including Allied Security Operations Group, the Economic War Room, and Liberty Center for God and Country. An office manager at Allied Security Operations Group, who declined to give her name, said by phone that the group was a private Dallas-based cybersecurity firm. She said the issue of voter fraud was an area of specialty of the company’s chief financial officer, Russell Ramsland, a businessman who ran for Congress in Texas as a Republican in 2016 and was defeated in the primary. According to Mr. Ramsland’s LinkedIn profile, he has an M.B.A. from Harvard." That's a reliable source. We can't use Twitter, but see which suggests the group is linked to Michael Finn.

Vice describes a presentation in Texas on the "Deep State" saying " After an opening prayer, Russ Ramsland—a Harvard graduate, CFO of a Dallas-based private security firm, and former candidate for US Congress—wasted no time in laying out the threat posed by the Deep State, which he defined as a secretive, nefarious cabal of government bureaucrats, Islamists, leftists, and establishment Republicans that coalesced in Nazi Germany more than 75 years ago. Deep state actors desperately want to take out President Trump, and true patriots had to act now to save him, Ramsland explained." Doug Weller  talk 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And this which has several useful points to make and this comment "The Ramsland report “lacks a basic level of clarity or transparency about research methods or data sources that would be expected in a scientific communication,”. Doug Weller  talk 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become a left-wing conspiracy group if this entry stands and is not brought to the center. Haerdt (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2020
Stop the Steal is a America Patriotic Movement in the United States[1] that shows several widespread electoral fraud took place during the 2020 presidential election to deny the rightful winner  President Donald Trump victory over former vice president Joe Biden. Trump and his supporters have asserted with evidence[3][4] that he is the winner of the election, and that large-scale voter and vote counting fraud took place in several swing states.[4] The Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Decision Desk HQ, NBC News, The New York Times, and Fox News inaccurately under false pretense lied and projected Biden as the president having surpassed more the 270 fraudulent illegal Illegitimate  ballot votes needed to claim fake victory.[5][6] A New York Times survey of state election officials found  several instances of significant widespread evidence voter fraud,  As such did the United States Justice Department, and dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump and his proxies to challenge voting results in several states Biden has failed to concede and accept  Republican nominee Donald J Trump, for 4 more years in the White House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.165.95 (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

- No sources cited, much less reliable ones. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This proposed edit is complete nonsense, and just constitutes partisan ranting. Wikipedia isn't the place for this. Builder018 (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Evidence
hereistheevidence.com provides a comprehensive and exhaustive list of mostly factually true evidence of verified election fraud which occurred during the 2020 Presidential Election. Many of the reported cases of fraud have been used in court cases, which were mostly throw out due to issues of procedure, not the actual case. Haerdt (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mostly factually true". It's just an aggregation of the same old lies from the past two months.  The site isn't notable itself, and is of no value here.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "mostly factually true" lol, didn't your 8th grade teacher explain that if part of a statement is false, then the entire statement should have an "F" in front of it? The Daily Mail is mostly factually true also, but nobody gets to cite it on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

CNN may claim to be mostly factually true when they deliberately misstate or misreport political news. You must be very careful when creating encyclopedia entries about politicized events. Your personal understanding may need to be widened. Haerdt (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

== Leftist Bias ==

This page suffers from a poor case of Leftist Bias. To the editors out there who would dispute or attempt to censor — this is an open and free encyclopedia. It is a project that aims to be neutral, objective, and balnced, in the best interest of preserving knowledge. I strongly encourage you not to repress perspectives because of your particular political views, beliefs, or ideologies. Repressing dissent is a fascist political technique. Haerdt (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Haerdt. Why not start with suggesting some edits to the article? Just keep in mind that you need to cite a reliable source for changes to statements of fact. This page is intended for discussions, not accusations. Editors are within their rights to remove this post, but have left it here to invite comment... Your turn.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech. It is a project to build a free-content (that is, available to the public for free) encyclopedia based upon reliable sources. If you have material supported by a reliable source which should be considered for this article, you're welcome to present it here. If, on the other hand, your complaint is that reliable sources are all biased against you and that you instead want us to consider some random YouTube video or a Parler post... then you're welcome to find and contribute to another encyclopedia project more suited to your personal ideology, such as Conservapedia or Metapedia. That you believe all reliable sources are biased and that we should instead rely upon utter nonsense peddled by charlatans and dupes is... not a problem we can solve here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a farce put on by Wikipedia’s controlling interests. I have posted content before that has been accurately sourced, but it has been censored. You might call it “moderation”, but when you delete content because you don’t like it regardless of the factuality or accuracy, that is censorship. You should cease and desist with such practices immediately as they are destructive to the spirit of this encyclopedia’s founding. Haerdt (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to suggest any changes and you're not going to provide any sources, you're in the wrong place. Talk pages are not a forum to discuss your thoughts about the subject of the article or your opinions on Wikipedia in general, they are for suggesting specific, sourced changes to the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Refusal to acknowledge evidence disputing sources and the scope and legitimacy of the movement.
This is an educational forum, with the sole purpose of education and information. Unfortunately, "fact", especially in politics is not always concrete and undisputed. Sources used in this article have credibility that is disputed, and their claims are disputed by other sources. Many of the sources used are not experts in election security and are political opinion writers or journalists, who by the close observance of previous writings have a clear bias towards a political side. If there were no other sources that disputed these claims, disallowing differing alterations to this article would be valid, but sources do dispute certain, generic mind you, evidence presented in this article. This is why I hold the belief that there should be reasonable alterations to this article, allowing fact-based observances by both sides. This article simply dismisses all evidence of voter fraud, failing to recognize the scope of the movement. Conspiracy theories are not based in fact and are simply speculation or guesswork. Stop the steal represents supported claims of election interference that is being observed and acknowledged by elected state officials. As of now, hearings and consideration are taking place in the respective state legislatures with testimony by sworn affidavits, presenting clear evidence of voter fraud. I would please like you to take this into consideration, this article should be objective and present both sides. (RMRC1332 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC))


 * Please be specific in what changes you'd like to see: which current sources do you think are unacceptable, and what new sources you'd prefer to see in their place. — Czello 16:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review WP:RSP when making your suggestions. It's a useful reference to determine which of the more commonly-suggested sources are generally considered reliable by the Wikipedia editing community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an educational forum, with the sole purpose of education and information. Actually, see WP:NOTFORUM.  Beyond that, the sources cited are high-quality news outlets from organizations with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you don't think they're reliable you will have to be more specific about which and why, and if you think there's reliable sources that aren't included you will have to say which ones. Based on the sources available, though, reliable coverage seems unanimous. --Aquillion (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Added link to evidence
It is probably a good idea for the evidence to be linked and mentioned, considering how widespread it is. At this point the information suppression is painfully obvious to any astute obsevrer of the US 2020 Elections

Evidence was collected and circulated widely via the Internet, with efforts spearheaded by Trump’s legal team. Haerdt (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Evidence was collected and circulated widely via the Internet, with efforts spearheaded by Trump’s legal team. Haerdt (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gateway Pundit is a scam grift which has repeatedly published complete fabrications and falsehoods in order to dupe its readership. By clear community consensus, the site is categorically prohibited from use as a source on Wikipedia. That you may not like that fact is irrelevant. You must comply with the community consensus decision until and unless that consensus is changed. If you wish to attempt to changeit, you are welcome to start a thread on WP:RSN. If you choose to continue to ignore community consensus on this issue, your editing privileges on this topic (at least) will likely be removed.
 * Wikipedia is not a free speech platform, and the fact that you don't like what we publish about this scam conspiracy theory is utterly unimportant. To use a turn of phrase, facts don't care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

TheGatewayPundit is a right wing news website. If you don’t like right wing news, that’s not my problem. You should be considering news from all sides of the political spectrum, not attempting to censor legitimately reported information. Haerdt (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the community disagrees with you and has already declared the site unreliable and unacceptable for use as a source for Wikipedia content. You're welcome to attempt to change that community consensus. You're not welcome to ignore that community consensus. Doing so will lead to the revocation of your Wikipedia editing privileges. We're a project to build a free-content Internet encyclopedia, and if you don't like our standards, you will be invited to go somewhere else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * NorthBySouthBerenof - You do not speak on behalf of the community. You speak on behalf of yourself and yourself alone. You have been bullying multiple contirbutors on this oage over the past weeks. It is not a welcomed attitude. Cease and desist your campaign of information suppression immediately. Haerdt (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is mistaken. NorthBySouthBerenof correctly articulates the thinking of our community. Feoffer (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m requesting the assistance of another administrator or editor here. Would someone please take a long look at NorthBySouthBerenof’s contributions to this website in the past two weeks? This user is acting like a political hack and claiming to be legitimate, while bullying other contributors. Haerdt (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not the sole arbiter of the community, that is correct. But I have repeatedly linked you to the discussion in which the community clearly deprecated The Gateway Pundit. Again, for full clarity, you should click here to read that discussion. After reading that discussion, if you have any questions, I'm happy to help clarify the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ample evidence has been collected that voter fraud occurred. <\ref> Haerdt (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the update on which websites are considered acceptable, NorthBySouth. Thanks. I’m trying again here with RealClearPolitics. Haerdt (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't say there is "ample evidence of voter fraud." It is instead titled A Running Compendium of Challenges to Election 2020 - of which, of course, there are many. It makes no claims that there is "evidence" of fraud or that said purported fraud affected the election outcome. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a friendly reminder:  if you want to include material suggesting electoral fraud, ,you'll need to generate a strong consensus for that change.   Lately the article has had a two folks trying to edit-war to reinsert fringe claims without first establishing a consensus.   That's not how this works.     Feoffer (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

These are not fringe claims. There is massive media blackout surrohnding this topic front the political left and centre left. You can see that. The entire newscapre of the political right is reporting fraud. Haerdt (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fraud with massive evidence. Haerdt (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Every court of law has rejected such claims. If your response is that all American courts of law, including a fair number of judges appointed by Trump, are part of this massive liberal conspiracy which somehow didn't steal the Senate and almost lost the House, then I'm afraid you're beyond help, and you're in places Wikipedia, by foundational policy, will never go. You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but you're not welcome to put whatever you want in Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia reflects the world as reliable sources describe it, and that world is one in which there was no significant voter fraud, in which the Electoral College has voted 306-232 to elect Joseph R. Biden as the 46th President of the United States, and in which Biden will be inaugurated at noon on January 20, 2021. Those are facts, and facts famously do not care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

“Reliable” is here subjective. Significant is dependent on your own ability to understand what is happening in our world. Ample evidence exists whether you like it or not, AND it has been wodely circulated and reported. Legal challenges were made and disputed, while for various reasons none of them have yet favored Trump. I am not disputing the election. What I am disputing is your harsh censorship towards the right. See my thread on RealClearPolitics. Haerdt (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, it's "subjective." Again, if you disagree with Wikipedia's subjective definition of reliable sources and how to identify them, you're welcome to try to change that definition through accepted community processes. What you're not free to do is ignore or reject them in your editing of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ll use RealClearPolitics tomorrow. Haerdt (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

== RealClearPolitics ==

What is 3RR? Provide a link.

Charges of fraud include lefal proof of fraud.

Ample evidence of voter fraud has been reported and collected. Haerdt (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary US high school GOVERNMENT teachers use RealClearPolitics in their classrooms. This is not a fringe website Haerdt (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the 3RR update Haerdt (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The source simply shows there are ample allegations of fraud, not ample evidence., in my estimation you're about 1 edit away from getting blocked. power~enwiki ( π ,  ν ) 06:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

False. There is evidence. You need to look into each link closely and see for yourself. An affadavit is evidence in a court of law. Haerdt (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Your Honor, we've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 07:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Affidavits are indeed evidence, tending to make some point of fact more or less likely to be true. But the existence of one or more affidavits is not, in and of itself, proof of any given fact until weighed in context and against any countervailing evidence.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That is enough to remove the disgusting spin from this article on Stop the Steal. If Wikipedia is trying to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a leftist tool of information control, then we should continue to censor this article. I like to think that since it is a free encyclopedia, it supports freedom in the world. Freedom of expression for all, which includes allowing others to freely express their opinions. Not censoring them. Haerdt (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a set of rules and basic epistemological tenets to which it adheres; Wikipedia is not censored, but neither is it a free speech platform which treats all views as equal. Does this mean Wikipedia is sometimes wrong?  Absolutely.  But for those of us who believe in it, I think we'd say it's the worst system except for all the other possibilities.  We reflect reliable sources here--and as far as I see it, they don't reflect your favored view.  Maybe you can convince me or others that they do.  Good luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My favored view is that of reality. Not some politicized media narrative. It takes some amount of effort to see through smoke and spin to that reality. Wikipedia also attempts to provide encyclopedic knowledge of reality. This is not rocket science. Haerdt (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Alas, some of us are woefully mistaken in what we believe to be reality. I try to remember that that person might be me.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

GOP Schism #restoreourgop
Not trying to provoke anything, just curious about this: I'm seeing a #restoreourgop being led by Anti-Trump members of the GOP. This movement is gaining noticeable traction in recent days, with Adam Kinzinger and Greg Howell making some noticeable statements that have reached national attention.

My question is: should this be investigated further and mentioned on this page, or be its own page? Feel free to disagree, but be civil. Pikazilla (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Certainly outside of the scope of this page, I'd say. Better suited on the GOP page. However, regardless of where it is, I think this is WP:TOOSOON to include anywhere: as far as I can see we just have some tweets and no establishment of notability. — Czello 15:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kinzinger is a member of Congress, but "Greg Howell" is just a guy with a Twitter account with 75 folowers. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The news article didn't clarify that information regarding Greg Howell. Thanks for pointing that out. Twitter is a confusing website to navigate also. Pikazilla (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

For those who are looking for more detail
Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election

Not looking good for a certain someone... 06:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:3CF7:A300:5017:BE4A (talk)


 * I don't see what relevance this has to the article; talk pages aren't a forum for general discussion. Builder018 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)