Talk:2020–21 United States election protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

MAGA march protests numbers

@BlackBird1008: sources differ in regard to the number of protesters, why not just keep the wording "thousands"? QuestFour (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@QuestFour: I understand that thousands works, but I’ve read unofficial estimates that close to 100k showed up and we have a RS that states tens of thousand. I’m hoping the parks service ultimately gives a number that we can use but until then, I think tens of thousand is a better representation of the scale of the event for readers. BlackBird1008 (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

here is another RS that says tens of thousands https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/trump-supporters-million-maga-march-dc BlackBird1008 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Payback for Russiagate?

Wish I had sources for this. But it's obvious, these protests (and Trump's refusal to concede) is payback for Russiagate. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, you don't get massive obstruction of justice with Biden over the alledged fraud. I have no idea whether Russiagate actually was a thing, but Trump acted like he was guilty as Heck with what he did against the investigations. It was like Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre tenfold. --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the word falsely before alleged in lead to conform with NPOV

The word falsely is unnecessary as this is a current event with ongoing litigation, keeping the word falsely would indicated that there is undisputed proof that his allegations are wrong, which is not the case. The Washington Post has a rundown of the allegations and the only time the word false is used is from a quote from a city clerk. I would like this to be discussed before editing because this is a contentious topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: the vast majority of reliable sources dismiss these claims as false, based on (among many other reasons) strong evidence of a lack of fraud from postal voting established across decades of scientific research. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC

I disagree, keeping the word falsely would violate WP:CRYSTALBALL as all of the current allegations, regardless of historical research or anyone’s opinion, are yet to be determined false by investigation or the courts. Some cases have been dismissed but not all. A better, more neutral writing of that entire paragraph would be:

The Trump campaign has challenged the legitimacy of the election results by demanding recounts and filing lawsuits, some already dismissed. He is alleging that mail voting is responsible for widespread electoral fraud and that election officials are conspiring to help Democrats, all unsupported by evidence. Trump has consistently refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

BlackBird1008 (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I restored the 'false' language removed by BlackBird1008 where appropriate; all of the referenced sources describe it as false so this is not exactly a matter of neutrality. 47.25.180.12 (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

All these sources have already clearly demonstrated their party position, therefore, they are obviously not neutral. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you list the sources you take issue with and demonstrated their unreliability, please? Keep in mind that neutrality and reliability are too different things: see WP:BIASED — Czello 11:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We can cite a biased RS (most are these days one way or the other) and still maintain neutrality. My problem with using the word "false" or saying "without evidence" is that the sources proclaiming them as false have done little investigative work to actually deem them false. Most of the time they are citing election officials who are inherently at the center of any allegation and unlikely to say anything that would put their job at risk. Some cite the JOINT STATEMENT FROM ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL & THE ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR COORDINATING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES (https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election) which only has 1 Trump appointee and the rest are elected officials from various states or industry leaders from companies like Hart InterCivic, Election Systems & Software, and Unisyn Voting Solution which would never admit a problem with their systems. They claim a lack of evidence while ignoring the hundreds of affidavits that are by definition, evidence. I do not see the problem with leaving out "false" and "without evidence" until all allegations have been investigated or settled in court so the article is truly are neutral. Just to be clear on my motives, I do not think Trump will succeed or prove widespread fraud, however, it’s not neutral to judge these allegations before all the facts come out. BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I dare to remind you that only the court has the power to decide whether a legal charge is true or false. Neither CNN, the Washington Post, nor Fox News have the authority to decide it. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly, there are far too many editors that fail to acknowledge this BlackBird1008 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't rely on editors' opinion of whether media sources are biased, we follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources guidance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Bias is fine, but when we write articles we should be removing pre-judgements like calling the allegations “false” or “without evidence”. They are neither true nor false at this point. BlackBird1008 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Differing numbers of arrests?

One thing that could use more expansion by those who understand it better is the sharply differing numbers of citations / arrests in the pro-Trump vs pro-Biden protests. My own knowledge pretty much ends at knowing that more than half of U.S. states have open-carry laws and that the right to free speech tends to go further in the U.S. than in just about any other western country ... so I really can't judge whether a given source is reporting things with a slant in this matter. Looking at this WP article, it seems both sides were involved in open weapons carrying, threats both verbal and otherwise, and outright violence, but only one side is getting arrested? This needs to be clarified. First, is this really is the case? (If so, are laws being broken unequally?) Second, are arrests on one side being reported more than those on the other? - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump suggests he green-lighted the Biden transition. GSA head Emily Murphy, other allies disagree

Trump tweets "recommending" Emily W. Murphy start the presidential transition process to Joe Biden

• Weber, Peter (24 November 2020), "Trump suggests he green-lighted the Biden transition. GSA head Emily Murphy, other allies disagree", The Week, retrieved 24 November 2020
• Kalmbacher, Colin (23 November 2020), "Trump and Emily Murphy Offer Dueling Reasons for GSA's Plan to Move Forward with Biden Transition", Law & Crime, Dan Abrams, retrieved 24 November 2020
• Chalfant, Morgan (23 November 2020), "Trump tells GSA that Biden transition can begin", The Hill, retrieved 24 November 2020
• Choi, Matthew (24 November 2020), "Trump relents as administration begins Biden transition - But the president, in announcing the move by the GSA, said he was still not conceding.", Politico, retrieved 24 November 2020

Suggested potential sources (and image) to update on the discrepancies between the US President "recommending" the GSA start the transition to the Biden Administration — vs. the GSA Administrator stating they did this without White House influence.

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This belongs in the 2020 United States presidential election article. There's nothing in this letter that talks about protests, much less protests in reaction to the elections. Flickotown (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Archive bot not working properly!

A number of posts have already been removed by the archive bot, but there's nothing to be found at the linked archive of User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:2020 United States election protests, i. e., that archive is empty.--2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. 24 hours later, it seems fixed now. --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:C9F0:3A80:23CC:E4E0 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, hello. The archive bot was archiving to an unusual location for some reason. The archive has now been move to where it should have been, so hopefully that resolves all errors. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden notifying him of her decision to "ascertain" U.S. federal resources for transition of Presidency of Donald Trump to Presidency of 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) 00:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the material as it belongs in the 2020 United States presidential election article. There's nothing in this letter that talks about protests, much less protests in reaction to the elections. Flickotown (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The letter and its existence clearly address issues that the protests are all about, namely the legitimacy of the Biden transition. Hence, the fact that the letter has been sent in this form is highly relevant to the protests. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2020

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

The result of the move request was: page not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 United States election protests → Domestic reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election – 1) The renamed article would allow it to better capture the burgeoning material that celebrates the outcome of the election (and others) 2) The renamed title is a more accurate representation of the fact that the reactions are over the presidential election and not, for example, the concurrent house or senate elections. 3) There is already an article that documents the international reactions to the 2020 Presidential election 4) The formulation/naming convention is consistent with the International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election article 5) The requested title was recommended by multiple editors in the unsuccessful requested move attempt above Flickotown (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC) — Flickotown (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support - per the five reasons BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Election protests are better facts than using "Domestic reactions". Reactions to elections are technically protests. Also, it should most likely not be moved to the domestic reactions title per WP:COMMONNAME. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. "Domestic Reactions" would also include other sources, such as government and media. - DG745 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per User:Seventyfiveyears and WP:Euphemism. Albertaont (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Protests and reactions are not synonymous. The latter includes social media comments, dancing in the streets, congratulatory comments by politicians, and the transition debate.Calmecac5 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my reasons last time. The improved grammar doesn't alter anything for me. — Czello 21:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Love of Corey (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above reasons BlackBird1008 (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I thought this discussion was archived, turns out it was a different archived. The current page only deals with protests, an article about the 2020 domestic reactions could and should be included, but renaming it to "domestic reactions" simply isn't right. Vallee01 (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral but I would strongly support the creation of an article on the domestic reactions whether this article remains separate or not. Charles Essie (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons stated above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

paragraph removal

I've removed the following paragraph

The Trump campaign has challenged the legitimacy of the election results by filing lawsuits, demanding recounts, falsely alleging that mail voting is responsible for widespread electoral fraud, and claiming, without any evidence, that election officials are conspiring to help Democrats. Trump has consistently refused to commit to a transfer of power.

References

It is problematic for two reasons. The first is that it is redundant because the nature and prominence of the content is already included in and ipso facto given by its position in the infobox under the causes section. The problem is that there seems to have been edit warring over the wording of the cause that's relates to Trump (it says claim when it can and should be stated in wikivoice instead) so while I've corrected for that, further enforcement would probably be needed. The second is that it violates WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as the material relies on sources which do not mention the subject matter of this article. This will change once my request move above is successful (which I am projecting that it will) but until then the paragraph has to go. Flickotown (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC) — Flickotown (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I see you have the same problem and here i was thinking it was just me...

Go for it. BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The given sources are just several of hundreds that could be used, but it is not appropriate to cite a larger number inline. Per WP:FRINGE, it is important to provide factual context to articles about subjects which promote falsehoods or minority views (e.g. many protesters are supporting Trump's false claims and conspiracy theories). This does not violate WP:SYNTH (and I'm afraid I don't understand how one could cite WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:INDISCRIMINATE here, as the content is (a) not about an event in the future and (b) covered by reliable sources). In this way, we must have an introductory paragraph establishing the view that reflects wider consensus at Donald Trump and 2020 United States presidential election (among others) that Trump's claims of winning the election and of widespread electoral fraud are, respectively, false and false again. — Bilorv (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point isn't that context matters it's that the contextual information has to matter in the proper way. In this particular case it means that the information has to use sources which directly mention the subject matter of this article; if it doesn't then the material constitutes a WP:SYNTH violation. (this also explains the nested violation by the material of WP:CRYSTALBALL because the vast majority of the sources that it uses were written before the election date) As it pertains to WP:FRINGE, the encyclopedia makes it explicitly clear that WP:SYNTH takes precedence to WP:FRINGE where there is an inconsistency between the two.

As therre has now been at least four editors (me, BCEVERYWHERE, BlackBird1008 and RopeTricks) who object either in part or in whole to the above material that you wish to keep, the consensus is now firmly against you. I understand the controversial nature of the material and I also understand the latter two editors who I notified have yet to participate in this discussion, so I will give it some time (a day or two) to see if they or anybody else have any comments they wish to make. But if things stay as they do now, I will at the end of the grace period be removing the above material and I will ask that you do not revert it. Flickotown (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

this is my suggestion for a compromise paragraph that’s sticks to the undisputed fact

The Trump campaign has challenged the legitimacy of the election results by demanding recounts and filing lawsuits, some already dismissed. He is alleging that mail voting is responsible for widespread electoral fraud and that election officials are conspiring to help Democrats. As of November 15th, 2020 he has yet to publicly commit to a peaceful transfer of power. (Sources would have to be added in)

I believe this is relevant to the article, however, to say the allegation are false is in dispute (regardless of RS coverage) and to say without evidence is in dispute because there is a supposed whistleblower on dominion and they supposedly have 100’s of affidavits stating fraud occurred. Until these cases are investigated and run through the courts, it is not factually accurate to use words like false and without evidence. Doing so would violate WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NPOV. All I aim to do is to make sure these articles stick to the settled facts because there are two very different viewpoints when it comes to this election.

Furthermore I’d be fine with the paragraph being removed all together because it does not change the nature of the article and it will be a constant attractant to edit warring. BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

SupportBlackBird1008 paragraph above works well. Albertaont (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph per the consensus above Flickotown (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC) — Flickotown (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• your explanation looks fine as does the explanation by BlackBird1008. I'd support its deletion.Suppressor5000 (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm in my own edit war with this now as well as the paragraph is still entered into the page, even after being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoli342 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Because of all of these splintered discussions. Multiple sections after this one have comments opposing the removal of the information and now there is edit warring involved. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

'Oppose removal' - It should have been already been clear by the discussions below that there was opposition to this, so I will join my opinion with those opposed given the contentious editing. From my viewpoint, the paragraph explains why the protests are occurring in the US. At present, the infobox contains the only background as to why the protests are occurring. It does not help that the proposal was made in part due to a separate move request. Nor does it seem that the claimed policy violations are occurring, especially when the issues here have been discussed on Talk:2020 United States presidential election in various forms; we report what reliable sources say despite the comments made by the President, thus we say that the claims are false when reliable sources said so. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Your response indicates you didn't read the discussion above so I will reiterate what was said. Your response is problematic for two reasons. The first is that the paragraph is redundant because the nature and prominence of the content is already included in and ipso facto given by its position in the infobox under the causes section - both items explicate the background reasons (or causes if that's the word you prefer) for the protests. The second is that the paragraph violates WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as the material relies on sources which do not mention the subject matter of this article. The point isn't about using reliable sources it's about using reliable sources in the proper way. In this particular case it means that what is in the sources has to directly mention the subject matter of this article; if it doesn't then the information in the article that uses those sources constitute a WP:SYNTH violation. (this also explains the nested violation by the material of WP:CRYSTALBALL because the vast majority of the sources that the paragraph uses were written before the election date) Flickotown (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: Sorry, I didn't see this until now. I did read it, which is why I said Nor does it seem that the claimed policy violations are occurring. Bilorv's reply to you and your comment that the material would be restored to the article "when" the article was moved to a new location was the reason I said that. It does not make sense how the move request would deal with any supposed policy issues, especially given that the paragraph in question is giving background to why the protests are taking place.

To keep it short, calling the claims false is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL nor WP:NPOV as we are summarizing what reliable sources are currently saying. (This conversation has repeatedly taken place on the talk page for the presidential election with regards to the use of "falsely", which is why I linked it in a prior comment.) It isn't a problem that we use sources from before the protests as the paragraph is giving background to why they are taking place. You have not explained the WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue in any of your responses. The WP:SYNTH claims ignore the fact that the paragraph is only giving background to the events and ignore that it is about combining facts to make a false conclusion. The main sentence of the paragraph is about Trump's actions (which are documented) and that he is doing so without proof (which is documented).

I feel that if this continues, it would be better to take this issue to a noticeboard or hold an RfC rather than endless debate. Regardless, if you would like a more detailed response going over the issues, I will provide it as I disagree that the paragraph actually has the issues you listed. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: the participants in this discussion are mostly socks of the same person, including the one you pinged—see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton/Archive. — Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the message and for the link. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The complete removal of sections.

This article is now suffering from a cutting down on information, sometimes removing entire sections. Please discuss on talk page before making such changes. You're removal of sources that are directly state both the protests are against Trump and Biden. I do see some serious issue with the article however the article should not be turned into a stub, please notify before the removal of massive sections. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The information had to be cut down because it was all bloat. I gave specific reasons in my removal of the anti-trump and anti-biden section (which sources directly state that both the protests are against Trump and Biden?) and if there is anything about that which you object to, then the WP:BURDEN is on you to explain why. Flickotown (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC) — Flickotown (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: I have to agree with @Vallee01:, the article seemed to be going fine. I understand bad citations or irrelevant info but arbitrarily removing content does not seem like the right move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The content either isn't notable (as was already explained here) or is already covered in other articles (Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump)

Flickotown I see you're currently posting extremely bold changes. Welcome, if you are going to you removed more than half of the entire article, please discuss first, or try to verify it, you removed a large amount of correct information, you also removed the dates that is needed. However no where did you state you're reasons for removing the information, no where on the talk did you state why you are doing this. If you are going to remove more than half the article, please think over it more, be bold but do not be reckless. The article gave in depth information that you removed, and the article previously provided valuable information that was removed. Vallee01 (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The content either isn't notable (as was already explained here) or is already covered in other articles (Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump)

@Vallee01: I have undid the revision. @QuestFour: should join the discussion as they reinstated the revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This was WP:TE. Please obtain consensus before blanking a very important article next time. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Then provide the evidence that it was tendentious editing. Also, please stick to using either this IP account or your Albertaont one instead of vacillating between the two. I don't know why you are doing that but it's very obvious to see that you are the same person and the last thing anybody needs on this joke of an article is meat-puppetry. Flickotown (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Main articles and notability

The vast majority of the content in this article either isn't notable (as was already explained here) or is already covered in other articles (Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump). As such I've made changes to the smaller issues while holding off on the bigger ones, particularly as they've already attracted some edit warring. I will give the discussions over the latter isues some time to develop (a day or two) to see if anybody has any comments they wish to make but if things stay as they do now, I will at the end of the grace period be removing the associated material from the article.Flickotown (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) — Flickotown (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

For clarity's sake this is what I wrote about notability: we need a criteria to establish the notability of events as it's clear that the article is turning (degenerating) into a directory of trivial events. We really don't need to know of every single pro or anti Trump rally there's been, the vast majority of which have been peaceful (on both sides) and which we will never be able to adequately document in this article anyway. As it relates to protests, I would argue per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT and WP:BLOATED that in order for a protest event to be notable enough for inclusion in this article, it has to: 1) be in direct reaction to the election; 2) involve an arrest or death, 3) be held at a place of political importance or 4) rely on a non-local news outlet. I would also argue that the whole article should be re-written in paragraph/prose as opposed to list form per MOS:LISTBULLET and WP:PROCON, and that the proportionality of the coverage of the events in the article should be conditioned by the criteria I just gave. Until and unless anybody has any comments to make with regards to this, I will be implementing these changes shortly. Flickotown (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Flickotown, you were asked by several other editors to discuss drastic edits before conducting them. Is there a reason why you were in such a hurry to remove content that you couldn't wait for a response? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Liz There's a couple reasons why: 1) The changes I made weren't drastic (removing irrelevant material like this and this isn't drastic, it's entirely appropriate). I clearly said I'd hold off on making the bigger (or drastic) changes 2) I have already laid out my rationale for my edits at length in the discussions above; 3) i was being bold. If there is anybody who takes issues with my edits, they are more than welcome to discuss it with me here. Flickotown (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: Your wholesale deletions of text with citations to reliable sources has reverted much useful information that other editors have added. This article was not too long before you removed the text. Further, your deletions have removed text to which other articles link.

Your deletions are therefore unjustified. They are little more than vandalism. I suggest that you immediately restore the deleted text in its entirety. I further suggest that you read Bold#Be careful before you make any more large deletions to WP articles. Corker1 (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: I completely agree with @Corker1:, I’m not understanding the reason you are trying to destroy this article. Removing uncited content is one thing but what I’ve seen you doing here is vandalism and based on your contributions, you have a history of "cutting bloat" in articles. This article has turned out to be an informative article that list all the notable protest around the country and adds content that would not be reasonable to add to the main election article. If you don’t like the content, then let’s have specific discussions on specific parts of the article that you take issue with. BlackBird1008 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You two didn't read what i said in my beginning comment so I will say it again. The vast majority of the content in this article either belongs to pre-existing articles (Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump) or just isn't notable at all(as was already explained here.) While we can debate the notability/notability criterion of the material what isn't up for debate is the redundancy of the material and the need to cut down on that. One of the pre existing articles (Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump) is itself a stub and needs more material added to it. I've gone ahead with the moving the material to the respective pages. Flickotown (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

In accordance with the above consensus, I have reverted the edits that Flickotown made. When doing this, I restored as many subsequent edits that I was able to do. Corker1 (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I've partially reverted your revert (the fact that I didn't do a blanket revert is compromise on my part) There was no consensus for your reverts, particularly the one where you restored the disputed text in the "paragraph removal" section. Make your case here before doing that again. Flickotown (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: There is a clear consensus to revert your wholesale deletions of text that contain citations to reliable sources. Nevertheless, you have restored some of your deletions without providing justifications for each restoration. I have therefore needed to revert them again. I have not reverted the deletions that you justified.

To prevent edit wars and to save time for all concerned, please provide a justification for each deletion of text that you choose to make in the future in this and other WP articles. Corker1 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Your comments provide a distorted explanation of your actions. You say you did not revert the deletions that I justified, but you restored this paragraph even though I justified its removal according to the outcome/consensus from the "paragraph removal" section of this talk page to remove it. You have also not addressed my argument that there is a need to eliminate the redundancy of the material because we now have a situation where the material in the pro and anti-trump sections is now duplicated in the Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump articles. (see the similar argument that I made in the "removing the ongoing protest material from the article" section below. What you are doing right now is WP:STONEWALLING and this can't go indefinitely. You need to actually address the arguments I am making instead of just making these vague references to "consensus", "vandalism" and "edit warring" either in this section or the "paragraph removal" one. I'll give this discussion a few days to develop but if things stay as they do now, then the material will at the end of the grace period have to go. Flickotown (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: You stated that I restored this paragraph even though you had justified its removal according to the outcome/consensus from the "paragraph removal" section of this talk page to remove it. As I restored the paragraph in accordance with a consensus, I do not understand your statement.

You stated there is a need to eliminate redundancy. I therefore suggest that you eliminate each redundancy while retaining everything within the relevant sections that is not redundant, while providing a justification for your edit. Corker1 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No the outcome arrived at in the "paragraph removal" section was to remove that paragraph - in addition to the actual consensus arrived at, it ended with my comment to remove the paragraph which nobody has objected to. If you want to overturn that, then the WP:BURDEN is on you to do so. In regards to your suggestion that I eliminate the redundant material, that is what I did ([1] and [2]) but the problem was that it got restored. I cannot tell if you are deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying or not, but whatever it is, this state of affairs can't go on indefinitely. As I said, we now have a situation where the material in the pro and anti-trump sections is now duplicated in the Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump articles and something needs to be done about this. I'll give this discussion a few days to develop but if things stay as they do now, then the material will have to go. Flickotown (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Trump and anti-Biden

The sources in the section do not support the material in the paragraph which states that the protests were both anti trump and anti biden. The sources has to individually directly mention the fact that the protests were both anti trump and anti biden; the sources cannot be considered collectively to prove that because that would then constitute a WP:SYNTH violation. As the changes to this section has already attracted some edit warring I will give the discussions over them some time to develop (a day or two) to see if anybody has any comments they wish to make but if things stay as they do now, I will at the end of the grace period be removing the associated material from the article. Flickotown (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC) — Flickotown (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: we can dive into this because this is true, however, from what I can see, the counter-protest are mentioned when both sides are present. I don’t think major edits are warranted because nearly every protest draws a counter-protest. I always go by who was there first in deciding which side gets the protest called in their name.

This isn't hard to understand because WP:SYNTH is clear on this. If the individual source doesn't say that the protests are both anti trump and anti biden, then that source can't be used to support any material that falls under this section; to do so otherwise would constitute a WP:SYNTH violation. As the changes to this section has already attracted some edit warring I'll give you or anybody else a day or two to see if you can find the appropriate sources but if things stay as they do now, I will at the end of the grace period be removing the relevant material from the article. Flickotown (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

As some time has elapsed and nobody has responded to my last comment, I've removed this section. Flickotown (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it's somewhat related I'll post it here: are "pro-Trump" and "anti-Trump" the best way to describe these? —PaleoNeonate – 08:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes as that's what the sources say. To do otherwise would produce material that violates WP:SYNTH Flickotown (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

removing the ongoing protest material from the article

Given the lack of protests, lack of media coverage of the protests and recent political developments it isn't appropriate anymore to include the "ongoing protests" category and template in this article and I will as such be removing the associated material if I don't see any comments on this within the next day or two. Flickotown (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Flickotown (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Flickotown, you cannot just remove the content of the article and then make a talk page section saying that you will remove the (already removed) material if there are no comments left on the talk page. You need to have some consensus on a contentious article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You seriously misunderstand what I wrote. When I said to remove the ongoing protest material, i was explicitly referring to removing the "ongoing protests" category and template. I wasn't referring to all the other stufff that you restored. Now as for the material that you did restore, I've partially reverted some of that based on the outcomes of he other threads on this talk page and am willing to discuss this issue with you further, but the discussion process cannot continue indefinitely - the majority of the content that you reverted really does have to go now because we now have a situation where the material in the pro and anti-trump sections is now duplicated in the Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump articles. Flickotown (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand what you mean. Though, personally, I am not convinced that the protests have fully concluded given this one that occurred just two days prior to this thread. (There are other examples, like this article from the 21st, along with a protest that occurred on the 26th and one planned for the 28th.

Regarding the rest, I do not see exactly where I could agree that you reached a consensus. The closest was the section titled 'paragraph removal', where two users agree with you, making three. (You mentioned a user agreed, but they did not participate, and you clim to have talked to two other users, but I do not see where that happened.) Additionally, there was two users (one of them being a user who agreed with you) who supported an alternative suggestion and one user who opposed the removal. (There were policy discussions, but they are somewhat murky and unclear. I am most confused by why sources before the Election cannot be used as sources, since those sources were in the lede and seemed to be describing the background of the protests.) Then there is a few splinter discussions: a request regarding removing a word in the paragraph that was opposed, a request regarding the removal of sections on the article where most users opposed removal, a discussion about removing sections (which for some reason has a 24-48 hour time limit to oppose?), another discussion an hour later about removing a section, and finally this section about removing a template and category. It seems like there are too many sections regarding removing or not removing the same or similar content, along with some sections having a time limit to respond.

Personally, I believe that it needs to be made clearer what specific content should be removed and the reasons why need to be a bit clearer. Additionally, a discussion that is not in the archives or is closed can still be commented on. Saying that there is a short window of time to respond does not give editors a chance to respond as not all editors check Wikipedia each day. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

To summarize Super Goku V's rather convincing analysis: Flickotown seems to manufacture "consent" by means of:

• inventing invisible unicorn users to "agree" with him,
• deliberately misinterpreting suggestions for alternative phrasings as "consent" for absolute removal without replacement,
• and interpreting it as "consent" when people don't respond to him on this talkpage within two minutes.

All in the face of absolute majorities of a number of different people telling him repeatedly he's clearly in the wrong, and yet he keeps offending whenever he thinks nobody's looking. To add to the above, edit warring charges have now been pressed against him by yet another user who is a priorly uninvolved mere observer on this talkpage calling him out. It may be of interest to point out that he has been blocked for this kind of behavior before. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and not the editors, bringing people’s block history up like that is inappropriate and serves not legitimate purpose. You should probably also read WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Not only did he start the behavior of pointing at people's block lists, in his case it helps to point out a persisent pattern of disruptive behavior ever since the very first weeks he got onto Wikipedia, a kind of behavior on his behalf which has also been analyzed in more detail by Super Goku V above. Flickotown has been told by maybe a two-digit amount of people that he's causing nothing but trouble with his persistent edit wars on this here article and talkpage alone, and yet he claims "consensus" with invisible people. There's a line when somebody should be told their behavior has persistently been so unhelpful and disruptive, to say the least, that it would be better if they would simply cease and desist and leave this article alone. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no line that makes off topic discussion of this sort of thing appropriate on a talk page, if you really believe the things you’re saying make a report on an admin page. Again, please comment on content not editors. While they disagree Flickotown and Super Goku V are handling that disagreement with respect and civility. There does appear to be a valid question as to whether or not “ongoing” is still warranted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We did report his constant edit-warring against consensus here that has been persisting for weeks and against something like a two-digit amount of people. Result: An admin kindly asked him only "not to personalize things" in a totally different place than here, even though that wasn't what the entire report was all about. It also occurs to me the deciding admin didn't even know it was about this article and talkpage here, as in their decision, they were linking to an entirely different battlefield that he has left behind and that I hadn't even known about. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just stop, your vendetta is getting disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A two-digit amount of people in agreement with each other is constantly forced to protect this article against edit-warring without consent for weeks now. And you're saying that trying to enforce consensus after all other means have failed would be the problem here? --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Please discuss content not editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We did. For weeks. It didn't help. It didn't help one bit. The issue kept coming back, against consensus. It's no use talking about content when it's being ignored or stuff that has been settled in mutual consent is treated as if the consent would be entirely different from what it's perceived to be by the large majority. This is not about content, it's about behavior. And if you think that's wrong, that it's wrong to talk about behavior, it sounds like you're trying to disown a large part of Wikipedia procedures and precedence that have been put in place for exactly this phenomenon. I haven't exactly counted as I don't edit the article and I never have, but I think we're long past 3RR. We're more at something like 50RR, even if it keeps happening to different parts of the article. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Weeks? You’ve only been on this IP for two days, what other IPs have you been editing under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have a dynamic IP (I think it's the law over here or something that our ISPs keep taking care of here in Germany, and I keep commuting between different computers a few kilometers from each other). My first edit on this talkpage has been this one: [3]. Granted, I've stayed a bit in the back on this one particular issue we're talking about right now, so it may be a bit preposterous to speak of "we", but I did observe this one issue unfold again and again on this talkpage where a changing variety of users kept stepping up on the issue, and I didn't like what I saw.

Tonight, I felt enough was enough, summarized Super Goku V's rather excellent analysis above in case his would be too much tl;dr for other people coming fresh and new onto this talkpage, and participated in the RR report filed on this issue here on this talkpage started by somebody else who as far as I can see has never participated on this talkpage even just once, but seems to know Flickotown from somewhere else, and when he came here and saw this talkpage, he filed his report that I then commented on. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D: You misunderstood what I meant when you said, inventing invisible unicorn users to "agree" with him. When an issue goes to the talk page, editors need to participate in the discussion. Without checking, I believe that Flickotown credited a user who continued editing, but didn't respond on the talk page as being part of the consensus, which isn't correct as the editor did not participate in the discussion. (Additionally, I was pointing out that Flickotown's contributions do not show talking to any user, not that they were users he didn't talk to in some form.) Additionally, I do not support the use of "deliberately" in deliberately misinterpreting suggestions for alternative phrasings as "consent" for absolute removal without replacement. It is possible that Flickotown accidently misunderstood Albertaont's comment supporting BlackBird1008's suggestion and that Flickotown might not have been aware of it until now. I also do not know if Flickotown is aware that discussions are generally active on a talk page until archived or closed since some editors are daily users while others are closer to twice weekly. Users do come across discussions that interest them and can revive a discussion and bring their viewpoint to the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: I forgot to mention something and am adding it here. You mentioned that we needed to take action immediately because information is currently located on two different articles. Currently, the only issues I see would be under the Copying within Wikipedia (WP:CWW) and Section move (WP:SECMOVE) policies. I believe the content from here being placed at the two other articles fell within WP:CWW as you did give attribution in your edit summary. However, if we were to remove the content here, then if feels to me that it ends up being a Bold WP:SECMOVE done on different days, which might be a problem if we do not follow Steps 5 and 6 on WP:SECMOVE. If your concern is having each section kept up to date, we could move the information to two templates with attribution and link the template to this and the other articles. That way, we just edit the templates to update the articles. (Granted, I am not fully a fan of that, but it is a possible idea and I am okay with it if done.) Regardless, do you have a preference? --Super Goku V (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: There's a few things that are going on here so it's best to disaggregate them one by one.

1: Perhaps this is due to my ignorance of the technical issues so feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see why this has to be so complicated. We just migrate all the material in the pro and anti-Trump material in this article to the respective Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump articles, and if somebody wants to keep those article up to date, they can just go to those articles and edit them directly. Right now we have a misalignment where new information is included in the pro and anti-Trump sections of this article but not in the other (respective) ones (and vice-versa).

2: Consensus was arrived at in the "paragraph removal" section to remove the paragraph in question - in addition to the actual consensus arrived at, the section ended with my comment to remove the paragraph which nobody has objected to. If you want to overturn that, then the WP:BURDEN is on you to do so.

3: I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any media coverage of the protests over the past week and a half now. In light of that and the continuing political transition process, I don't think it is appropriate anymore to include the "ongoing protests" category and template in this article. Flickotown (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

For the first issue, there is an attribution issue along with the problem of consensus. You attempted a Bold WP:SECMOVE and were reverted. Thus, there are two sections with the same info. Removing it here means that Step 5 of WP:SECMOVE was not fulfilled. ({Tq|If the consensus was to move the content, then you can do so.}} There is also attribution, which has been acceptable so far, but you should use Template:Copied on the talk page of the other articles, providing you get consensus to do so.

For the second issue, I already explained the issues with how you arrived at getting consensus at the "paragraph removal" section earlier: You counted users who did not participate on the talk page and also ignored the alternative suggestion by counting those users as giving you consensus. Additionally, there was opposition to your changes in the various splinter discussions. Restoring your edits against opposition isn't recommended.

For the third issue: Nashville on the 21st, Washington DC on the 21st, New Mexico on the 21st, Salem, Oregon on the 22nd, Lansing on the 23rd (WWMT, Lansing State Journal, WLIX), Atlanta on the 23rd, Raleigh, North Carolina on the 29th, Arizona on the 30th (Arizona Daily Star, The Arizona Republic), and Georgia on the 2nd (Yahoo, AL, USA Today). I believe that is significant media coverage in the past few weeks. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

1: So that's why I'm asking for your opinion on this. I'm asking you whether you think it should be removed or not as part of the consensus building process. I'm not asking for your description of what happened.

2: Again, I'm asking for your opinion on this. I'm asking whether you think that paragraph should be removed or not as part of the consensus building process, not your description of what happened. In addition to the preponderance of users who support its removal (5: me, BCEVERYWHERE, Blackbird1008, Suppressor5000 and Nicoli342) the editors who don't haven't been responding to the criticism of their arguments, so attempts to keep the paragraph in light of that would be stonewalling. Flickotown (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose section move Removal of relevant content about the election protests by placing them into unrelated articles. The pro-and anti-trump protests are clearly related (i.e. through the elections) and there is no reason to obfuscate them. Albertaont (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Albertaont: I am not requesting the removal of such content. I believe you intended to post in the #paragraph removal section. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This comment doesn't even make any sense because there's already another article (a master one) that links the protests together Flickotown (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It may, but the merge request did not pass so this article should be a standalone article related to the other articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I asked you whether the material in this article should migrated to the Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump articles. The outcome of that merge request (into the 2020 United States presidential election article) is irrelevant to what I am asking you here - different articles, different merge considerations Flickotown (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have restored this content again, there needs to be a very clear and concise consensus to remove it. I don't see that here. Praxidicae (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I see a comment in main page history that there are 5 people claiming to "supporting consensus", I don't see it here. But if someone wants to list the support, might move the discussion along. Albertaont (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that here. yes of course you won't when you are looking in the wrong section. He said to look in this section - you know, the one that you MUST have noticed because that section is above this one. (here is his edit summary which makes the instruction plain [4]) BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is absurd, not a single person who has removed the content has given a reason why nor has there been anything remotely close to consensus. Praxidicae (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus. The 5 to 1 is pure fiction and we all know it. Nicoli342 is a sock that was banned in under 24 hours, Suppressor5000 is a user that signed up to do one post on a talk page. BlackBird1008 proposed a very reasonable compromise paragraph which I supported, so that makes the count 3 to 2. Unless there is further "analysis" that is where consensus stands. Albertaont (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion that an editor's vote should not count because they've been banned (not for sockpuppetry, but for disruptive editing) or because they've made just one post is, frankly speaking, absurd. Flickotown (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears no one cares about this article or the removal of well sourced content without any basis in policy or guidelines, so I give up. The insinuation that there isn't widespread media coverage of this is absolutely absurd and untrue, as evidenced by the, I don't know, reliable sources that have since been removed.Praxidicae (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this "consensus" clearly doesn't exist given what Albertaont has said above. It sounds like we have at least three people who think the content should remain: Albertaont, Praxidicae, and myself. I think it should definitely be re-added. — Czello 08:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I did mention my confusion on the paragraph's removal earlier, but I will formally say that I believe the content should be restored to the article for the reasons I discussed in the 'paragraph removal' section, the most important being that we report what reliable sources report. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

merging information in the pro and anti trump sections into the "Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump" and "Protests against Donald Trump" articles

Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Protests against Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

added by --David Tornheim (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be done, not only to resolve the redundancy issues (the material in the pro and anti-trump sections is now duplicated in the Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump articles) but also logistical ones as new information is included in the pro and anti-Trump sections of this article but not in the other (respective) ones (and vice-versa). If editors wants to keep readers abreast of the latest developments of the protests, they can go directly to those articles and edit them there. Flickotown (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC) — Flickotown (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Flickotown, since you have made another section, I will quote myself from a prior section with formatting modifications. For the first issue, there is an attribution issue along with the problem of consensus. You attempted a Bold WP:SECMOVE and were reverted. Thus, there are two sections with the same info. Removing it here means that Step 5 of WP:SECMOVE was not fulfilled. "If the consensus was to move the content, then you can do so." There is also attribution, which has been acceptable so far, but you should use Template:Copied on the talk page of the other articles, providing you get consensus to do so. Since you do not have consensus to do so, this does not need to be done. If you believe that something must be done, then you will need to request the change. At present, there is opposition to your attempt without discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I made this section because the preceding section in which this issue was discussed got lumped in with a ream of other issues.

As I said to you there, so I will say again to you here because you didn't address what I said to you there: so that's why I'm asking for your opinion on this. I'm asking you whether you think it should be removed or not as part of the consensus building process. I'm not asking for your description of what happened. Flickotown (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally believe I addressed it already as noted by my quote above. If not, then it should be made clear when I said that you do not have consensus right now to make the changes you want so nothing should be changed right now. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not asking for what you think the consensus is. I am asking you to respond to my specific arguments about redundancy and the logistical issues. It's not hard to understand. If you don't have a response to my arguments, then just say you don't have a response to it and I'll take your silence as consensus. There's no use to continue stonewalling like this Flickotown (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

First things first, feel free to ping me if you respond after a few days since it looked like this discussion got derailed by the one below. Second, I am replying to you, so please do not claim my "silence as consensus" from this point forward. I do not check Wikipedia every day and do not want anyone to imply anything from not doing something. (I apologize if that sounds harsh, but I cannot think of a better way to put this.)

Since you do not seem to like what I have been saying in my replies, I will break down your comments and do my best to respond to them. In the beginning, you mention that we must merge the content from this article into the two articles mentioned in the section header. The problem is that it is not necessary to merge the content and that another option exists; to keep the content in all three articles and update them as needed. (Additionally, the only reason there is this is because you attempted to boldly move the content. When it was reverted, the next step was to attempt to gain a consensus, but your comments referencing WP:STONEWALL make it seem like you think you have that.)

The first reason you say that you want a merge is that there is redundant information. Having the same or similar content appear on more that one article isn't really a problem by itself as a subject can be the focus of more than one article. (2000 United States presidential election, 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida, and Bush v. Gore would be one example, especially regarding how the proposed recounts would have changed the results and by how much.)

As for the logistical issues, there are ways to not require a merge. If you wish, there are two ways to make it work out without needed to edit two or more articles when something happens. Given your comment of If editors wants to keep readers abreast of the latest developments of the protests, they can go directly to those articles and edit them there., the one I would recommend would be Selective transclusion. This would make it so that the content on this article would appear on those articles as an exact match. Editing would need to only occur on one page for it to be reflected on the others. Template:Transcluded section would also make it easier for users to understand, among other benefits. The other solution I have would be to convert the sections on the other articles into prose to summarize the content and better match their articles given that the neither of the other two articles uses a timeline format. (A template like Template:Main article could be used to point here for more details.) Both of these are solutions that do not require a merge to occur. (Additionally, if such a merge were to occur, this article would have no content at all.)

I hope that this is sufficient. Additionally, if you wish to, please let me know if you would prefer using the Selective transclusions or Prose options as I would be willing to help. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC) (Comment was altered on 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC) for a formatting error)

@Super Goku V: Flickotown has been blocked as a sock of Waskerton. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I am now upset and annoyed that I wasted my time responding to the user, but I guess there is nothing to be done about that. Thank you for the notice. (I think I need a break after this.) --Super Goku V (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I just became aware of the articles and the large disparity in size between the pro- and anti-Trump protests. It's possible there is such a disparity in coverage, but I'm skeptical of that. Regardless, I would like to know if this issue of possibly merging the two articles has been discussed before, and if so, please provide links. There's no point in rehashing something that has already been discussed at length and possibly decided on by a large number of editors.

Also, the title of this section could and probably should be shortened. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to be skeptical of anything because there is no disparity in coverage when they are covering the same thing. People just aren't reading what's been written - either that or people are just getting too partisan about it, thinking if you merge say the pro-trump section into the corresponding Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump main article, then yu are somehow trying to downplay the notability of the pro-Trump protests. (which is complete garbage reasoning - I am saying there should be a merge for both the pro and anti-trump sections) The merge was somewhat discussed in the section right above this one ("removing the ongoing protest material from the article") before getting completely derailed concerning a totally separate issue. Flickotown (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The disparity is because there has not been many reason for pro-Trump supporters to protest until now due to their candidate losing. The coverage makes sense. (There have been a few times I have read a source for the current protests where there was a small counter-protest for the other side, but the size usually causes it to not be includable.) There was a merge request to 2020 United States presidential election, but it ended with a consensus not to merge. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of the editors supporting Flickotown's removal of content were sockpuppets of the same account (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton/Archive). I think we should consider any decisions arising out of discussions he initiated to be suspect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know and I agree with that. Right now, I am considering taking a break from this, but I do plan on coming back to this. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Protests against Joe Biden merge discussion

There is a merge discussion at Talk:Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump that is relevant to this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Note - Mentioned on Portal:Current events

Just for the article's history

• Note - Article was mentioned in the Portal:Current events on January 5, 2020; Portal:Current events/2021 January 5.
• Note - Article was mentioned in the Portal:Current events on January 6, 2020; Portal:Current events/2021 January 6. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021 Donald Trump rally

I've created a stub for January 2021 Donald Trump rally. I think the crowd size and the storming of the Capitol make this demonstration notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's always hard to know in the moment which events will have enduring notability, but I suppose it will become clearer over the next day or so. Thanks for the notice! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You're going to need a lot more detail and better references if this is going to survive more than a few days. "Storming of the Capitol"? You don't mention that in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, SOFIXIT! Article improvements welcome. I agree, hard to tell notability in the moment, but what we're witnessing is unprecedented (like so many things lately). The storming of the capitol should be mentioned, of course. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't yet bought into the idea that this deserves a separate article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, No prob, not required. :) I'm confident the article will be expanded and kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the article is rapidly expanding as the situation deteriorates, and probably will prove to deserve an article. Another title might need to be chosen but that's for later. Meanwhile I have been adding some information about the situation to this 2020–2021 United States election protests article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN, Thanks! I think definitely a notable event, but I agree a page move/retitle may be in order. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the title has been changed to January 2021 United States Capitol protests, an improvement in my mind. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm sorry, but this infobox is ridiculous. Are we seriously saying that there is a civil conflict here that resembles a civil war in which a group, BLM, that protests police violence, is an opponent of, I don't know, the Federal government, the very government they seek to reform? And this is a "conflict" in which we can say, without any hint of subtlety or recognition of variety, that the Republican Party is opposed to the Democratic Party? Where does that leave Mitt Romney? And do really I find "anti-government groups" on the same "side" as the Federal government? What kind of sense does that make? No, this is done in prose in the article: there is no way in which an entire season of protests can be simplified into this kind of schematic. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Update: while I was removing these crazy entries, I saw there is more: now there is a list of "Lead figures" in which, I suppose, someone made Mike Pence switch sides this afternoon? And why is Bill Barr still on the left side, on the Trump side, when he refused to do Trump's bidding? That short list of names needs to go too. (Update: now Loeffler would need to be moved to the other side too? No--this kind of simplification just cannot stand.) Drmies (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Some of the infobox was getting cluttered, but I think we could do something like Mike Pence (until Jan 6), Bill Barr (until Dec 23). They were prominent supporters of the Trump administration who were fueling the protests by questioning legitimacy of the elections. Albertaont (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Albertaont, I appreciate your note, but the truth is simple: this is not a "civil conflict" in the simple sense of a civil war. There is no clear division of sides with clear parties, and the infobox misrepresents the situation. Adding dates to shifting positions makes the infobox even worse. BTW, I just reverted User:Arandomguy12345 again--they didn't even have the decency to seek the talk page. Editors with so little experience writing this encyclopedia should be much more careful. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Drmies, I understand what you are saying. And yes I agree, it's not a civil war per se. However, this has been described as an attempted coup d'etat or attempt to overthrow the government. People were storming the Capitol Building for the first time since 1814 for God's sake! I'd like to redirect you to the Beer Hall Putsch, which, in my opinion, is the most similar historical event to this. Hitler and the Nazi Party attempted to overthrow the democratic Weimar Republic and ultimately failed. What I'm trying to say is that this was a deliberate attempt to overthrow the government, and it deserves an infobox. If these were simple protests, then they wouldn't need an infobox. But this was an attempted coup which needed police forces from multiple states to put down. Arandomguy12345 (talk), 7 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Arandomguy12345, I can support this version of it. It removes the offending people per Drmies request. As to the civil conflict infobox, it was used for protests in Hong Kong, Thailand, Belarus, Russia, Indonesia, George Floyd, American Racial Unrest, and many others that are ITN. The election protests are of a similar scope and scale. Albertaont (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Albertaont, Thanks. I think we should leave this as is. (talk), 7 January 2021 (UTC)
            • "this was a deliberate attempt to overthrow the government"--seriously, Arandomguy12345, this just underscores how ridiculous this set-up is. If they were trying to overthrow the government (and yes, I've heard talking heads say that on TV, but for now we're talking about a damn mob, including a dude in a bison suit), well, isn't the president the head of the government? Were they trying to overthrow him as well? And why is the FBI listed but not verified? And WTF is BLM doing in there? And please explain how the Democratic party is a "party" in this supposed "conflict" when all the Democrats, and a host of Republicans, were doing was just sit there and do their job? The moment that Pence condemns all of this violence, can you still have the Republican party in there? The answer is no. Again, this is ridiculous. Neutrality, tell me I'm not crazy here. I'm going to remove the dumbest bits in there. BTW, Albertaont, the box is used elsewhere, yes--now pay attention to OTHERSTUFF, please. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
            • We should not use the "civil conflict" box. It seems ridiculous here. Neutrality^talk 14:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
              • I cleaned up in a set of individual edits, so I could leave explanations. There was some really sloppy editing going on here. Neutrality, please look at what I've done, and by all means feel free to cull further. In the long run, we need to maybe consider a completely different infobox: this is not the first time that this box is used inappropriately. It's like a blunt tool that editors reach for all-too quickly, and all it does is contribute to the Crossfiring of public discourse in general and article writing in specific. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Just saw this. I agree, and have removed it moments ago. I mean no offence, and it was a good faith addition no doubt, but the concept just doesn't work. That stuff only really works for military conflicts, extended, well-defined civil conflicts, and a couple of other cases, but the edge of appropriateness as it applies to protests/riots is something like 1992 Los Angeles riots. It just doesn't work for articles like this one, or articles like George Floyd protests. I can't think of the right word that describes the classification of these kinds of events, but it's not really a 'sided conflict'. The protestors are too disparate, and the government are not exactly an opposing party to said disparate group. Making it look like you've got the FBI, Homeland Security, a bunch of National Guards and the Democratic Party fighting against Neo-Nazis, the Republican Party, and pro-Trump protestors, as in this diff is just misleading. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, ProcrastinatingReader. And let me add, Albertaont, since George Floyd protests was mentioned again, in that article there are no "parties" or whatever (no cute little flags)--I looked at over a dozen versions posted over more than half a year, and it wasn't in there. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies and others: there is no justification for adding something to the infobox that treats this as if it was an armed conflict, with Trump supporters on one side and Nancy Pelosi on the other. This was a totally one-sided event - a criminal riot - and that is how it is being reported by Reliable Sources. Not to mention that the supposed "factions" are neither clear-cut or stable. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of William Barr from the side of Pro-Trump protestors

I was scrolling through to see the lead figures on both sides, and I saw William Barr there. At this point, I find him to be neutral or even pro-Biden. He has denounced the storming of the capitol building (https://thehill.com/homenews/news/532981-barr-calls-violence-at-capitol-outrageous-and-despicable) and even declared that there was no significant evidence of election fraud (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-no-evidence-election-fraud/2020/12/01/5f4dcaa8-340a-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html). With the current protests being more about the so-called "election fraud" and loyalty to Trump than anything else, and Barr stepping down as his attorney general, I would say that he shouldn't be included on this side.

IrieDoober (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)