Talk:Trump–Raffensperger phone call/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

I recognize that this article is brand new and is being put together on the fly. So the current title will do for now. But at some point we should discuss what its ultimate title should be. I would favor something more like Trump–Raffensperger phone call, as being more descriptive and a much better reflection of what Neutral Reliable Sources are saying. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I feel like Trump–Raffensperger phone call will be a better title. This is in no doubt an extreme scandal, but calling it a scandal in the title is only ostensibly NPOV, and (in my opinion) kind of downplays the severity of what happened. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment to MelanieN and Jonmaxras. I respectfully disagree, as it has been referred to as a scandal as for instance in here and here. Of course we will have to wait further for this to play out and then we can see how it will change naturally, but for the while we agree on the nature of the title. Marcosoldfox (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Thanks for the links, but we will need better sources to keep "scandal" as the permanent title. The Daily Mail is not acceptable as a source per WP:RSP, and an opinion piece in a small Texas newspaper is not enough to establish this as a term in general use. We are not proposing to change it now, just to let the story mature a day or two to see what the major Reliable Sources end up calling it. (Please not Phonegate! 0;-D) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Yes, understandable. Let's wait for how it plays out and then editors should freely decide how the titling should be changed. I agree that we have to wait and then let's allow the editors to decide. Thanks for commenting.Marcosoldfox (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Add section for Legal concerns

Since many federal public officials, experienced prosecutors, election lawyers and officials have stated legal concerns about Trump putting himself in legal jeopardy of exposing himself to criminal liability only 2 weeks from leaving office, should we make a separate article section titled "Legal Concerns" or something similar ?

In the CNN article, it says that "federal criminal code ... prohibits election fraud or refusing to count valid votes, and Georgia state law that outlines a felony in the state when a person encourages another person into election fraud. That state crime is punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years, according to Georgia code" . The FBI and Georgia district attorney for Fulton County has also been requested to investigate on the matter. The heavy legal implications I feel are warranted to create an article section.

Comment Yeah, I find it warrantable, but for the insertion of that section, there needs to be trustful sources on the matter. And obviously keep the ongoing-issue sign so that it is updated as it goes, of course, so that readers are aware that the story is changing as it goes. If you have enough verifiable sources to put, then I think it's warranted to add a new section on the legal issues that Trump might be facing in the future; but as of right now, that would still be speculative, of course. If you do happen to add in another section, make sure to put in verifiable sources. Thanks for your comment.Marcosoldfox (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple news articles have already stated that Trump has been criminally referred to federal authorities, notably the FBI, and Georgia state authorities for attempting to solicit election fraud/interference. Given the violations of federal and George state election code and legal implications that multiple federal and election officials, as well as election lawyers and legal experts have stated, shouldn't we create a section on that? Also on the 2020 overturn attempts Wikipedia article page it states "Legal experts stated that Trump's attempt to pressure Raffensperger could have violated election law,[186] including federal and state laws against soliciting election fraud or interference in elections.[189][194]." Wouldn't that paragraph be considered speculation by that standard? And if it isn't, shouldn't that all be here since this is the main article of the call? Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election expands more on the subject and I think we should move most of the content to this article Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Comment Well, this I disagree with. I think that moving the content to another already made article would make things even more confusing and harder to update. Marcosoldfox (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

On the 2020 overturn attempts article, the section on calls with state officials only states this one call. Since this is the main article pertaining to the Trump-Raffensperger phone call to which the other article directs, shouldn't all of the information pertaining to this call be in this article, and then have a shorter blurb/summary of the call in the 2020 overturn attempts article, which could mention other calls as time plays out? Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Note - Mentioned on Portal:Current events

• Just for the article's history, I am making a quick note that the article was mentioned in the Portal:Current events on January 4, 2020. Portal:Current events/2021 January 4. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note - Article was mentioned in the Portal:Current events on January 5, 2020. Portal:Current events/2021 January 5.

Changing the Article's title back to normal until we can get this figured out

As agreed before, we have to wait for one day or two for this to play out so that we can know for sure on how to keep the title of the article. As it is an ongoing issue that is currently being updated, the article's title has to revert to as previous until the issue can be fully figured out. Thank you.Marcosoldfox (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I moved it to the phone call title. Please do not do major edits like a page move without getting opinions. After talking to you and reading you previous edits on the talk page, I am slightly concerned as you seem to have a weird interest in this article. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would expect the lead coordinator of Wikiproject of Current Events to write more respectfully. We all, when editing, develop occasion enthusiasms. But "weird interest", really? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, please respect the developing consensus at the section above, which was to wait a day or two until settling on a title, so we see how Reliable Sources describe it. There were three or four of us in that discussion - I started it - and I for one object to any description of myself as having a "weird interest" in this article. My main goal here has been to make the article more readable and keep it neutral. I would hope that is your main goal also. Please listen to your own advice, Please do not do major edits like a page move without getting opinions. For one thing, I didn't hear anyone suggest putting "2021" in the title; I for one would oppose it as unnecessary and non-intuitive. I hereby request you to move it back to the original title pending consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Read the section above. I was being as respectful as possible, but he basically told me that asking a question was "edit-disrupting the article". I don't know how to state the fact that the editor has a connection to the article. Almost like a fake admin level connection. Maybe you could help me word it better.Elijahandskip (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The move was a revert. Didn't mean to break what I said. I was reverting what a solo editor did. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

And they were reverting what you, a solo editor, did. I repeat my request that you move it back to the original title pending consensus. (And I didn't even like that title, but I specifically wanted to prevent move warring. Which you did anyhow.) -- MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually never moved the page other than that revert I did. I am slightly confused on what you mean. I will move the page back (Completed), but if it is ok with you, I would like to highly warn the editor who did the original solo move. Fair enough? Elijahandskip (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually never moved the page other than that revert I did. Then I am confused, because you said above "I moved it to the phone call title". (Move histories are very hard to follow in WP logs.) What did the original solo move do? What made you think you were reverting to the original or consensus title? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see: it was User:Volvlogia who set off the move warring - the "original solo move" - by moving the original "scandal" title to 2021 Trump-Raffensperger phone call.[1] You changed it back to the phone call title after Marcusoldfox changed it. You thought he was soloing - but Marcus was actually restoring the original title. That's why he titled this section "Changing the Article's title back to normal..." I think I will go and request move protection for a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this should go back to the original title. There is no need to berate Marcosoldfox (or anyone) for editing the article in good faith. He was acting in accordance to the consensus above. Jonmaxras (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have move-protected the article for one month. I think that will be more than enough time to settle this. Elijahandskip, thank you for reverting your move. If anyone needs me to move the page when an agreement is reached, I will be happy to do so (or put in a request at WP:RM). --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that the original title of the article is the one we have as of now, and the consensus that was reached was that it'd be Trump-Raffensperger Scandal until the issue is better figured out. For any reasons User:Elijahandskip claimed I solo-changed it even though I did not and I even wanted to keep it for the meanwhile. He was the one who changed it first and I only changed it to go back once to what it already was before. I don't know what motives might be behind user:Elijahandskip's attempt to change titles but he was the one who changed it without informing first. Thank you for doing what you can to avoid move-warring, User:Bongwarrior. Marcosoldfox (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't Elijah who moved it first; turns out it was Volvlogia, an editor who had not participated in this article before or since, just parachuted in to change the title. Marcos moved it back. And then Elijah, also a new editor to this article, saw Marcos's move back to the original title and thought Marcos was the one introducing a new title. All misunderstandings, all carried out in good faith. Thanks to Bongwarrior it will not be repeated. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I talked to User:Elijahandskip on my Talk page and he seems to be a good-intented editor so I'm assuming good faith. I'm going to give wikipedia a long break though so I won't be editing any more of the page, leaving it to other editors as of now. I don't intend on editing any more on the issue. Thanks a lot, all fellow wikipedians.Marcosoldfox (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's discuss the title

The scandal, or whatever you want to call it, is now several days old. Let's see if the Reliable Sources are settling on what they want to call it. In a search for Trump Raffensperger,[2] I get about 5 million hits. The vast majority of them are news reports saying "call" or "phone call" in the headline. Should we try to work out a title on that basis? How should we word it? Some possibilities, feel free to suggest more and add them here:

• Trump–Raffensperger phone call
• Trump–Raffensperger telephone call
• Donald Trump phone call with Brad Raffensperger
• Trump–Raffensperger scandal (the original and current title)

I don't see any need to mention the year since there is no similar title from any other year - it's unnecessary disambiguation. But again, this is something we can discuss.

Also possible: we could expand it into a more general article about Trump's attempts to pressure state and local officials. But this story has taken on such a life of its own I think it goes beyond that. (Interestingly, that is the defense some Republicans are offering: "This is no different from what he has been saying for months." But none of those previous incidents touched off the firestorm that this one has.)

Anyhow, discussion/suggestions are welcome. No need at this point for a "survey" or vote, let's just discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment My vote is with the third title option you presented, and I agree that adding 2021 is redundant.

I don't think this article should be expanded to focus on other events, as this singular phone call is extremely notable. When (and if) more accounts come out of Trump pressuring with other officials, I'd argue an independent article for the whole topic of Trump pressuring officials is warranted. Beyond that, any new leaks should be assessed on a case-by-case basis for notability. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the first option myself. Two and three add more words that I don't think really conveys more critical information. I think the use of their surnames alone is adequate, and the hyphenation indicates that the phone call was between the two people named. Adding "phone" or "telephone" call is unnecessary disambig, as there wasn't another, separate Skype or Zoom call as far as we know at this point. ThirdDolphin (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've changed my mind! I agree with ThirdDolphin. The shorter title works better. Jonmaxras (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised this article went straight to "scandal" without passing go and collecting $200. That said, it arguably is a scandal straight outta the chute. but we haven't had that argument here. I'd suggest "Trump–Raffensperger phone call" until things unfold further. soibangla (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support any of these names. In a Google search, I got 65,900 results for "Trump Raffensperger phone call", 39,800 results for "Trump Raffensperger call", but only 575 results for "Trump Raffensperger scandal", some of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Wikipedia should not be making up its own terminology. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's try again to get an agreement on a title. Everyone has been distracted by the other, bigger stories going on. I have added the current title as an option to discuss. Reviewing the bidding above, I see opposition to expanding the scope of the article. I don't see any support for "scandal". Everyone who has commented so far prefers, or at least accepts, the first, shortest option: Trump–Raffensperger phone call. This is a small sample; I will send out some pings to see if anyone else wants to chime in. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marcosoldfox, Elijahandskip, Volvlogia, and Jonmaxras: Any opinion on what to call this article? The article is currently move-protected so we need consensus to change it. How we got to this point is explained in the section above.[3] -- MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning heavily towards Trump–Raffensperger phone call. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree for the phone call title. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior: I think we have consensus for "Trump–Raffensperger phone call". If you agree, could you move the article to that title? No rush. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I would go broader - “Trump attempts to pressure state election officials to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election”? Any less wordy way of saying this? Neutrality^talk 03:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I feel like that is far too descriptive for a title, even if it could be shortened. The event is concisely described in the first sentence. Additionally, the article primarily focuses on Trump's call with Raffensperger; other calls are arguably not as notable. Jonmaxras (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We already have some material in the article (under Background) about Trump's other phone calls, and I have now added it to the lead. It's possible this might someday evolve into an article about the whole scope of his attempted interference, as you suggested, Neutrality. The situation we have now is that this call became much more controversial and caused much more outrage than the previous ones because it was recorded and we can listen to it. (I'd like to be able to point that out in the article, but I can't find any source saying so.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Third call

The New York Times just reported on a third call, but I couldn't read much of it (no subscription). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a link to the article. You do not need a subscription, but you need to create an account. The article states the call was not made to Raffensperger but to a "top Georgia election investigator" and the call was made more then a week before the call to Raffensperger. It is hard to judge significance when there seems to be no investigation, so basically if the media finds it scandalous it should be included in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Fani Willis

It appears that Fani Willis is about to become well known. A lot of good information here: [4]

Current: [5] Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I just started the stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

News cycle

I'd like to add a line that says something along the lines of "The incident was closely followed by the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol, which largely displayeddisplaced it in the news cycle." I think this is an important piece of information to note, as the scandal would have likely unfolded very differently if the timing had been different. I'm sure RS have covered this, but I can't find them; could anyone help locate a link we could use as a ref? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, do you mean "displaced"? If so, I agree, but which reliable sources discuss that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yep, sorry for the typo. And the issue is that I'm not sure how to find them. Maybe I shouldn't be trying to build the article around what I assume sources are saying, but I'm pretty sure I read them saying something along those lines at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Court cases claim

So I'm reviewing several articles for style, and this line hung me up: "Nevertheless, Trump's campaign continued to claim baseless accounts of voter fraud which have been resoundingly dismissed by fact-checkers, elections-security experts, and courts." Do we know that the courts found the claims to be baseless? We know that legal cases did not go forward to trial, either having been dismissed for standing or as moot [I'm looking at the linked Wikipedia article immediately before this line in the main article, that directly references the outcome of the cases filed over Georgia.] Can we say a claim was baseless and then suggest that it was baseless because a court did not hear a case -- the court did not actually have trials and have verdicts rendered. Courts decide things daily without making a firm decision on the underlying claims that gave rise to the lawsuits. I suggest we strip courts out of here. Otherwise, the implication is that the courts dismissing it validated the claims as baseless, when as a matter of legal procedure the courts reached no such conclusions. We lack RS on the claims about the court, and risk making the article (this and others) that state that legal proceeding reached some "finding" when they did not, look silly to people who actually understand how the law works, and that would undermine the validity and utility of Wikipedia. I suggest a careful rewrite, here and elsewhere. Neptune1969 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Split proposal: Trump–Georgia election investigator phone call

I propose that we start a new article Trump–Georgia election investigator phone call and trim down this section to proper length to avoid undue weight to the actual subject of this article. Especially after the emergence of the recording and the controversy surrounding the misquotes. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I will wait for few more days. If there is no objection then I will proceed the split myself. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sameboat: doesn't look to be any objection - are you going to do this? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2021

There is a new development into the investigation that can be added: In September 2021, District Attorney Fani Willis announced that her team is interviewing witnesses, including state election officials, about the attempts to overturn the state results. [6] 2603:6010:D307:98CA:6927:76EA:E61F:4215 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I am asking that the sentence "In September 2021, District Attorney Fani Willis announced that her team is interviewing witnesses, including state election officials, about the attempts to overturn the state results" gets added to the article along with the Daily Beast link. --2603:6010:D307:98CA:6927:76EA:E61F:4215 (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I reopened the request. Where should it be added? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: the lead section. --2603:6010:D307:98CA:6927:76EA:E61F:4215 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the article, not contain information not found elsewhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: then it can go in the state investigations section instead. --2603:6010:D307:98CA:6927:76EA:E61F:4215 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Updated on release of phone call with investigator transcript

I have edited the section on the phone call with the investigator that was the object of reporting on March 11 and the subsequent correction by the Washington Post. I also fleshed out the connection between that phone call and impeachment (as it was perhaps apparent to people at the time but may not be understandable in four or five years from now). I kept her name out of it -- I saw in some reporting that there was concern about putting her name in there. The sourcing is RS--Washington Post, NPR, The Hill. I think there could be more added from the actual transcript, but the Wall Street Journal kept paywall blocking me (appropriately so--I'm not a subscriber) but I think fleshing out the distinction between what was originally reported and what corrected would be useful. I also saw hints but could not clarify that the Washington Post may have indicated who the faulty source of the quotations for their story was. I held off on that until I could find serious RS coverage of that. Neptune1969 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Vaselineeeeeeee's contributions here, but the reworking introduced a lot of grammatical problems. For example, I used "her" instead of investigator, because otherwise we have multiple investigators doing things within a single sentence. The changes to the paragraph on the Washington Post retraction/Wall Street Journal transcript have multiple main verbs. I'm going to hack at it, but if I make changes that seem to change the tone this is why. Neptune1969 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Neptune1969's contribution. I do not appreciate Vaselineeeeeeee's contributions, primarily this, for example the change from "in" to "at the time of" and the change from "fake" to "erroneous" -- saying that the affair was an ephemeral error is an implication that it was innocent. Incidentally I think the sudden need for change indicates that the Washington Post's garbage was accepted too quickly, vindicating our WP:NOTNEWS policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've changed it back to "fake" from "erroneous," and improved the prose in the text, including the revisions of "her" into "the investigator" for clarity. Neptune1969 (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that "fake" is better than "erroneous" here. Even "erroneous" is a bit strong. The gist of the quotes was correct even if the exact wording wasn't accurate, and there's no evidence that the slight misquoting was malicious. Yes, Trump said "you'll be praised" instead of "you'll be a national hero" and said "dishonesty" instead of "fraud." Does that makes the entire WP story "garbage" or have any substantive implications about the phone call? Certainly not. WP improperly represented their source's paraphrases as direct quotes, but those paraphrases were accurate paraphrases nonetheless. The correction is worth mentioning, but let's not give it undue weight or use unmerited pejoratives like "fake." Note that the cited sources don't use the word "fake," and we shouldn't editorialize by using a loaded term that isn't in the cited sources. 23.242.198.189 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

134.69.230.67 has changed so that "fake" is gone and words like "paraphrases" are in -- although I don't see any support for "paraphrases". As stated in the conversation earlier, I prefer what Neptune1969 had, and I don't prefer IPs who insert their own opinions without getting consensus, and I think this causes WP:BLP involvement since it's adding what Mr Trump meant. But I hereby ping the persons who may disagree -- Vaselineeeeeeee plus 23.242.198.189 -- and hope that others will opine too. Should 134.69.230.67's edit be reverted, and should there be a request to semi-protect this page if edits like this continue? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Peter, I had not received the attempted one several months ago, but I do not have issue with those changes by Neptune anyway. The agree that the IP completely inserted their own opinion, and agree the previous state of the wording is more accurate. I have replaced it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Reinserting the word "fake" is POV and isn't supported at all by reliable sources. If there is an issue with using the word "paraphrases," then remove the word "paraphrases," but don't reinsert the clearly inappropriate word "fake." It's not even clear what it means for a "source" to be "fake." Does it mean there wasn't actually a source? What's the evidence for that? Does it mean the source made it all up? What's the evidence for that? Instead of making the cryptic, unjustified, and possibly even nonsensical claim that the source was fake, how about we say the the wording was inaccurate? That is an objective description supported by reliable sources. 23.242.195.76 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

23.242.195.76 has now changed to remove "fake", remove credit to Wall Street Journal, and insert the opinion that the source was merely inaccurate. But isn't the use of quotation marks in a news story a promise that the quoting is accurate? The evidence that the source "made it all up" is, of course, the transcript and the recording and the reporting. It seems to me that this IP is overriding three editors who approved the previous wording, and had at least as much right to claim objectivity was the aim. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If User:Peter Gulutzan or any other editor thinks the article should say WaPo's anonymous source was "fake," then their task is simple: Find reliable sources that say WaPo's anonymous source was "fake." That's how wikipedia works. Ironically, User:Peter Gulutzan calls it "opinion" to describe the anonymous source as "inaccurate" rather than as "fake." But on the contrary, calling the source "inaccurate" is objectively true and completely indisputable--we can all agree that the quotes weren't accurate, can't we? However, speculating that the inaccuracy was due to the source being "fake" (whatever that even means) is pure opinion, not objective language, and not supported by any of the cited references. In fact, despite User:Peter Gulutzan's claims to the contrary, reliable sources support describing the source as "paraphrasing" or "misquoting," rather than as "fake." For example, CNN's correction says the following: "An earlier version of this story, published January 9, presented paraphrasing of the President's comments to the Georgia elections investigator as direct quotes." (Source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/trump-phone-call-georgia-investigator-2020-election/index.html) WaPo's own correction says the following: "The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call." (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-call-georgia-investigator/2021/01/09/7a55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html) 23.242.195.76 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Questioning notability (From Wikipedia policy, not as a person)

How exactly is a phone call and saying "I ask the FBI to investigate" actually warrent notability for the article? Technicall, no investigationtook place. We don't know if this will go anywhere. I am having flashbacks to the DeWine and Whitmer artices of impeachment articles. Not actuallysure this is notable per Wikipedia notability guidelines. (Please respond looking at this via Wikipedia policies. As a person, I believe it should be mentioned, but I am struggling on the Wikipedia notability). Elijahandskip (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment With all due respect, please do not bludgeon the process with mistyped and misconstrued comparisons. Also, why would you create a perfectly sounding section headline but badly mistyped sentences? Makes me think it was intentional. Marcosoldfox (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If the page was nominated for deletion, it would likely be evaluated based on WP:EVENTCRIT. KidAd talk 23:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Hello, please do not edit-disrupt the article or create confusion in the Talk Section of the page. Thank you.Marcosoldfox (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marcosoldfox: I am typing on my phone currently, so grammar and sentence structure is the best I can do at the moment. Also, I am the lead coordinator of Wikiproject of Current Events. Please don't tell me or others not to communicate on the talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's clear from the content of the article that the phone call (a) is quite notable indeed and (b) contains a lot more than "I ask the FBI to investigate." If anyone claims otherwise, they're either being disingenuous or they haven't read the article. We're talking about an action by a sitting president that many experts have called criminal. Whether you personally agree or not, claiming the phone call not a notable event is obviously absurd. 23.242.195.76 (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Falsely" claimed

I'm posting here because I'd like to get a consensus on this. Hopefully Sjö and others will respond.

Earlier today, Sjö reverted a revision I made to this page, the removal of a single word that violates WP:NPOV: namely, "falsely".

Current version: "During the phone call, Trump maintained falsely that he had won Georgia by 'hundreds of thousands of votes'..."

Edited version: "During the phone call, Trump maintained that he had won Georgia by 'hundreds of thousands of votes'..."

Sjö's reason for the reversion reads, in its entirety: "well supported and we should not give equal weight to WP:FRINGE claims". While I absolutely agree with that, I would argue that removing the unnecessary adjective does just the opposite. Indeed, rather than promote fringe theories, it replaces a non-NPOV with a neutral statement—exactly as Wikipedia's Terms of Use dictate we should.

Now, please let me be crystal clear about this: I'm not a Trump supporter. I voted against him in the first place, and I'm glad he's no longer the President. I also believe that his 2020 loss was largely legitimate and completely inevitable, and he should definitely be held accountable if he tried to subvert the democratic process. But even with all that, we still have two major problems:

1. The term "falsely" establishes President Trump's claims as false when no such determination has been made. I personally agree with the "prevailing views" supporting the general integrity of the vote, but that doesn't mean the "prevailing views" are correct. Goodness knows there are plenty of beliefs that are both widespread and unsubstantiated.
2. The phrase "maintained falsely" implies that the former President was lying to ensure his reelection, yet there is no evidence that this be the case. Could he have been? Sure, but we just don't know. There's a huge difference between a false statement and an incorrect statement, and without any evidence of the former, the superfluous adjective constitutes an editorial point of view.

Let's discuss. TheOtter (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not have to bend over backwards to give equal weight to the idea that there was significant election fraud and that Trump won the election. The fact that this is false is well established, and other Wikipedia articles do state, in Wikipedia's vocie, that these claims are false. Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, 2020 United States presidential election and Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election all use "false", "falsely" and words to that effect. I argue that there is a well-established consensus to call the claim that Trump won "false". Sjö (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)