Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Should "President Trump" be replaced with either "Trump" or "Donald Trump"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus that "Trump" should be used after the first mention. The support !votes are in the majority and MOS:HONORIFIC also supports their suggested usage. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

---

I feel President Trump makes it feel like a news article. I'm in favor of "Trump". Should it be replaced? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Just "Trump" is fine after the first mention in the lede. Wikipedia does not use honorific prefixes before names per MOS:HONORIFIC. I think "President" is included within that category. KidAd talk 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not supporting or agreeing, just noting that some if not all of the mentions are relevant about Trump as the president of the time not just a mere candidate like Joe Biden or Kayne West. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Kanye West still running? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, he says he is, although he only has access to 237 electoral votes, even including write-in access, which is not enough to win. Every voter in the country could write him in and he still wouldn't win. It's therefore accurate to say he's lost and is no longer a candidate. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:HONORIFIC. First reference President Trump/Former Vice President Biden, and then just Trump/Biden. In cases where the office is relevant, we still know Trump is currently president or the sentence can be recast in some way. Carter (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per MOS:HONORIFIC and on the same argument as laid out above by Tcr25. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - How is it done on the other US prez election articles, where an incumbent president is running for re-election? GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, looking at 2012, "President Obama" is used only three times in the prose, two of those in captions. By contrast "Obama" by itself is used 99 times. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

he's still president until and/or if biden wins and is officially sworn in on inauguration day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:110E:4A9D:45AC:1CFB:C051:9797 (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As argued in the previous comment, President Trump is still President until January 20th, 2021. For this reason, I do not support changing the term "President Trump" Jurisdicta (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Whether or not he is still president is irrelevant -- of course he is. This is a question of Wikistyle, not about Trump's status. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose He remains president until the next president is inaugurated. 71.220.219.16 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose President Trump will always have the title of president BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• While it is true that former presidents (and vice-presidents) are conventionally addressed as "Mr. President" (or "Mr. Vice President"), the article is not directly addressing Trump, it is describing an event. The question is a matter of the appropriate style for that, so your comment is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose President Trump is a US President. President Obama is still President Obama. President Washington is still President Washington. They do not need to be the current incumbent sitting President to have the title of President. Once you have it, you always have it. Skcin7 (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally just "Trump" Per MOS:HONORIFIC, we generally don't prefix with honorifics like "President" (first mention to indicate his position would be an exception). Per MOS:SURNAME, "Donald" does not need to be repeated.—Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States until January 20, 2021 at 17:00 UTC. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  Calling him plain "Trump" does not imply that he is not the president.—Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: A request to close this discussion has been requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.—Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:HONORIFIC. It is unwieldy and unnecessary to continue to use "President Trump" for even a majority of the 372 occurrences of Trump in the article. It would be even more unwieldy and unnecessary to do the same for Vice President Biden (169 occurrences), Senator Harris (23 occurrences), and Vice President Pence (20 occurrences), which we would also need to do for consistency based on the arguments presented above for Trump. Each of their titles should be mentioned at their first appearance, and after that we should refer to them by their last name only unless there is good contextual reason to include their title in a specific instance. CThomas³ (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the precedent set by 2012 United States presidential election, where Obama is only referred to as "President Obama" in captions. By the same token, we should only use "President Trump" in captions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - "President Donald Trump" is fine for the first usage, but "Trump" should be used after that, except in charts, graphs and captions. In general, we do not continue to use such titles in our article after the first mention. Advocates of using "President Trump" should ask themselves if they would be OK with every mention of Joe Biden being "former vice-president Joe Biden" or of Kamala Harris being always referred to as "Senator Harris".
• Support per MOS:HONORIFIC. Fine for first reference, not needed in subsequent references, as seen in other articles. Chris vLS (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for all the good reasons listed above. Eccekevin (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Donald Trump is a US President at least until January 20th, 2021, and in all likelihood will remain in this capacity until January 20th, 2025. Yurivict (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 'In all likelihood will remain in this capacity until January 20th, 2025'? Trump has lost this election, and most of his campaign's lawsuits filed in various states to challenge the vote counts have already been dropped or dismissed. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not about Trump's status, it's about MOS:HONORIFIC. Herbfur (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:HONORIFIC. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Just "Trump" after the first mention. -- Valjean (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support and close Just "Trump" after the first mention, as per normal articles. Albertaont (talk) 20:23, 24 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.

Congressional districts in infobox

As of now, the infobox omits congressional districts each candidate won and I would argue is incorrect by omission. In this edit I fixed the issue by including the other congressional districts each candidate won, but was reverted in this edit by @Citizenrickey:, so I am curious as to other's take on this matter. Zoozaz1 talk 01:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's just easier to say that NE-2 went to Biden and ME-2 went to Trump. The other edit seemed to overcomplicate things. Trump won the rest of Nebraska and Biden won the rest of Maine, so it's easier to include them in the state count. But what's your argument in favor of the edit? GreenFlash411 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

By omitting congressional districts each candidate won we are giving people an incorrect account of who won what in the election. It might be easier to stay with the status quo, but it would also be simpler to omit DC from the infobox as well; that doesn't change the fact that it would be incorrect by omission to do so in both circumstances. Zoozaz1 talk 01:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a fair point. But I have a concern in regards to other election pages. Maine has allowed its votes to be split since 1972, and Nebraska since 1992. Do we edit every election page from 1972 to accommodate for this, when 2008, 2016, and 2020 are thus far the only elections where the votes were actually split? — User:GreenFlash411 — Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The whole "states won" item should be removed. The number of states won is irrelevant to the process and can give a false view of how close an election was. It is mathematically possible to win the presidency while only carrying ELEVEN states. --Khajidha (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I would think so, although another solution would be a footnote saying that each candidate won all the congressional districts in each state they won. Zoozaz1 talk 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking 435 congressional districts were won by one of the candidates. I think the reason that the infobox lists the districts giving electors, that are won by a candidate not winning the state, is to explain why each candidate won a candidate in Nebraska and Maine respectively. Gust Justice (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine if the infobox says that, but now it says that each candidate won the statewide vote in 25 states (-DC) and a congressional district. I understand the logic from an editors perspective that we only mention the congressional districts that differed from the statewide vote, but from a reader's perspective each candidate won one congressional district each, which is incorrect. Zoozaz1 talk 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested change of the first paragraph

The third sentence is: "Trump became the first U.S. president since 1992 and the eleventh incumbent in the country's history to fail to win re-election to a second term, and Biden won the largest share of the popular vote against an incumbent since 1932."

I would like to add som information to this, so that it would say: "Despite winning more popular votes and a higher percentage of the popular vote than when elected four years prior, Trump became the first U.S. president since 1992 and the eleventh incumbent in the country's history to fail to win re-election to a second term, and Biden won the largest share of the popular vote against an incumbent since 1932." Skoyt (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Silly, pointless fluff. What is important is "Despite winning more popular votes and a higher percentage of the popular vote than when elected four years prior, Trump failed to win a second term." That's all that is needed. --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

At least keep the part about Trump being the first incumbent to lose re-election since 1992. That part is pretty noteworthy, and a little fluff won’t end the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFlash411 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO it's not noteworthy. 1992 isn't that long ago and doesn't encompass that many elections. Think of it this way: Since 1988 five presidents have run for re-election. Three of them were re-elected and two were not. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)]

Think of it THIS way: This is only the second time in American history that we've had three consecutive incumbents win second terms. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe did so at the beginning of the Presidential timeline, and it didn't happen again until Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. And now Donald Trump has broken that streak, preventing an unprecedented number of four incumbents from winning re-election. And hell, go back to 1980 if you really want to be fair. Six presidents ran for re-election, and two/thirds of them won a second term. George H.W. Bush was the sole President to lose re-election in that FORTY year timespan, before Biden's victory over Trump. And before you point out that Jimmy Carter lost re-election that very year, 1980 is just a good cutoff point because it was the beginning of a new decade and was 40 years ago exact. -- User:GreenFlash411

Also, how long ago 1992 was depends on how you frame it; in the cosmic scheme of things, sure, a 28 year timespan is nothing. But in the political scheme of things...it's like many, many lifetimes when you realize how often and radically the political landscape can change. -- User:GreenFlash411 — Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note that what I have suggested the addition of, is the fact that Trump made a better result in this election than in the former, both in the total number of popular votes and in the percentage of the popular vote, but despite this he lost the election (because Biden did an even better result and also won more states). The information about him being the first incumbent since 1992 to lose a reelection is already written out in the sentence, I have made no suggestion of changing that part. Skoyt (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, that. Forgive me. I think your originally sentence was too long and should be split into two. Something like “Trump improved in his popular vote numbers, both in the amount of votes he received and in the percentage. In spite of this, he lost the election to Biden, becoming the first incumbent to lose re-election since 1992”. We can make some tweaks to make it sound more formal. —- User:GreenFlash411 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFlash411 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha said the following to your request, Skoyt: Silly, pointless fluff. What is important is "Despite winning more popular votes and a higher percentage of the popular vote than when elected four years prior, Trump failed to win a second term." That's all that is needed. So, the request has been answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, no, it has not been answered. – Khajidha here supported a change along what I suggested, while wanting to remove a part of the sentence which I had said nothing about. Still, the change I suggested has not been written in to the article and as far as I can see, Khadija is no admimistrator so cannot change it anyway. MelanieN, who is anadministrator, has also only commented on the part of the sentence which is already existing in the article and which I have not suggested any change to, but without changing it. Noone has given an answer to the change I have suggested, except for GreenFlash411 who commented on it when I pointed out the change I actually have suggested, but GreenFlash441 isn’t an administrator either. Please read my suggestion again, thoroughly, before commenting once more. Skoyt (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a situation where the limitations of the phrasing make it seem more impressive than it really is. Looking over the entirety of US presidential election history, once you throw out those elections where the incumbent did not run again (or even could not run again), there is a rough 2:1 margin of incumbents winning (21:10, unless I miscounted). While the incumbent losing is rarer, it is hardly to the point of shock when it happens. --Khajidha (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about the amount of consecutive incumbents re-elected, not the amount total. You could argue FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower as three incumbents re-elected, but FDR died into his fourth term, of which Truman served before he was elected once to a term of his own. Lincoln and McKinley died after being re-elected, Cleveland had non consecutive terms, and Nixon resigned during his second term, so they’re special cases, too. I meant straightforward cases of Presidents serving two consecutive terms, and only twice have three consecutive Presidents served two full terms. It’s surprisingly rare. —- User:GreenFlash411

(Skoyt, please note that any actions I take at this article are as a regular editor, not an administrator, because I am WP:INVOLVED.) OK, so what you actually wanted to change was to add “Despite winning more popular votes and a higher percentage of the popular vote than when elected four years prior” to what was already there. We got to arguing about the later parts of the sentence, which are already in the article, so we missed exactly what you wanted to add. So let’s discuss it. For starters, we must not use the word “Despite” because it is POV, suggesting that he normally SHOULD have been re-elected under those circumstances. There is already information about Biden’s popular vote in that paragraph, TWICE, which IMO is overkill. The second mention in that paragraph says “Biden and Harris received more than 80 million votes,[10] the most votes ever cast for a candidate in a U.S. presidential election.[11]” If you want to add a sentence after that one, saying “Trump won more popular votes and a higher percentage of the popular vote than when he was elected four years prior,” we can discuss it. Of course we would need a source. My offhand reaction is that “more than 80 million votes” is more significant and more worth a lead mention than “Trump did better than last time”, but I’m open for discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

-- I believe MelanieN has a point. And I apologize for dragging out the 1992 argument. I won't engage with it anymore for the OP's sake. That, and we hit a standstill. Khajida and I seem to agree that there are several nuances and twists to this factoid, but they think it makes it less interesting and I think it makes it more interesting. Back on point...if we do add your suggestion, I do think it would have to be after the mention of Biden getting 80 million votes. -- User:GreenFlash411 — Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I felt the issue was that it was trivia that was not suitable to the article given WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA I felt like it was too close to the trivia-like stuff that the presidential election articles get stuffed with. Anyways, sorry for any trouble caused, Skoyt. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Coup

I suggest that we refrain from using the term "coup" when referring to Donald Trumps' post-election battles. Wikipedia is not the place for words conjured up by tabloids and foreign propaganda that try and break us apart. This is dangerous, irresponsible, and reckless language. REGARDLESS of personal feelings, biases, and opinions; I urge you to recognize how dangerous this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricmfergie (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you’re talking about mate, but clearly lots of reliable organisations have referred to Donald Trump's actions as a coup d’état, so we should mention that. I fail to see why we should WP:CENSOR very prominent opinions on what these actions add up to in order to safeguard some centrist fallacy. Also, Wikipedia is larger than just the United States. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aricmfergie. We do not need to propagate this type of hyperbole, even if it's from otherwise reliable sources. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Even if it's..."? Seriously? No, "because of." Policy and RS trump editor's feelings. That's NPOV. It's hardly hyperbole, as this is how a soft coup happens, and experts are expressing their concern. We should document their opinions with attribution. -- Valjean (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with describing it as a coup, as long as it is backed by the reliable sources. Prcc27 (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Also in favour of following what the reliable sources say. On Wikipedia we do that, not pick and choose what to accept/disregard in RS. Wikipedia is not censored, so just because a certain term may sound harsh -- does not mean we get to censor a significant viewpoint. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This sheds light on a big systemic bias issue with Wikipedia, reliable sources are held up as infallible yet the vast majority of those sources exhibit a left-wing bias when it comes to U.S. politics and have swung harder into that bias over time. Also on the topic of Trump many of these sources are zealously opposed to him on both a personal and political level, with some of them being completely transparent about their hatred for him. The focus on reliable sources for accurate information is understandable but if Wikipedia is ever going to confront its systemic political bias it is going to have to take a serious look at this policy and the effect it's having in promoting bias in political articles. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't the fault of the Wikipedia that the vast majority of right-leaning "media" (loosely-termed) are prone to deception, duplicitousness, and fabrications. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me fact check that. As examples, the following right wing publications have acceptable scores with NewsGuard: Town Hall (100%), National Review (85%), Daily Caller (70%). I agree that some of the others are pure garbage, e.g. The Federalist (13%). There is also garbage on the left: Daily Kos (37%). Finally, there are quality sources on the left: The Atlantic (100%) and Politico (100%). Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord: a left-wing bias according to whom? that's a pretty subjective viewpoint, and rather convenient that any media critical of what's going on right now is biased. Regardless: what I have put forth is policy, and if you disagree you're welcome to discuss the merits of Wikipedia's "big systemic bias issue" at a more appropriate forum like WP:RSN or open an RfC at WP:V or WP:RS. Discussing it here is probably not going to change a single thing. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Khajidha (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk) that is not a factual statment at all. It was used by a COMEDIAN in a ironic way. Its an overused joke by Stephen Colbert that does not have any base in reality whatsoever.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, Paul Krugman, not a comedian, but a Nobel Prize winner, has written about this: "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" and "The Facts Have A Well-Known Center-Left Bias." It wasn't a joke when Colbert said it, nor when Krugman said it. Even if it was a joke, it was a factual one. Colbert makes facts funny. It's possible to prove it statistically (which might explain why conservatives and Trump supporters hate fact-checkers), hence the well-known liberal bias of many of the RS we use. They really are more factual, so they qualify for the "RS" label. That is not necessarily always true, but it's true at this point in history. Feel free to disagree, and we can agree to disagree agreeably. You don't have to answer.

The Colbert Show has a unique place in the media universe, as it combines satire with great information and education, which might be why it has been analyzed in scientific research. Here are three interesting articles: "For some, the satiric ‘Colbert Report’ is a trusted source of political news.", "Stephen Colbert's Civics Lesson: How Colbert Super PAC Taught Viewers About Campaign Finance.", and "‘Colbert Report’ more informative than actual news: study." The last one is not a RS, but refers to them.

By contrast, "Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All." -- Valjean (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk) oh stop it. It was a joke said by Stephen Colbert at the 06 white house correspondents dinner. The fact you belive the Colbert Report was a news show and not comedy says everything. I can post article that says the same thing about MSNBC viewers. You probably think John Oliver is news as well. Its intellectually dishonest and frankly hillariousGuitarguy2323 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said it was a news show. It just contains and discusses lots of news. One can learn a lot from it. That's why Colbert Show viewers are the best informed. -- Valjean (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As a fan of both Colbert shows, I must strongly disagree. They're news-based entertainment, and the snippets and soundbites relayed are too short and select to use in a real argument, they're just setups for Colbert's counterpoints. Same as pro wrestling, based on and somewhat still resembling legit catch wrestling, but nowhere near as truthy as a longer, fuller and drier MMA card (analogous to a real newshour). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

First, regarding the RS policy, we have no obligation to regurgitate everything published by these sources. Second, I stand by my characterization of this being hyperbole. Election-related lawsuits, vote recounts, the lack of a concession, a transition team delayed by over a month - the U.S. had all of these just 20 years ago and I don't believe that was characterized as a coup. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry, that's because no other president has alluded to keeping power beyond two terms. It's a totally unamerican thought. Trump has done that several times. Whether that's because of his appalling ignorance of the Constitution, or that he doesn't care, or both, is something one can think about. It's not something Americans joke about, as it's a dictatorial thought. -- Valjean (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with those suggesting the related coup news be mentioned, along with WP:RS - related alternative views/interpretations, per WP:NPOV, may be presented as well of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Is "coup" really the right word, though? I have always understood a coup as being a against the sitting government by some outside group, not by the sitting government against others. --Khajidha (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems a "legislative coup", or even "power grab", may apply afaik atm - Drbogdan (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A coup can be made or attempted "from above", from the people at power, to invalidate the opposition in some way or another, to strengthen the sitting government and removing the possibility of the opposition to take over even if the opposition may have the legal right to take over. Skoyt (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Skoyt is correct. A coup can be a power grab to keep power when it should be handed over to the legitimate winner of an election. That's what we're seeing. It's a soft coup, IOW without use of the military. -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Which doesn't seem to fit the definition of coup d'etat: "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" --Khajidha (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

But that's what RS are saying, so we use them. That's our job. A soft coup, "using wholly legal means," does describe what we're seeing. It's an attempt to circumvent the will of the people and very clear results of the election. Trump can never claim that the people elected him. They did not. 2016 was a technical, Electoral College, victory, not the will of the people. -- Valjean (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Even that doesn't seem to fit. " a conspiracy or plot that has as its objective the taking of state power" This isn't an attempt to take power, this is an attempt to avoid losing power. If sources are using a word incorrectly are we required to follow? --Khajidha (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a second, but still valid and applicable here, definition of the word "Coup" may Be better => "a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act" (from M-W Dictionary) or "a sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power." (from OED) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That fits even worse This isn't sudden. And it wouldn't be a change in govermemt, it would be a prevention of change. And let's not even mention the word brilliant. Call it what it is, a corrupt regime refusing to relinquish power. -- Khajidha (talk) 18:40, November 23, 2020‎ (UTC)

Khajidha, we are not "required" to follow, but this isn't about a completely wrong use of the word. This is about a "shade of difference," not a complete misuse or misleading use of the word. It is in the ballpark, an approximately right use. The existing power is trying to wrest the seat of government away from those whom the people say rightly own it. Preventing the proper transfer of power can be seen as a coup, and RS use that term, so we should just document it, often with attribution, per standard practice. When in doubt, quote. -- Valjean (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that whatever the process that may be going on - holding on to political power by someone who lost both the popular and electoral college votes - could be considered legal under certain conditions (which may or may not apply here since the vote margin was so great) - due to possible "loopholes" in the US Constitution afaik, based on a recent TED talk by attorney Van Jones - Drbogdan (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: As an administrator who has been carefully monitoring this article for issues, I ask: Please don't edit war over this, folks; discuss it here on the talk page. Remember this is a 1RR article, is under discretionary sanctions, and that if there's an edit war on this particular issue, the only alternative will be to fully protect the article, and probably (partially) block some editors who are trying to do the right thing. Keep the discussion calm and considered. Thank you. Risker (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree the attempted coup needs to be a removed. Anybody can be classified as an expert. it makes wikipedia political biased and bought out(which it is) Needs to be neutral. Had this same issue over at the Trump main page. Its a dog whistle used by hardcore leftists and tds and the "reliable sources" are always anti GOP and opinon pages not hard news which is not biased. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Without regard for picking sides on which words we should use here, I will note that every source noted in this discussion so far is not journalism, but instead is commentary. The same news source publishes both journalism (dispassionate reporting of information) and commentary (opinions, editorials, etc.). As noted at WP:RSOPINION, these are " opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." If we do attribute the terminology noted to these specific sources, it should only be done in explicit, in-text attribution style "According to John Doe, writing in Random News..." and not as plain statements in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 19:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Articles contain both facts and opinions, and that's how we handle opinions. -- Valjean (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we take out the word in the Article until we come up with better terminology. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricmfergie (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aricmfergie: As Risker reminded above, this article is under a one-revert rule. Your edit just now (04:15, 24 November 2020) to remove the word "coup" is your second revert in 24 hours ([1] at 06:01, 23 November 2020). Please self-undo, and seek consensus before implementing unilateral changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - A coup is the takeover of an existing government by force, in this case the Trump administration. We've no reliable sources stating that Trump is trying to overthrow himself. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - For reference this was brought up at the Trump article here and soundly rejected. PackMecEng (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• A Self-coup is in fact a real thing, and numerous reliable sources do in fact refer to Trump's actions as attempting a coup. The term should be included with its sources. Reywas92^Talk 08:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

All the things that were suppose to happen post-election, are happening. Votes are being certified. The GSA has released funds to the Biden transition team, etc. As for the MSM? as usual, they exaggerate for ratings. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Given yesterday's developments, I think we can avoid describing Trump's tantrums as a coup. We can report that some commentators were worried about the possibility of a self-coup, but this did not happen because local officials and strongly rebuked Trump's attempts to generate a deadlock in the Electoral College. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC) In addition, when there is a dispute about wording, it is best to say what Trump did (as we do), rather than trying to characterize it with a contentious word. The reader can learn about Trump's actions and decide for themselves whether these actions constitute an incipient coup, or merely reflect a sore loser acting badly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And?? Just because it wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt. We're lucky that elections administrators are competent, honest people, and that there was a cushion of multiple states/EVs, else this supposed exaggeration may have actually gotten somewhere. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Jehochman, you write: "The reader can learn about Trump's actions and decide for themselves whether these actions constitute an incipient coup, or merely reflect a sore loser acting badly." Yes, that is true, but leaving it up to the reader is not our primary objective. Our job is to communicate what the RS say. We report straight facts from some RS and opinions from other sources. We should provide the attributed opinion, not "leave it up to the reader," and often provide a quote, especially if it's a controversial statement or specific words that might be objectionable. - -Valjean (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember what I wrote. Try quoting a reliable source that says there was a coup attempt. Jehochman ^Talk 02:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

? We wouldn't be having this discussion if RS haven't used the word to describe Trump's actions. Several sources appear right below this comment.

You didn't respond to my comment. -- Valjean (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sidney Powell filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the election results in Michigan and Georgia. As of right now Biden is the projected winner of the election; if the courts find sufficient evidence to overturn the election and the Biden win is overturned by a federal court or a legislative body, (both cases go to the House of Representatives where each state gets one vote) under "elected president" it must read "Election results annulled, Donald Trump remains president" instead of the winner. I describe that Trump is attempting a total seizure of power.J4lambert (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - There is a separate section with a request to have a stand-alone article because of Trump's actions. Part of the discussion revolved around how appropriate was it to use coup d’etat. I ended up bring up Soft coup, which mentions that ...in some cases also of the current institutional order and someone else brought up Self-coup, which mentions it is ...a form of putsch or coup d'état in which a nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. If someone can find a number of reliable sources (not the current opinion articles) then I could see it being mention. But, I don't think we have made it that far. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2020

'Trump and numerous Republicans made unsubstantiated claims "in an attempt to interfere in" and "subvert the election".'

This sentence is not written from a neutral point of view. If legal challenges are resolved in favor of Mr. Biden, the word "unsubstantiated" may be used. Until then, the word should be omitted because the election is being contested and the substantiation of Trump's claims is up to the judiciary, not the press.

The way these quotes are used also lends bias to the sentence. It would be right to say that, "Many have said these claims were made 'in an attempt to interfere in' and 'subvert the election.'" It is incorrect, however, to use these quotes in such a straightforward way as to suggest that the article agrees with the opinions expressed. To do so is not neutral, because these quotes express opinions, not facts; one might as well say "Trump and numerous Republicans made truthful claims in an attempt to stop Democrats' election fraud and corruption."

Both sentences are equally biased. Please edit this sentence for the sake of American freedom of speech. FakeNewsPress2020 (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done The thing is, the claims are unsubstantiated and the legal challenges have been resolved in favor of Biden. I get what you are saying in support of WP:NPOV and with regard to WP:WIKIVOICE; however, ultimately, we rely on what reliable sources say, and the vast majority of reliable sources use that phrasing, so therefore we do as well. Doing otherwise would be WP:FALSEBALANCE on our part. Zoozaz1 talk 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That quote about interference should be removed because it's not actually quoting anybody, it's just "words like this". I "tried to" fix it earlier and "was reverted", as they say. Only get one shot to edit, help? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be quoting these parts from the source:

• President Trump on Thursday accelerated his efforts to interfere in the nation’s electoral process
• A little-known manufacturing executive serving out his final two years as majority leader of Michigan’s Republican-controlled Senate finds himself thrust into the maelstrom of President Trump’s scheme to subvert the election.

The first quote isn't quite verbatim, though, so I narrowed it to the key words that do appear in the source ("interfere in", which is the part we'd want to attribute if we're going to attribute stuff.) The second one does technically appear, but "subvert" is probably the key word we want to quote, and it appears multiple times in the source, so I narrowed it to that. The whole bit could be reworded somewhat to either attribute directly or avoid the need for quotes, but that would be more complex; this is at least a quick fix for the problem you identified with the first quote, and makes it flow a bit better. --Aquillion (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Subvert the election" is the key phrase, quoting a single "word" makes it sound "dubious or something". The actual interference quotes refer to intrusion into the "electoral process", down in Michigan. Not the "election". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• FakeNewsPress2020 This is not just an American website, and this is also not a free speech forum. Wikipedia has policies to guide its content, just as you can determine what is said and done in your residence. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That sentence has been rewritten, per the discussion at #Proposed wording above. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Important material in lead but not in article text

Discussing at the section above, #Suggested change of the first paragraph, I realized that there is a lot of information in the lead that is not in the body of the article. The lead says Trump became the first U.S. president since 1992 and the eleventh incumbent in the country's history to fail to win re-election to a second term, and Biden won the largest share of the popular vote against an incumbent since 1932.[6][7][8] The election saw the highest voter turnout since 1900,[9] with both tickets receiving more than 73 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008. Biden and Harris received more than 80 million votes,[10] the most votes ever cast for a candidate in a U.S. presidential election.[11]” I don’t see any of that in the article. Am I just missing it? It should be in a section, preferably prominently placed, that sums up the final results and significant statistics - but I don’t see any such section. I mean prose and analysis, not just the result tables. Something needs to be done; we aren’t supposed to have things in the lead that aren’t in the article. Where should that information go? Someone more familiar with how election articles are usually handled: where do we usually put such information? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

A hundred years ago, we have a "Return to normalcy" section that might have covered such usual stuff today, but as is, I think "Results" is the section for this modern trivia about how exactly it panned out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Then we need to write a "Results," section because there currently isn't one. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could change the title of "Voting process and results" to "Results", and put this summarizing/statistical information into a lead section before going into the subsections. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I figured it already was called, so sorry for any confusion and yes, maybe rename it. Not sure what you mean by "a" lead section, though. Inside this section? I think a new subsection called "New records", "Milestones" or "Trivia" could suffice for the whole chunk. Other titles could work, too, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The suggestions "New records" and "Trivia" would not likely work per WP:TRIVIA as we should not have sections devoted to trivia, if possible. (An exception is if the ...information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.) I already have stated my opinion elsewhere that presidential election articles contain a lot of trivia-like sentences that might not belong, but it is just my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I get how "Trivia" makes the content appear trivial, but "New records" makes it seem more important, to me. The broken record for turnout arguably is important, but the new stats will also "go down in the record books". If I were to cut a least important factoid, it'd be this "eleventh incumbent" noise; even most purposeful lists of assorted trivia stop caring outside of Top Tens. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This stuff doesn’t really seem like trivia. Most of it is useful information that most information sources are going to consider important, they’re just needs to be a good place to put it all. SRD625 (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What would you call this good place? Anything except "The Good Place". This sure as spice ain't that. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I renamed the "Voting process and results" section to "Results," and added a "Statistics" section. People are welcome to add additional sourced statistical material about this election. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

tipping point state

The tipping point state is Wisconsin, and this page labels it as Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania and all states that Biden won by larger margins only gets him 269 electoral votes, and he needs 270. The article used to say that Wisconsin was the tipping point state, but was edited with the message "PA was the tipping-point state, as Biden only had ~250 EV's when Wisconsin was called". This reflects a misunderstanding of what tipping-point state means; it does not depend on the order in which states were called by the media. I'd fix it myself, but I do not have edit permission on this article. 24.7.24.119 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Wisconsin is the apparent tipping point state, and I oppose characterizing it as a "co-tipping" point, unless the reliable sources also characterize it that way. I think we should hold off on saying what the tipping point state is, until we have reliable sources that go into this. Prcc27 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who added "co-tipping point". I did so based on this tweet from Nate Silver. Even though Silver is reliable, one tweet alone generally doesn't count as RS, so in hindsight the edit was probably unjustified. At any rate, the article for tipping-point state lists the state that put the winning candidate over 270, which in this case would be Wisconsin. I still think it is worth noting that Wisconsin would not have put Trump over 270, and he would have needed Pennsylvania too. Jacoby531 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wisconsin is the tipping point state since it made Biden the winner; Pennsylvania would have been the tipping point state if Trump won a majority of electoral votes. But the perspective of the winning candidate trumps that of the losing candidate, and deserves more weight. WI and PA are not equal in this regard, so "co-tipping point" seems misleading. I think we should either put WI as the tipping point state with a footnote that flipping it wouldn't have made Trump the electoral college winner, or we should just wait for more reliable sources to say what they think is the tipping point before mentioning which state(s) are the tipping point. Prcc27 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested change to the third paragraph

During the campaign, on election night, and after the Democrats were declared winners, Trump and numerous Republicans made unsubstantiated claims "in an attempt to interfere in" and "subvert the election".

Can we replace "the Democrats were declared winners" with "Biden was declared the winner"? The current one is too broad because only Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, not Democrats in general. It's arguably even slightly misleading because it's uncertain whether or not Democrats will take the Senate.

PBZE (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Democrats" refers to Biden and Harris, who ran together and shared votes, not Democrat senators (or other simply concurrent officials), who are elected individually. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but is that made clear? I don't think so. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Crystal clear. There's a reminder to not be confused by related elections before it starts. Then the second sentence says who won this election, pretty much immediately. Do you think people skip to ends of intros first, or forget the beginnings quickly? If so, we could explicitly repeat which particular Democrats won this one. Should we? I'd like to think not. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PBZE that the current sentence is not clear. "Democrats" should be changed to "Biden and Harris." Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we introduced them as "The Democratic ticket of...[Biden and Harris]", so should mix it up more. Either "the Democrats/Democratic ticket" (parties are important) or "Biden and Harris" (people are important). Currently 5-1 tilted toward the people in lead mentions, 3-3 seems a fair blend to avoid monotonous repetition. What's worse than either over and over, though, is this idea that Biden won and merely dragged Harris along behind him. Six months ago, the same CNN that now runs a story about how Harris was ascertained an "apparently successful candidate" without naming her once (almost 20 "Biden"s) couldn't shut up about Biden needing a "woman of color" to stand a chance. Don't be CNN, Wikipedia, black women are just as electable as any popular candidate. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PBZE that "the Democrats were declared winners" is confusing and ambiguous. If we don't want to say "Biden and Harris" again for stylistic reasons, maybe we could say "the Democratic ticket was declared the winner", but I would prefer to name them again. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Another problem with that sentence: "were declared winners" cries out for a tag. How about "after most media outlets called the election for Biden and Harris"? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. And I guess repeating the same five syllables six times in a relatively short span isn't terrible. Just somewhat robotic, almost chanty, bit dismissive of the enormous political power the party association brings candidates in elections. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Just somewhat robotic, almost chanty, bit dismissive of the enormous political power the party association brings candidates in elections. Then maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. We seem to be focus on the problem being with the text "the Democrats were declared winners" instead of the sentence as a whole. Maybe we need something like, "'In an attempt to interfere in' and 'subvert the election', Trump and numerous Republicans made unsubstantiated claims during the campaign, on election night, and after the Democrats were declared winners'" or "Trump and numerous Republicans made unsubstantiated claims during the campaign, on election night, and after the Democrats were declared winners, 'in an attempt to interfere in' and 'subvert the election'" if not something else. Maybe some else like "While Trump was campaigning, he made a number of unsubstantiated claims "in his attempt to interfere in' and subvert the election;' Trump repeated these claims with support from other Republican officials on election night and after the two Democrats were declared to have won." (Please excuse any unusual punctuation.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording

I still object to "were declared winners". And I still object to anything saying “the Democrats won,” which gives the impression that the party as a whole won, when the truth is that Democratic candidates took a bath at the Congressional and state levels. How about a simpler and more readable approach:

Before, during, and after election night Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to interfere with and subvert the election, alleging without evidence that there had been widespread voter fraud, and trying to influence the vote count in swing states.

Sources

Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be ok with that as it does simplify the problem. (Though, I did forget until now that I had mentioned that election night might not be fully accurate. I would prefer removing the word "night", but can understand if it is too late to get consensus to do so.) --Super Goku V (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point, maybe we should say "election day" instead. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

We could shrink "Before, during and after election night" to "Throughout the process". Or just generally say Trump did these things, leaving the when (all the time) implicit. I am not cool at all with saying "attempt to interfere" in Wikipedia's voice. He's an American incumbent candidate, he's in it, he can't interfere, nor can his campaign managers. Subversion is logically possible, even plausible, but I'd less strongly still prefer keeping "the quotes" there. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The "without evidence" part is also perhaps outdated. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Affidavits aren't really evidence by themselves because it's just hearsay. Over all of the lawsuits brought before the courts, affidavit signatories have admitted they lied, didn't attend orientation meetings, thought camera equipment boxes were ballots, etc. A lot of times because of ignorance, they mistake standard procedures for something nefarious. Affidavits are not facts and are not sworn depositions, it is just hearsay with a notary stamp on it. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That's why I chose "perhaps". There's a lot of scrutiny that goes into deciding a case, and this is far from proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But some of the evidence has passed that first level of admission and credibility in some of the cases, so it's quite weird to to say all of the evidence doesn't even exist, completely baseless, etc. But yeah, evidence isn't fact or proof or hearsay. Evidence, by itself, is just evidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I do suppose it IS evidence that they are making the claim they are making but it it still isn't proof that the claim itself is true or that said incident did occur. And as per MelanieN below, I guess lousy evidence is still evidence. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed "in an attempt to interfere in" as an unsourced quote, so the fact that it's impossible is moot. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, InedibleHulk , "efforts to interfere in the nation's electoral process" is indeed in the cited source, in the very first paragraph.[2] So I have restored it while we discuss. Personally I dislike the quotation marks around those two phrases and removed them in my proposal above. I would be OK with removing "without evidence" because although their "evidence" has been dismissed by dozens of courts, I guess lousy evidence is still evidence. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a whole other quote, different words, so I'm not sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@PBZE, InedibleHulk, Super Goku V, and Persistent Corvid: What do you think about my proposed new sentence above? Is it ready to be added to the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC) @PersistantCorvid: oops, messed up the ping. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that he even made a statement on November 3rd, but I checked his twitter account does show an early morning retweet on the 3rd attacking polling and using the hashtag "#TrumpIsWinning", so I would say using 'Election Day' is acceptable. (If it was challenged, we would just need to figure out what defines 'Election Day' and I believe that would cover his speech on the 4th.) If no one else has an issue with how the rest of the sentence is worded, then I will be ok with it. (I kinda think we should mention that their evidence isn't being supported in court, but we do mention it elsewhere in the article and on other articles, so it isn't that big of a deal.) --Super Goku V (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I still think saying he attempted to interfere in an election directly involving him is ridiculous. The NYT clarifies that the "intrusion" is only into Michigan politics, which pertains to the election, but is not the election itself. Better explained in the body than summarized so simply as to sound preposterous. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So you'd rather just say "attempted to subvert the election"? Subvert is kind of a ten dollar word, it may not be familiar to everyone. The "subvert" and "interfere" article also says, in simpler and more direct language, "the Trump campaign and its allies have been seeking to overturn the results of the election in multiple states through lawsuits and intrusions into the state vote certification process"; maybe we should try to use a shorter version of that? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes to both. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That is, drop the interference from here (paraphrased or misquoted), and shorten our later, existing part about the latter. Don't add a shorter version to the paragraph's middle. Just trim the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be good without the word "interference" as long as "subvert" and "attempts to overturn" remain. @MelanieN it's my fault your ping messed up, as I misspelled persistent when I made my account, so it looks like my name is "Persistent Corvid" but is actually "PersistantCorvid" lol no one said crows could spell. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I almost made the same mistake summoning you to the Perrenial Sources Noticeboard yesterday. In hindsight, correctly summoning you to the Perennial Sources Noticeboard was itself a mistake, though intentional. Sorry, craw! Subversion and attempted overturning is cool, because it's real. Submersion and attempted overturning, on the other foot, is only real for hippos. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think we are close enough to consensus, and I will put the resulting sentence - "Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, alleging that there had been widespread voter fraud, and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states." - in the article in place of what's there. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Persistent Corvid (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with it. Thank you.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The article seems like propaganda for the Democratic party

The following discussion 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.

---

And not objective at all. Any claim Republicans made is followed by "false", any claim Democrats made is accepted as 100% true, even with no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31A9:88F0:E40D:6B10:2735 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state and makes no claims as to truthfulness, see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is only interested in what is verifiable in reliable sources. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. We present the sources so readers can judge any bias for themselves. Most reliable sources state that Trump's claims are false, so we do as well. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them or you can stick to watching OANN or Newsmax if you prefer to be told what you want to hear. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There are also alternative wikis that use different sourcing standards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump and his associates are the ones that are making b*llsh*t up, so of course they’re gonna be the ones called out. We can’t always call out both sides equally — User:GreenFlash411

Here's an FEC chair explaining how it's not all bullshit; is he full of it, too, in your unbiased opinion? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

USA Today was shown as blacklisted when I tried to link this article, but they wrote about how Trainor kind of is full of it. --User: GreenFlash411 — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't treat blacklisted sites as reliable sources for your opinion. InedibleHulk (talk)

Well, it does point to Ellen Weintraub, Vice Chair of the FEC, who has opposed Trainor's stance. And it points out that some states with delayed results (NC, Nevada, and Alaska) had Republicans overseeing the results, rebuking Trainor's claim that Democrats controlled all the states with delayed results. -- User:GreenFlash411 22:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This conversation we're having has nothing to do with anyone's claims about who controls which states. It's about whether Trump's legal team is making up bullshit. And whether you, an editor with your own discretion, know of a reason Trainor's legal opinion on how it's not all bullshit or the outlet which asked him should be discounted. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That claim of whom controls which states DOES matter, actually, when that's part of Trainor's reasoning. As does Weinburn's opinion, given how she's in a similar position to him. That's enough to at least take his word with a grain of salt. GreenFlash411 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between state control and evidence admissability. Could you elaborate? Democrats and Republicans are inherently opposed about political matters; is Trainor's stance (on anything) any reason to be skeptical of Weinburn's disagreement, or is there a double standard here? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would a USA Today link be blacklisted? Yes, the Trump-appointed chair of the FEC has been spouting claims of fraud with no factual basis. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/19/fact-check-fec-commissioner-has-no-role-election-integrity/6332242002/ – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Such as...? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

... all of them. USA Today is green on WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You're saying everything Trainor has said lately is a lie? Because USA Today isn't blacklisted? I'm not following (and can someone move this, misplaced). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I never said everything he said is a lie. But the reliable source says he's claiming voter fraud when there's no evidence. I only jumped in here to say that yes, Trump's legal team and other cronies are indeed "making up bullshit", as you said above. The Daily Beast is also considered reliable. This one is a bit sensationalist for me and I'm not proposing using it for anything other than background reading. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Which article is this anyway? SRD625 (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the article 2020 United States presidential election where discussions are held to help improve the article. To switch between the talk page and article, you can click the Article and Talk buttons in the upper-left corner of the page. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If all of the statements made by Republicans are followed by false, and the same is not true for Democrats... maybe the problem isn't bias. Maybe the problem is the Republicans are lying. --CoryJosh (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course the Republicans are lying, they're politicians, this is an election. The problem here is that Democrats are also politicking and politicizing the very same process, and Wikipedia is actually believing their lies. That's how it became blatantly unapologetically biased, "maybe". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, all politicians are political, but name some Democratic lies. I doubt any reach the level of claiming fraud without any shred of evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion needs to end now or I am going to report one or more of you at WP:AE under the American Politics cases and request sanctions. This is not a chatroom, and it is not the place to engage in ideological battle. Jehochman ^Talk 04:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I was not engaging in an ideological battle, but agree to suspend my civil inquiry and implore anyone I was asking to not answer any unresolved questions, some things are best left unknown. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 29 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.

Biden Republicans

With such hyperpartisanship in the two parties, it makes sense why bipartisans would reject Mr. Trump and anyone that is left of Mr. Biden. Some of them were Trump Democrats who defected from him in favor of Mr. Biden's presidency, and some others were Biden Republicans—Republicans who favored the presidency of Mr. Biden, rather than the president of their own party. They may be responsible for deciding the results, which is what makes the faction notable. I am not sure how notable the faction is, though. They will probably be studied and analyzed later on in the coming months. I wonder whether we should create an article about the faction now or wait until more sources come out, in the manner of Obama–Trump voters. FreeMediaKid! 04:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If you ask whether to wait because of recent news, the answer is often to wait. For the moment any facts about Republicans voting for Biden can go in this article. That content, if it grows because more reliable sources publish analsysis in the future, can be spun out into a separate article later. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Virginia and Alaska?

I know they're technically not close states, but they're basically there. (Virginia at 10.11 point margin; Alaska at a 10.06 point margin). I feel like, if they're not included in the "close races" section, they should at least be given a quick mention at the top of the section. DaCashman (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How do you justify including those but not New Mexico's 10.79 point margin? We need a bright line criterion, 10.00 points is good enough.--Khajidha (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Results by state -- arithmetic

The table in section 2020 United States presidential election#Results by state displays both number of votes and shares of vote (as % rounding to the nearest .01%) in each of five columns representing four candidates and "Other", and in a sixth column for the two-party margin (as Biden minus Trump).

For Pennsylvania, where the Biden vote is closest to one half or 50.00%, I see at a glance and you can too, that we show a number of Biden votes that is less than half the total number of votes and a share that is greater than half, namely 50.02%. Because I don't know the convention that we intend to follow (should the table have arithmetic integrity? if so, how?), I leave it to you all how to correct the cell entries or to explain the convention.

• Pennsylvania. Our shares of vote for Biden, Trump, and the Libertarian (first three columns) sum to 100%, which presume a base that does not include Others (column five). Yet we report a number of votes for Others, and that is included in our total vote (last column).

(Perhaps our shares are derived* from the state-certified numbers of votes, following our first-listed source, where Pennsylvania does not certify any votes for Others --*but with a rounding error, as the Biden share would thus be 50.0085% which does not round to 50.02%). Meanwhile our numbers of votes match our second-listed source, which does report numbers for Others as well as for Biden, Trump, Jorg. Shares correctly derived from our numbers of votes, including the Others votes, are 49.97 47.79 1.15 and 0.09 with rounding.)

• Nevada. Our shares of vote sum to 100% for all columns including Others --and they match our numbers of votes without any rounding errors.

--P64 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I had added an unofficial reference for write-in votes in Pennsylvania. The problem was that the numbers for ballot candidates in that reference were slightly different from the official results, so it seems that later other users mixed up the numbers from the two references, making the percentages slightly inconsistent. I suppose that I shouldn't have added the unofficial write-in numbers or that reference anyway, so I just removed them and restored the percentages based only on the official results. I added a note explaining that the percentages don't reflect write-in votes. Heitordp (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Incumbent running

It says, correctly, that every previous incumbent since 1992 was re elected, and a total of 11 incumbents ran unseccessfully. Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that: Since 1992 there were 3 incumbents who were re elected There were a total (if I am correct) of 20 incumbents who were re elected. Yes, incumbents tend to be reelected, but it is not rare to lose. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That depends on how you define rare; 11 out of 46 seems rare. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't argue about "rare". I leave it to the reader. But it is not 11 out of 46. Not every incumbent ran for reelection. I'm just suggesting that we give the numbers to let the reader get some idea of the rarity. My own opinion is that the recent incumbents who lost left under a cloud, but I wouldn't say that in Wikipedia. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's the complete list of all incumbent presidents who sought, but did not win, re-election as president:

1) John Adams (lost to Jefferson in 1800 election)

2) John Quincy Adams (lost to Andrew Jackson in the 1828 election)

3) Martin Van Buren (Lost to William Henry Harrison in 1840 election, ran again in 1844, failed to get his party's nomination. Ran again in 1848 on a third party ticket, lost that election too)

4) Grover Cleveland (lost to Benjamin Harrison in 1892 election)

5) Benjamin Harrison (lost to Cleveland in 1896 election)

6) William Howard Taft (lost to Wilson in 1912 election)

7) Herbert Hoover (lost to FDR in 1932 election)

8) Gerald Ford (lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976 election)

9) Jimmy Carter (lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980 election)

10) George H. W. Bush (lost to Bill Clinton in 1992 election)

11) Donald Trump (lost to Joe Biden in 2020 election)

There are a few "asterisks" in here, however, such as Presidents who initially campaigned for re-election, but either lost at their party's convention to get nominated, or voluntarily stood down after early primary results didn't go their way, such as:

• Franklin Pierce (sought re-election in 1856, but failed to get his party's nomination, did not stand in general election in November)
• Andrew Johnson (sought re-election in 1868, but failed to get his party's nomination, did not stand in general election in November)
• Harry S Truman (initially sought re-election in 1952, dropped out after losing badly in first few primaries)
• Lyndon Baines Johnson (initially sought re-election in 1968, but after facing stiff opposition from Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy for the party nomination, dropped out of the race)

Also, there are a few Presidents who sought election after a period out of office; they did not win. This includes:

• Millard Fillmore (served as president until 1853, did not run in 1852, ran again in 1856 and lost)
• Theodore Roosevelt (served as president until 1909, did not run in 1908, ran again in 1912 and lost)

As far as I know, that's the complete list of every person who, after having served as president, tried (even briefly) and failed to win again. --Jayron32 17:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren. --Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So corrected. --Jayron32 12:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)