Talk:2020 United States presidential election

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lshane23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SumayyahGhori, Mberk11, Crazy326459, Wiki811pedia, Mvmarsha.

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

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)
• 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)

RfC: What sources should be used for calling states?

What sources should be used for calling states? Below are three of the (consensus) options from the section above.

• The Associated Press, which is used by many other news sources
• The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP
• The AP and a couple of other sources that do rely on the AP
• Don't call anything

Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Responses

• AP only, as the AP is considered the gold standard of calling elections. Many other news sources use the AP, as well as HRC's campaign in 2016. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP. Preferably 2 other sources who DO rely on the AP but this RfC does not have that as an option. I would like to have a broader catch of RS consensus than just the AP, and/or a show of faith in a call by the AP from other RS. Failing that, would prefer only AP to not calling anything until there is a clear and distinct winner because I feel that the infobox should be updated with as reliable as information as can be garnered. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I've added that as an option now. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I have changed my mind and I do support my original statement. I misunderstood the options, my apologies. Up to you if you want to keep that option, but I no longer need it. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• The AP and a couple of other sources that don't rely on the AP We are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. It's best to rely on multiple sources in case AP turns out to be incorrect; in other words, better safer than sorry. Zoozaz1 talk 02:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll also add that there is a dispute whether to show the overall electoral tally according to AP or according to the called state races on Wikipedia, which themselves are the subject of this discussion, so maybe you could work that into the rfc? Zoozaz1 talk 03:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I support attempting to include all of this in the RfC seeing as the election is literally tomorrow. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• AP only. They've been accurately and properly calling elections since 1848 and I think they're the most reliable source when it comes to this.Herbfur (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• AP only, the second (and possibly third) option has WP:VERIFY issues as well as borderline WP:SYNTH concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• For information purposes only: Twitter will "consider a result official" when at least two of the following have made the call: ABC News, AP, CBS News, CNN, DecisionDeskHQ, Fox News, NBC News. My personal opinion is that you're not going to get the 3 reliable sources that you talked about above if you're only going to accept AP. Risker checklist (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (Note this is an alternate account of mine - Risker (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC))
• Option 2. I like the idea of relying on any two sources from a predetermined list of high-quality news organizations (including the AP), sort of like what Risker mentioned Twitter is doing. Per Zoozaz1, we should also specify that the sources should be independently reporting, not, say, the AP saying "X has won" and another source saying "The AP has called the race for X". GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, as I have said previously, relying only on the AP is a bad idea, since that organisation is by no means infallible. We should instead have a predetermined list of reliable organisations, and since the clear consensus we had was buried among endless procrastinating, we should follow Twitter's lead as a last resort. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No projection is infallible, that's why it's called a projection. In 2018, most news outlets projected a House candidate for the wrong candidate, so option 2 doesn't necessarily ensure complete accuracy either. Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, with 15 minutes to polls closing, Google has put up a map, and it says that they use the AP only. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's a little late to be holding a RfC on this question. I mean by this time tomorrow, the voting will be over on the West Coast and the counting will be continuing. This RfC probably should have been done in September, not the night before the election. You can't hold an RfC for 12 hours and consider it definitive or say it's "the consensus". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good point. Since we probably won't come to a consensus by tomorrow- it looks like we are going to have to hold off on updating the infobox and map altogether. And most people at the noticeboard actually said they preferred not updating the map and infobox. So it looks like that will be the consensus by default. Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• ALL of the results that will be released on November 3-4 will be provisional. None of them will have been certified by the end of November 4. Some states will have projected winners, but most news outlets have indicated they will be very conservative in "calling" races this year, so it is quite possible that there will still be many states without projected winners by the end of November 4. I think it is wise to hold off on the infobox/map updating until then, and insist that any state results also meet the same standard of a minimum of 2 or 3 reliable sources for projected winners. Risker checklist (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. If we are going to hold off on updating, we should either update once 1 source (i.e. the AP) has projected all states and districts or we should wait until all states and districts have been unanimously projected by every major media outlet. Your proposal has WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 even though it seems like consensus won't be reached in the next 12 hours, I think that relying on just AP will give us less of a headache of each result being subject to interpretation. Sidenote: @Prcc27: do you know which other news sources rely on AP? I know at least NPR and some NBC local affiliates do but I can't find a definitive list. Sixula^Talk 13:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the New York Times and Bloomberg also rely on them? Prcc27 (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per GW. I'd separately support not calling any states until 0600 UTC, when the final polls close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

On the map, GorillaWarfare said that "results should not be added until 12h after polls close at minimum." I want to clarify that this was the possible consensus for the popular vote tally only. The electoral vote consensus was to either update the map immediately or hold off on it indefinitely. The 12 hour suggestion wasn't really every proposed for the map. The only reason we haven't updated the map is because consensus is still split. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• AP only: The AP is the most reliable single source for this, and I think relying on multiple sources at the same time would quickly get very complicated. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• AP only. We are lucky to have them. Used by PBS. P.S. Thanks to Nate Silver for link to AP criteria. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• AP only. Although I feel that WP:SYNTH does not apply (as "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" is not the case), the AP has long been held to be the leader in calling elections. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2*. AP made a mistake when they called Arizona for Biden way too soon. Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per above. VZkN9 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• AP only given their long track record, and the fact that most RS are using their data (many of them using it unchanged). We write reliable, verifiable stuff to be useful to the readers. For US election results, that's AP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Post Election day discussion

Given that we were unable to update the map and infobox on election night, due to a split consensus- we now need to decide when we will add states to the map and infobox. I think we should hold off on adding states until all major media organizations have projected a winner for every single state and district (where applicable) race. However, I would be open to adding states/districts with unanimous projections by the media right this second, even though some states are outstanding. But I would prefer that we ultimately hold off on updating it until every state and ME-2 has been projected- even if we get an overall projected winner beforehand. Prcc27 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 19:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thirded. Nojus R (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think it is safe to color in some called states. AZ, MI and WI should probably be left alone for now, but I think some have obvious winners. Possibly all states with a 5% or higher lead? Lsw2472 (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to color in states/districts with unanimous projections by the media right now, but would not be opposed to a consensus for waiting until every state/ME-2 has unanimously been projected if that is where consensus goes, which is where it seems to be going. Przemysl15 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with adding unanimous calls to the page.  Nixinova   T   C   00:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Nixinova: Could you please clarify whether you support waiting until all races are called before adding them or whether you support adding them right now? Prcc27 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  I support adding them now if they have been unanimously called.  Nixinova   T   C   01:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support updating page to reflect states that have been called unanimously. (At this point, I believe this would leave AZ, GA, ME-02, NV, NC, and PA. Whackyasshackysack (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Technically Opposed I think that if all sources say X won a state, then we should be able to include it in the article as long as it isn't controversial. (Basically agreeing with Lsw2472 and Nixinova) I can say that the 5% or higher lead by Lsw2472 is a good cutoff, but I do want to suggest a second cutoff on percentage of expected votes in. Something like 85%, 90%, or 95+% should be good in my opinion if others agree. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  (Amended) Support adding File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg to the article. It has the states that are unanimous and further discussions can be held later as to if something needs to be added or removed. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. If all or most media outlets have called a state, it meets WP:RS. This is a good summary of the calls that have been made. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support including those states called by the AP. Both the AP and Fox News(!) have called Wisconsin and Arizona for Biden and have displayed 264/214 for about 18 hours now. Fox News viewers are unhappy with their favorite channel for doing that. The only states not called by the AP are Alaska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. CNN is more conservative and not counting Arizona yet. AP EXPLAINER: States still in play and what makes them that way -- Valjean (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd caution against including Arizona at this point; it's been called only by Fox News and AP (which I believe are using a different exit polling system than everyone else) and there's been a lot of commentary even in the mainstream media about whether the call was appropriate. Since reliable sources disagree, it should either be excluded or be colored differently to indicate that there's not consensus among the media organizations about it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There are numerous states that have been called and are not in question at all. I would prefer that the AP projections are added as well, but would advocate for the addition of unanimously-called states since that seems to be a matter of some contention. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we have consensus for adding all states/districts minus AK, AZ, GA, ME-02, NV, NC, and PA, as every other state/district has been unanimously called. I cant figure out how to mess with the map but I think we should be able to update the map at this point. Przemysl15 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Edit: Added Alaska per comment underneath.
  • At this point AK hasn't been called either, but ME-2 has been called for Trump by most but not all media outlets. See [1]. FYI, the image already exists at File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I still prefer waiting until we can fill in the entire map before adding it, rather than uploading an incomplete map right now. Quite a few users did say they agreed with me, but of course, this isn't a vote, and consensus seems to be shifting towards updating the map with states that have been unanimously called ASAP. That being said, I feel like we should wait at least 24 hours before updating the map, to give those users and other users time to weigh in. I know how to update the map and could do so tomorrow, if consensus doesn't change. We can't use the file that Antony-22 provided because ME-2 has not been unanimously called. Nonetheless, would we also update the infobox with a projected electoral vote tally too? Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course we should wait 24 hours, just wanted to start discussion on how to move forward now that this has been up a bit and weve got some responses. Also, I presume we would update the infobox with EVs as well. Przemysl15 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, this is obviously what we should do. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Devonian Wombat: Can you please clarify if you support updating the map/infobox soon vs. updating the map once we can fill every state and district in. Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I support updating right this second. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying. Prcc27 (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not just AP – Wiki should have more than one major media source for calling the election. I suggest we wait at least for NYT', and ideally also for the WX Post. I say this as one who has tremendous respect for the Associated Press – and one who once actually worked for the AP as a news writer. – Sca (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sca: I don't think only using the AP is being supported by many users anymore now that we are post election day. Most people here seem to support adding a state only if it is unanimously projected by major media organizations. But we still need to decide if we want to update the map now, or if we want to wait for every state (and ME-2) to be called before updating the map. The consensus seems to be leaning significantly towards the former. Prcc27 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah. 10-4 and thanks. – Sca (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Update immediately, with caveats. We should include all calls by any major network, even when not unanimous, but should use some different color, pattern, shade, or indicator when there is a split decision or when only some major networks have made a call. In a situation like this, we should absolutely note stuff like the AP + Fox calls, because they are major parts of the story, and because failing to note them at all will cause confusion from readers who follow those sources; but we also need to absolutely make it clear that it's just a those two rather than a unanimous call. During an election, we should also revise the table of called states in order to list calls by major networks instead of the current breakdown by party (which seems useless to readers - at the moment it is almost entirely empty, with just a ton of wasted space.) Something like Politico's graph of network calls would be more useful; just have each cell colored by the network's call, and list the total at the bottom. In practice implementing this mid-election-count would be tricky (and unnecessary since it seems like this will be over in a few hours anyway), but for future elections we should go with a system like this because otherwise we run into this debate over which calls to use every single time, even if this time was particularly stark, and because given how significant this is it's important to keep our maps, tables, etc. as up to date as possible with as much accurate information as possible. This means both unambiguously registering all "partial" calls, and making it clear somehow, at a glance, that they are not yet unanimous - ignoring them entirely and presenting them identically to unanimous calls both strike me as unworkable options. (Also, of course all unanimous calls for individual states need to be added immediately - failing to do so is just absurd and serves no purpose.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fully agree. One of our important functions is to document the flow of history, not just document that A moved to G. We should document how A got to G. -- Valjean (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Information about the so-called red and blue mirages should be included in this article in order to explain why the vote counts were changed and the result of the election was not immediately clear. I think these details are relevant because they explain why the vote went a certain way in the states that we are discussing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lshane23 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support updating immediately and either 1) only coloring on consensus across all sources, or 2) Aquillion's proposal to use a different color to indicate how many RS have called the state, with preference for option 2. We may have a lack of consensus for a while, so not showing anything is't really helpful. Chris vLS (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of material w claim of “ dubious relevance”

here.

That the material is relevant is evident here. @Devonian Wombat, kindly revert your removal. Humanengr (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is it here exactly? As far as I can tell, that material should be at 2016 United States presidential election. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

E.g., https://apnews.com/article/5e14adfdd3f24f03b6944b778751a650. Humanengr (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The only reference to 2020 in this article is the title and a sentence in the introduction: "the ultimate verdict on President Donald Trump will be rendered by voters in the 2020 election", which could be said in relation to the election had the Mueller report never existed. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Przemysl15, also Ahead of the 2020 election, both [parties] are trying to reach the slice of Americans who have not hardened to partisan positions. A June poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 31% of Americans said they didn’t know enough to say whether Mueller’s report had completely cleared Trump of coordination with Russia and 30% didn’t know whether it had not completely cleared Trump of obstruction. A CNN poll found that just 3% said they had read the whole report. Perhaps Mueller’s testimony, with his button-down lawyer’s approach, reached some of them. Humanengr (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Przemysl15, I provided evidence that your claim is incorrect. Please respond. The text I offered is appropriate here.Humanengr (talk)<

@Devonian Wombat, also https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/us-voters-have-mueller-report-final-say-2020-election. Humanengr (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I still see no indication that this is relevant to the 2020 election at all. One off-hand comment in one news article is not enough. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s not ‘off-hand’. That’s -analysis- by AP. Did you read the VOA article? Humanengr (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

From VOA:

1. Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.
2. The Mueller rreport found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.
3. Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.
4. They are also moving toward citing Attorney General William Barr with contempt of Congress for not producing an un-redacted version of the Mueller report.
5. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., moves ahead with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after last-minute negotiations stalled with the Justice Department over access to the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
6. As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.
7. Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.}}

Humanengr (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: I have provided additional evidence the material is appropriate to include. Pls respond. Humanengr (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat and Przemysl15: I have provided more than sufficient evidence to counter your objections, which seem to approach WP:IDL. Humanengr (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Also note this re timing. Humanengr (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

With that, I propose

One day prior to the November 3, 2020 election, the Special Counsel's office released previously redacted portions of the Mueller report per the federal judge’s order in the lawsuit mentioned above filed by BuzzFeed News and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, while allowing other portions to remain redacted.

Humanengr (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

At this point, this amounts to WP:Stonewalling. Humanengr (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I will remind you, as others have reminded me before, that pieces like Stonewalling are not WP policy, while WP:AGF is. More importantly, it has been less than 12 hours since my last response, so I think it is a bit premature to begin asking for responses and then citing IDL and Stonewalling when none are given. For the point that my claim is incorrect, you are right and I apologize. I did not read the source appropriately. You also have since provided more than enough reliable sources that consider this to be relevant to the election, so I would support a short piece in the foreign interference section. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I had missed the non-P&G aspect — thx; tired eyes on my part. And on reflection, I was premature on the assertion of IDL and Stonewalling; and so, apologies. Thank you for your further review, consideration, approval, and contribution to the RfC. Humanengr (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

References

An admittedly quite pedantic suggestion

"Voters will select presidential electors who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020, to either elect a new president and vice president or reelect the incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence respectively."

to

"States will nominate presidential electors who will vote on December 14, 2020, to either elect a new president and/or vice president or reelect the incumbents Donald Trump and/or Mike Pence respectively."

Reasoning:

1. The votes of the people technically don't matter. So "States will nominate" is more accurate.

2. It is possible for a new president to be elected while the old vice president remains or the other way around. It is highly unlikely that it would happen, as it would rely on faithless electors, but it is possible.

Dieknon (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Per your first point, they do matter according to the laws of all 50 states. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 16:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC on newly redacted portions of the Mueller report

Should the following be appended to the Foreign interference §?

One day prior to the November 3, 2020 election, the Special Counsel's office released previously redacted portions of the Mueller report per the federal judge’s order in the lawsuit mentioned above filed by BuzzFeed News and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, while allowing other portions to remain redacted. The newly released passages indicated that "federal prosecutors could not establish that the hacked emails amounted to campaign contributions benefitting Trump’s election chances."

For relevance, pls see my comment in Discussion, below.

Humanengr (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Survey

• No It's about the 2016 election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pls see my comment in Discussion below. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• No Not unless there's any evidence that this has any impact. It seems to belong on Mueller report, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Has the criterion of evidence that this has any impact rather than straightforward relevance been applied to anything else in this article? Humanengr (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• No Does not appear pertinent to this election cycle. KidAd talk 19:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems that experts anticipated (see points #6 and 7 in Discussion below) the Mueller investigation (of which this is part-and-parcel) would, in fact, be pertinent to this election cycle. Humanengr (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, completely irrelevant to the election, also the quote you added to the article previously was not the quote that was actually in the article. While I do not wish to throw aspersions, I must call into question the motives of Humanegr in this particular situation, given he, as far as I can tell, made up a quote and added it to the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Devonian Wombat: Link please Humanengr (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Reliable sourcing below and in the thread two above clearly believe that this may have an effect on voters in the 2020 election, even though the report is about the 2016 election. I do not think it is of monumental importance, but given the importance of the Muller Report in general, the inclusion of the report in the article already, and the length (or lack there of) of this proposed addition, I think this is perfectly weighted for the article. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• No, obviously. Coverage connecting this to the election is too slight to justify inclusion here. If we included every single news item that anyone tangentially brought up as an argument related to the election in the immediate runup to it, we would have every news item from the month before the election listed. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• No, I'm not seeing good enough evidence that it had any impact on the 2020 election whatsoever. I follow this stuff VERY closely and in fact was unaware until reading this Talk page. This is really just a coda on 2016. Denzera (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. Fails verification. The passages didn't indicate anything about what prosecutors could or could not establish. R2 (bleep) 17:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Relevance to this article is indicated by this July AP analysis:

Ahead of the 2020 election, both [parties] are trying to reach the slice of Americans who have not hardened to partisan positions. A June poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 31% of Americans said they didn’t know enough to say whether Mueller’s report had completely cleared Trump of coordination with Russia and 30% didn’t know whether it had not completely cleared Trump of obstruction. A CNN poll found that just 3% said they had read the whole report. Perhaps Mueller’s testimony, with his button-down lawyer’s approach, reached some of them.

and by the following points from this earlier VOA article, in particular, points #6 and 7:

1. Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.
2. The Mueller rreport found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.
3. Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.
4. They are also moving toward citing Attorney General William Barr with contempt of Congress for not producing an un-redacted version of the Mueller report.
5. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., moves ahead with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after last-minute negotiations stalled with the Justice Department over access to the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
6. As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.
7. Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.

Humanengr (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why this deletion?

Due to the "consensus required" provision for this article, I won't immediately revert this absurd deletion, with no edit summary, by PackMecEng of a good sentence added by Snooganssnoogans. Here is the deleted sentence:

"In the lead-up to the election, Trump made frequent false claims intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, as well as refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

This is a very well-documented phenomenon with Trump. He lies constantly about the election, doing everything he can to weaken confidence in its legitimacy and to make it harder for citizens to exercise their constitutional voting rights. That sentence is factual, important, and very properly-sourced. What are the policy-based objections for complete deletion, without any attempt to follow the WP:PRESERVE policy? Let's hear them. If there is some background for this such as a previous/existing discussion or consensus, then please explain. -- Valjean (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Mostly because it is a standard POV push and cherry picking. For example he is noted for saying he would in fact accept a peaceful transition.[2] Just an undue mess of contradictions. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Then how should it be improved? -- Valjean (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just leave it in. Trump has a tendency to admit something and then change his mind and deny it later (or half walk it back anyway). It is clear from many reports that Trump, his administration and campaign officials, have made contradicting statements about whether they will respect the results of the election. It is undue to omit this, or to say "he took it back... nothing to see here."--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I did improve it with my revert. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Properly-sourced content is not improved by deleting it. PRESERVE is explicitly about NOT deleting, but keeping and improving content by tweaking, revising, adding more and better sources, etc. Deletion is not improvement. That only applies to vandalism, clearly (to ALL) dubious content that is not properly sourced, or content that is clearly (to ALL) a violation of policies. -- Valjean (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I've seen as a counterpoint to your make it harder for citizens to exercise their constitutional voting rights a similar objection from Greens objecting to Dems efforts to keep them off ballots. Humanengr (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with voting rights. Infighting between political parties is par for the course. -- Valjean (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Keeping a party off the ballot has nothing to do with voting rights? You're saying infighting: Fighting or quarreling among the members of a single group or side? Very confusing. Humanengr (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely, Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, and has undermined voting rights constantly. To claim otherwise is a ridiculous display of bothsidesism that is not backed up even the slightest by the facts. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It's literally on tape and it's widely known that he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power and has repeatedly said false things about the voting process. Being neutral means reporting the facts as they are, reporting this doesn't violate WP:NPOV. I think if the editor wishes to say that Trump later did commit to a peaceful transition of power, the editor should instead expand on the already-existing portions of text and cite reliable sources.Herbfur (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

But he has committed to it, repeatedly. The purposed addition is basically just partisan talking points. PackMecEng (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

From what I gather about the source you cited, I think the source is saying that Trump initially refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power before later committing to it. I think this should've been an addition to the added text, not a deletion, I think it would make more sense to say that Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power in September 2020 before making the commitment in October. Herbfur (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

PME, no, that backtracking has to be seen in light of his initial denial. That initial denial as his real opinion. He does this all the time, and his denials are usually blatant lies. Darryl Kerrigan (comment above) is right. -- Valjean (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No, he has repeatedly made vague statements implying that he might accept election results, just as he then repeatedly declares that he will not. Saying that he will accept a peaceful transfer of power is a partisan violation of NPOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence should be included. Trump's false claims and relucatance to commit to a peaceful transition of power are well-documented and clearly notable as a major issue during this election. As others have noted, it's not POV to report the facts. Even in the CNN article about Trump backtracking, it says he "continued to sow doubt on the election results and making baseless claims." -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

So we are in agreement that he has disagreed with that and other RS note it. Yet you all continue the original research saying that it has not happened? Again lets stay away from talking points and making statements about BLPs when RS have noted otherwise. PackMecEng (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• It should be included, since a wide range of reliable sources state it as fact and describe it in the way that text does. The objection here seems to basically amount to "yes, but those sources are wrong or biased for not emphasizing this other aspect", which isn't an appropriate way to weigh sourcing or inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  Well no, the objection is the NPOV way it is presenting. As well as the undue nature of it the whole thing for this article and in general. PackMecEng (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific; it looks like a reasonable summary of the cited sources to me. In any case, I'm seeing a clear consensus to include here (as far as I can tell you're the only one objecting, out of the roughly nine people who have weighed in on it so far), so I've restored it for now. If you disagree, start an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The answers you seek are above. Did you read above or just count heads again? PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Campaign issues section

I added a new campaign issues section. It's important to describe what the election was about. This is one of the most important things this article can do.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks good. I started to nitpick over the Defense Production Act funding but decided not to click save. It seems to give the impression that 45 has not funded medical equipment, and I don't think that is correct. - Bri.public (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I changed it a bit. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also suggest adding immigration as one of the election's hotly contested issues. Could include links to Immigration policy of Donald Trump and Trump administration family separation policy, and cite Biden's criticisms. Some examples of news coverage: NYT, CNN. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

As to the polling results

I would like to build a consciousness as to the most recent information, (election results) discuss what should be included what sources to be used and work how it should be worded. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Per my current understanding of the Election night prep section, we need at least three of the following sources to call a state: ABC, AP, BBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, New York Times, NPR, PBS, Politico, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. (There was a note that if one of those sources uses the Associated Press, then it only counts as an AP source since some organizations defer.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

NPR and PBS are not calling on their own, only using AP calls. The AP is likely to be the most conservative in calling races, so most other orgs will call a race if the AP does. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral College svg

can someone start colouring in the official colours of the winners in each state which are officially announced now?, this is how we followed the elections in 2016... its impossible to follow it here this time around cause everyone is lazy and refusing to do it, just add those stated confirmed and its that easy..--27.123.139.73 (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No, there has been an agreement on this page to wait until results are more solidly determined before adding such data. There are plenty of maps out there (I know NYT has one) that can be used by those wanting breaking news. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

oh wow GW, you are still around..figured..i didn't say add those where they haven't done a 100% count, only those confirmed... looks like someone is already doing it..--27.123.139.73 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

See the various conversations above. Consensus is to wait 12+ hours after polls close. Just see the conversations above... evidently it's more complicated than I said. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Whenever y'all decide that you want it, File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg has the current consensus results from WaPo, NYT, NPR (AP), Politico, Reuters, and Fox News. I'm not expecting any changes anytime soon, but it's 2020 who knows. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:V governs, not some faux consensus of two editors on this talk page. The electoral numbers and map are incomplete but not in doubt. Post the verifiable facts now and the. Update them when they change. If the stonewalling continues, that’s a behavioral problem to be addressed at WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 11:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Archiving?

Hi,

Can someone set up archiving for this talk page? It's getting pretty lengthy. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We have automated archiving, would we want to decrease how many days it takes to archive? Can we do that? Przemysl15 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Auto-archiving is at 15 days; there are a few sections which probably could be manually archived but I don't see a strong need. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

New § for 'Reactions to election results'

This would be presumably eventually morph / blend into 'Post-election events and controversies' as for 2016. I don't have any particular suggestions other than to start us thinking about structure as the pieces roll in. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead with your sources. Most of the time, we don't care about people's reaction to the results; the results are the results. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump's press conference

So Trump had just claimed that he's won the election and states that he would be going to Supreme Court to stop the count. Where does this get included? Juxlos (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally think, if NY Times claimed Donald Trump to have won the election, that should be the point where everything is settled. One person's claim mean nothing, especially when the speech is delivered at a location he got <10% of the votes.--1233 ( T / C） 07:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying Wikipedia says "Trump wins the election", I'm saying Wikipedia should say "Trump claimed that he won the election during the press conference despite [xxx]". NYT and co. definitely has articles about that press conference. Juxlos (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Then I think it being reasonable, considering the statement and how much backlash he made, directly hours after the election ended.--1233 ( T / C） 09:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Campaign issues"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd wait; especially for Trump, claiming to take it to the Supreme Court is very different from taking it to the Supreme Court. We could say it's combative or unorthodox, anything more will probably need to wait a day for context and sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

To be more precise he claimed that he has won states that he is currently leading but where votes are still being counted, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, if I remember correctly. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 08:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Baseless claims of victory in North Carolina and Georgia too, neither of which are called; "pundits" give Trump about a 90% chance in NC but only 50% in GA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the entire thing is still a toss-up, but the fact that he makes such claims should be included. Juxlos (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think it should be just two or three sentences until his campaign actually engages in litigation. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps dump it in "Potential rejection of election results" for now, but a "reactions" section probably has to be added to the Results section to properly showcase this information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

For some sources: CNBC, Forbes, Fox News, BBC. Juxlos (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be included, but the text should stress that this is a claim made by Donald Trump, not an authoritative statement of fact as described by a neutral RS. Whether or not he actually takes it to the supreme court is actually not all that relevant, what's relevant at the moment is his stated intention to do so. Considering Trump's recent supreme court nominations, RS were already talking about that potential scenario and its potential consequences since before the election. Goodposts (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden will likely win Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 270 electors. Trump lost. The winner will be declared before Pennsylvania counts all the votes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We might want to take a look at 2016 United States presidential election for a model. Under "Results" there are a number of prose sections, including "Election night" and "The next day". They include a brief summary of comments made by the two candidates. Currently our "Results" section includes no text, just tables to be filled in, but I think some textual information would be appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add such a section. Please feel free to expand it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Special:Diff/987078667: It should specify the time zone (2:30am EST, I think?). Also, I think some care should be taken with regards to the wording here with regards to the vote counting. Trump specifically says we want all voting to stop. As the BBC article linked above interprets, most likely his meaning is he wants to block the counting of postal ballots, which can be legally accepted by some state election boards after Tuesday's election. The wording "all vote counting to stop" conveys a slightly different nuance (something along the lines of "oh since we're ahead in the vote count in these states, we can declare victory here and not count the remaining precincts"). The argument (at face value; no comments on whether Trump intentionally phrased it in a misleading way or not) concerns the validity of ballots received after election day, not counted after election day. -- Ununseti (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. In the past he has said "We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list." He was implying, as he often does, that there is cheating in the counting - that "they" add false ballots to inflate the other side's score. (It does happen in American elections that the results shift from Republican to Democratic as the mail ballots come in, for perfectly legitimate reasons known as the Blue shift (politics).) IMO Trump wanted the COUNTING to stop. In the runup to the election he said several times that the winner should be declared on Election Night and no further counting should take place. Apparently his followers think that's what he meant too, because there is now a demonstration outside the Detroit election center with people shouting "Stop the count!" -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The text at this point makes a false characterization that "and that all vote counting should stop." He instead referred specifically to voting. Here is an exact quote from his 2:30 a.m. speech, with the actual statement in italic: "We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election,” Trump claimed, adding: “We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. It’s a very sad moment. We will win this, and as far as I’m concerned we already have won.” Please use his words, not a false paraphrasis. Tgkohn (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN I do personally think that this was most likely his intention. But imo putting that in the text directly is kind of a WP:SYNTH, because the currently cited CNBC source doesn't make that connection explicitly, so it may be worth adding some sources to back that up. The CNBC source just says: “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court, we want all voting to stop,” Trump continued more than an hour after the final U.S. polls closed in Alaska. “We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list.” It was unclear what Trump meant by “going to the Supreme Court,” given that the nation’s highest court is rarely the first judicial venue for a case, but rather, it reviews lower court rulings..

The Forbes source does interpret it as He promised to go to the Supreme Court to stop late vote-counting, though. The Fox News source interprets it as Trump hinted the White House would push the Supreme Court to rule over disputed ballots, warning that a “very sad group of people” was trying to “disenfranchise” voters. This CTV source interprets it as Earlier Wednesday, Trump attacked media organizations for not declaring him the winner, saying in an early-morning appearance that it was "a major fraud on our nation." "As far as I'm concerned, we already have won this," he said, calling for outstanding ballots not to be counted. Meanwhile this AP News source just kinda snarks a bit on Trump's word choice: Trump says: “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court — we want all voting to stop.” In fact, there is no more voting — just counting. -- Ununseti (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If there is clear sourcing supporting the idea that Trump wants vote counting to stop, which there appears to be, we should say so, but for clarity and context should also include the direct quote about voting from Trump himself. Przemysl15 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a part about how Trump is pushing for undemocratic ideas in the introduction/lead section of this article?

It just seems so historical. America, the country that was once known for its democratic freedom around the globe, may be throwing it all away. If Trump loses to Joe, he may take it to the state OR supreme court. If they agree with him and his reason, he may actually be awarded the presidency by the court despite Joe winning. Don't you understand? This has never happened in America before! I would really like to recommend that you include his statements on calling the election a "fraud" and "rigged." He may refuse to concede if he suffers defeat. Maybe include voter suppression as well. Let's not forget he wanted to stop the counting of ballots. SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that Bush v. Gore was voter suppression, then no, it actually has happened before. This obviously is not an excuse to do it to the 2020 election. Right now, it just seems speculative about what the president plans to do. I know that American politicians have a reputation for playing dirty, and Mr. Trump is no exception. If I were you, I would wait for future events to unfold. Maybe then, we can add the details. FreeMediaKid! 01:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@SweetMilkTea13:, if the counting is stopped across the United States, Biden will win the presidency, as he has a lead in Nevada and Arizona. CNN has called 253 electoral college votes for him. Now,With AZ (11) and NV(6), He will have 17 electoral votes, thus winning the race. However, Trump still has a chance in Nevada, AZ, PA, GA, NC. And Biden will not a landslide victory, because Trump won in Florida, Iowa, Ohio. So all the votes need to be counted. I still think Trump has a pathway to victory. Biden needs to win more than 300 electoral college votes to avoid "Bush vs. Gore" scenario! Ppt2003 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's already present, in In the lead-up to the election, as well as on election night, Trump made frequent false claims intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, as well as refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. That's sufficient in my view. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Does 2:30 AM on Wednesday count as "election night", strictly speaking? Juxlos (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Juxlos:, I would say -"The morning after election day/The following day. Ppt2003 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Might be a tad bit unrelated, but can an expert in US Politics please create an article titled something like "2020 United States Election Riots"

News just came in a few minutes ago, but there were intense clashes between the police and protesters as they demanded to 'count every vote." Although no one was killed, several people were injured. It would be more informative if someone created an article revolving around this terrible situation. SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If its just minor incidents then a section on this page would suffice (e.g. "Aftermath") instead of a separate article.  Nixinova   T   C   06:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not. These protests are something that Trump is encouraging his followers to do, but they in no way approach being a riot. If the Daily News called it a riot - well, that's a good example of why we don't regard the Daily News as a reliable source. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I have added a paragraph about the protests to the "Election Night aftermath" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, Republicans haven't been protesting over the 2020 results, the way Democrats did over the 2016 results. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Those protests will come after we actually have results. So far the only protests are against the process (see Brooks Brothers riot from 2000). Both sides are likely to take to the streets if their guy doesn't win. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an article called 2020 United States election protests, you can create an RfC if you believe riots are more appropriate. Albertaont (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Albertaont: Well written article! I'm going to leave it at "protests" for now. Yes many have been arrested and there has been some critical injuries as a result of clashes between police, Trump supporters and Biden supporters, but so far no one has died. I really hope we can keep it this way, but if we do see some deaths after the results are finalized then we definitely have to switch the title to "riots." SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Age superlative in lead

I removed the sentence This is the first presidential election in which both the major candidates are over 70. from the last paragraph in the lead, since it's only WP:DUE to spend so much time on the ages of the candidates, and the paragraph already mentions that If elected, Biden would become the oldest person to serve as president at 78 years old on the day of his inauguration and If reelected, Trump would be the oldest president to be inaugurated in U.S. history, as he would be 74 at the time of the 2021 inauguration.. I noticed that it was back today, and after some digging (a ping rather than a stealth revert would've been appreciated), I found that Paintspot re-added it with summary Undid removal. It's not redundant – it's an additional fact. I'm not persuaded by that. What do others think? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A trivial fact. It'll be better to remove it. Enjoyer of World^💬 10:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It being the first time something happened does not sound trivial to me. However, this does not seem to be widely discussed in RS, so I agree with DUE concerns. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The age of the candidates are covered in quite a few sources, 1, 2, with this source even drawing attention to the fact that Never before in our history has the nation been confronted with a choice of leaders all of whom were 70 or more. I would suppose this fact is far from trivial. -- Dps04 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote in Infobox

I understand the countroversy around the EC and the states yet to be called, etc. But why shouldn't we post the Popular Vote total as it's being updated? Said number isn't going to change the state of the race and I see no reason why we shouldn't put it in the Infobox. Apologies if a consensus was reached about it, I didn't find it before posting this. --yeah_93 (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it is already there. Be sure to keep it updated. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus was to only update it at 6-hour intervals. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, why was Biden & Trump images switched? Trump's still the incumbent, so should be on the left side, until we know who won the election. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think they should be switched back to Trump on the left and Biden on the right. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Mention that Joe Biden got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history (you could also mention he was first to 70 million votes but that may be too trivial) Nojus R (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Too early IMO. Wait for a final count. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

should definitely be included for the section on how fraud was so easily assumed and identified -- Flynnwasframed (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

Article states that Biden, if inaugurated, would be the 2nd former vice-president to be elected president & first since Richard Nixon. This is false, George H. W. Bush won the 1988 presidential election and served as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President from 1981-1989. 147.226.73.199 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Former, not current. H. W. was the incumbent VP when he was elected whereas Biden and Nixon were in an election after having already left office as VP. Nojus R (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I have changed "former" to "non-incumbent", however, after re-reading the sentence and seeing the potential for confusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be removed from the lead as it is not significant. Defeating an incumbent president is significant, but being a former instead of current vice president is not. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Being a former vice president upon being elected president, is quite rare though. As mentioned, only Nixon has accomplished feat, so far. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nixon was the 3rd VP of any kind per the 1968 election page. It makes no reference to him being the 1st non-incumbent VP. Maybe too nuanced to be notable. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

According to this section of the Vice President list, Nixon was the Only former vice president to become president in a non-immediate fashion while under Bush is says he was the Fourth sitting vice president elected president. I would say it might be fair to include as long as the wording is clear. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things

In the second sentence, perhaps it should be changed to Voters selected presidential electors who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020..., as voting is done. We could also de-bold the popular vote results. I know that Biden is, in all likelihood, going to win the popular vote, but it's still a possibility for Trump (though low) to win the popular vote, with ~10% of ballots outstanding. Thoughts? Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 20:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the tense per your suggestion, since that ought to be uncontroversial. I didn't change the popular vote bolding, though I agree that we should not bold the numbers until a result has been called. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thanoscar21 and GorillaWarfare: I just undid the popular vote bolding. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Demographic trends

Now that the election (the voting, but not the counting) is over, what should we do about the Demographic trends section? Some of it is speculation on the impact of demographic changes on the result. Should the actual results be included in this section, or not? If we do include information about results, do we wait until the media starts publishing stories like "suburban women cost Trump the election", etc.? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should wait until the result is final and the analysis articles start to be written. And IMO we should only include the demographic issues on which there appears to be general agreement. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Gender rights

Please add a section on LGBT rights. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? 331dot (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Whereas Trump is transphobic, Biden tells mother of transgender daughter there should be "zero discrimination". --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the election; it's not a biography of either of them. Gender rights is something on which they may disagree, but it has not been a big issue in the election. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

LGBT rights should be under 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Campaign_issues.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Whereas, for example, Michael Bloomberg said that trans right mean nothing to the people in the Midwest[3], the Governor of a midwestern state Gretchen Whitmer praises the Harris Funeral Homes decision [4].--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This was not a major campaign issue by any means. There is no more reason to add a 'LGBT rights' section to this article than it would to add a 'Soybean Farming Subsidies' section. Thereppy (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Joe Biden acknowledge LGBT people in his speech today: "I am proud of the coalition we put together, the broadest and most diverse in history.[...] Gay, straight, transgender." Read Joe Biden’s President-Elect Acceptance Speech: Full Transcript --24.99.88.86 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying that gender issues haven’t been mentioned at all but simply that it was not a significant factor in the race as a whole.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Historical firsts

What about an own section listing all the historical firsts or records this election comes with by now already? Record participation, Biden receiving more votes than any other candidate in US history, historical record of number or percentage of mail-in voting, and if I understand CNN right, Biden may be the first Democrat presidential candidate winning Arizona and Trump may be the first Republican candidate winning Ohio but losing the election. Of course, it's too early to call the latter two, but once they're called, I think they should be mentioned in such a section. --2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5 (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but Biden would not be the first Democrat to win Arizona & Trump would not be the first Republican to win Ohio, but lose the election. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We also have no reason to believe Biden was the one responsible for drawing that influx of new voters (or any old state's core) to the anti-Trump ticket. Fans of strong black women had their first choice for "most likely to succeed" this year. No mere coincidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't claim Biden would be personally responsible for the high turnouts or the fact he has received more votes than any other candidate in US history. Personally, I believe that's solely due to an alienating push factor from Trump rather than any personal pull factor on behalf of Biden himself, and that if Biden will be elected, he will probably be one of the mediocre Presidents and not win a re-election, as was the case in recent decades especially with Ford and Bush, sr. (as a European, my view on Carter is probably more positive than that of many Americans). All I'm saying is, the turnout, the number or percentage of mail-in votes, and the number of votes won by Biden are unprecedented in US history. --2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I agree, Carter's the best! And I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. More just a note that, should this section happen, we should be clear that Biden and Harris were a package. They both got/won/received the same number of votes from the same people. Call them the Democrats, call theirs a ticket, however works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Bias in wording of information

This article states that Trump is making false claims of fraud. Maybe the claims are false or maybe they aren’t, but either way, it is not the job of Wikipedia to determine whether the claims are false or not. This page should objectively state information about a candidate, not determine whether a candidates claims are true or false, and another thing, since when did Trump refuse to commit to a peaceful transfer of power? That is blatantly false and that claim should be removed from this article. Jay72091(2) (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Many sources they say Trump claims are false. Do you have any sources that support Trump's claims? GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump is making claims that differ from what every major media outlet is reporting, the outlets we depend on as reliable sources. He is providing no new, independent evidence for those claims. He has made statements suggesting he will not accept the result of the election. He has made no statements saying he will. I see nothing wrong with the wording we are using. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"US President Donald Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses November's election. "Well, we'll have to see what happens," the president told a news conference at the White House. "You know that." If you think we need different examples, just searching "Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power" gives examples from CNN, New York Times, Business Insider, CNBC, USA Today, etc. The BBC is a more Worldwide source, so I believe that is why it was picked. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jay72091(2): We even have this today from CBS News' Twitter that says CBS News has learned that President Trump does not plan to concede even if Joe Biden declares victory in the coming days. I know that per WP:TWITTER it is difficult to use a source on Twitter, but we can do so using {{Twitter}} or {{Cite tweet}} if we must and if we follow all of the instruction to do so. (Though I would imagine that CBS News will make an article within 24 hours.) Jay72091(2), I ask that you provide a source for the changes that you want to make. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User HiLo48 the determination of whether a claim of fraud is true or false in the public sphere does not belong to media outlets which are owned by investors and whose purpose is to make money and may have ulterior motives for their determination of true or false. This determination is usually left up to the courts who as they say 'do not have a dog in the race'. As I believe there are court cases in process in regards to several irregularities that occurred during the vote and during the count and the courts have yet to complete their deliberation so effectively the word 'false' is premature and should probably be removed until the cases are complete and the courts have made their findings.

As to the peaceful transfer of power argument again the issue is premature for Wikipedia to have an opinion on the matter for while trump is refusing to concede the election at this point in time, there is sufficient possibility that he may still win if the courts find in his favour sufficiently to cancel enough votes for biden that things flip (this was one very close race after all) that only trump conceding at this point is a guarantee of biden winning. that said and conceding the point that at this time if nothing changes sufficiently biden does win. There is still both the court cases and the certification of the votes to occur before a winner is final and power would be expected to be handed over. At this point trump has refused to concede, he hasn't refused to hand over power, there is a difference. Anyway here is a reference and if you read it properly you may note the important word "commit" in the phrase 'refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.14.36 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Map and Electoral Vote Update

Hello. I have looked through this page and tried to find all the relevant discussions. What I've done is posted the least speculative information about the electoral vote total (Decision Desk HQ, which powers many news organizations, and the NYT). Some sources (AP, Fox) project AZ to Biden. Other's don't. When in doubt, leave it out.

This should be good overnight. Tomorrow morning the total and map may need to be updated. The remaining number of updates will be few and easily accomplished. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

All good with me! Good to finally get the certain states up on the page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox edit request

Underneath the map, add "Red denotes states won by Trump/Pence and blue denotes those won by Biden/Harris [and grey denotes too close or early to call]. Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia." as per tradition. Nojus R (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nojus R and Jehochman: I am informing you here that I have removed the addition because all of the states are grey on the default map and the text is claiming that they are all "too close or early to call" underneath. I think the chance should wait until it is decided that File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg should be added to the article, whenever it is. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I am open to discussing what the text below the map should say. There appears to be a consensus at this time to have the map and the electoral vote count. Jehochman ^Talk 05:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is to wait until tomorrow afternoon before updating the map, to give users time to weigh in at the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Two editors is a thin consensus and consensus can change. Let me be perfectly clear: this article is on the home page of Wikipedia and getting high volume of traffic. It should be updated with current reliable facts that are readily available. The information I posted is in no way disputed or disputable. On your talk page I proposed letting the information go live now, but agreed that you could remove it if there are complaints. Also, we could use your help to craft a nice explanation of the map. Jehochman ^Talk 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Many users have expressed WP:NOTNEWS concerns, both on this talk page and at the No original research noticeboard. Consensus may be shifting away from that view, but you have to wait for others to weigh in before rushing and changing the Wikipedia article. I have not damaged the article by suggesting that we wait and see if we can get a stronger consensus before updating the map. The consensus for updating the map and article ASAP is weak at best. Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WP should be updated with current, reliable facts, but I want to make sure there is consensus on what currently are reliable facts. Obviously information like Trump being projected to win North Dakota is a reliable fact, but it is not so clear on information like projections for ME-2 and Arizona. While we could simply say anything not clear shouldn't be added, if we updated the map to exclude ME-2 and Arizona that would indicate WP does not consider those projections to be reliable enough for inclusion on the page, and although I believe this is what should be done, that may not be a proper reflection of consensus opinion on this page. We should at least have a preliminary indication of consensus on this issue before committing any changes. We are an encyclopedia, not a breaking news source. There is no rush. Przemysl15 (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I can understand you have a different viewpoint, but could you please not revert every edit at File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg. Editing the infobox to link to ElectoralCollege2020.svg is fine, but as a reminder, this article and related ones are subject to discretionary sanctions. You made two edits to the "with results" map that blanked the whole map. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Super Goku V: I don't think File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg should have even been created. It seems redundant, and we have File:Test.svg for a reason. Prcc27 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

While that is your opinion, there seem to be five users over there that disagree with your thoughts along with myself here. Again, I feel that the "with results" map is under discretionary sanction and that reverts should not be done. Especially with discussion on this page pending about including it in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons administrator who created the file here. Commons doesn't have DS, but we do have c:COM:OVERWRITE. Edit warring over file revisions is much more disruptive compared to text revisions. I expected there to be significant disagreement over whether to include results at all, making adding results to the existing file a "controversial or contested change". For that reason, I decided to split the files and to use page protection to enforce Commons guidelines on edit warring and overwriting files. That forced the decision on whether to include results *at all* to be held not on Commons, but enwiki where it belongs. The working consensus has been that the results map should only contain races that have been called by major news organizations and where there is no dispute between those organizations on if or how to call the race. If a clear consensus develops over time here to include more results, then and only then should those results be included. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant to this discussion. This map and electoral count have been the same since Wednesday -- they aren't news; these are established, widely reported facts. It could be days and days before we get final results. It does not serve the reader's interest to hide verifiable and relevant information from them because a couple random editors on a Wikipedia talk page decide to invent novel editing process. I strongly urge that the map and the electoral count be restored. There is no basis to challenge the accuracy or verifiability or relevancy of that information. Therefore, it goes in the article now. Just because some facts aren't known does not mean that other facts must be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The edits needed are these, for the avoidance of doubt:

1. [5]
2. [6], but change "file" to "image"

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It was suggested above that a "2020 United States presidential election riots" page be created – assuming that things play out like they did last time. As an apparent compromise, 2020 United States election protests was created to list a few broken windows. The basic premise of this page's existence is flawed. There cannot be true "protests" against/in response to the election until votes are counted and a winner is announced. Until then, this page clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. It should be merged to the aftermath section of this page. KidAd talk 08:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is missing a few templates. One sec. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that for merging, only two templates and a talk page discussion is needed so we are fine.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Protests are minimal right now, likely because there isn't a result to protest yet, as KidAd pointed out. The assumption that these will expand—which seems a central premise of the article—is unverifiable speculation. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 09:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed - Based on what I have read, there is 600+ people cited, at least 33 arrested with 8 for Seattle and 25 for New York (using the NPR citation), and the Oregon National Guard had to be called in. I would say that it sounds notable enough to have a standalone article for now. If anything, the only thing I currently would support is spinning some content from this article into an "Aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election" and merge the "election protests" article. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the precedent set by the existence of the Brooks Brothers riot page. There is no way that this this article can cover the election protests in a manner that would both satisfy the sourcing that currently exists and that satisfies WP:UNDUE, so it should be split off. I believe that these protests are almost certain to pass WP:10YT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "There is no way that this this article can cover the election protests" that's pure speculation on your part and even if there were a lot of protests that did happen, it doesn't necessarily mean that they need to be included. At this point it's best to adopt a wait and see approach. Merge the article for now, but reinstate it if something big happens. Flickotown (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Uhhh no, I’m saying that if we take coverage that already exists I do not see a way for this article to cover it properly, no speculation there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. There is nothing that is on that page that can't go (with proper citation and citations of course) into the "election protests" section of this one, which makes a lot of sense as the protests are confined to a handful of places and have by and large been peaceful, especially when compared to the George Floyd protests. But if anything serious happens comes of the protests (e.g. a killing) then we can reinstate it. Flickotown (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • User:KidAd Be bold and just merge it. Flickotown (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

    Perhaps being bold was okay before starting this discussion. But when it has been started with 2 opposes and 3 supports (counting the OP), clearly being bold was no longer on the table. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now Until/unless widespread protests develop, having a separate page for them is unnecessary. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion is probably going to be moot within a day or two when the results are finalized and it becomes more obvious that either (a) there are significant protests warranting an individual page or (b) there aren't significant protests and the pages should be merged. In other words, we will likely know more concretely whether the pages should be merged before this discussion will even be finished; and when that information comes out in a day or two, everything said here up to that point will be rendered useless by the new information. For me, this raises the question of whether discussion right now is productive, since the discussion may become meaningless quite soon. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Back in 2012, we had a situation like this regarding the NFL Referee strike. The 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game was put up for an AfD the day after the game for a claim of lack of notability. Initially, the arguments were over if it deserved a spot because of it being such a bad call and there were other bad calls that had been deemed notable enough to have articles. Then there was the politician threatening to ban replacement officials for sporting events a few hours prior being brought up, the NFL resuming talks with the NFL Referees Association that evening, and an agreement to end the lockout being reached the next day. The AfD was closed hours later with a note that merging discussion could be brought up later. (I already stated above my opposition to merging.) --Super Goku V (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• In order for my answer to not be too WP:CRYSTALBALL-y, I'll say this: if there's a lot more protests that will go on beyond this election, Oppose the merge, and if the article content remains this small with no expansion, Support the merge. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems like a sensible approach to me. As mentioned above, there's enough notability and sources that I'm inclined to say Oppose for now and see if the article expands in the near future. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Same here. If the relative size of this page to the main page stays as about now, support, otherwise oppose. BACbKA (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZE. Either keep the article where it is or place it up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The decision of whether or not to initiate the AfD process is contingent upon the results of this discussion. If the page was nominated for deletion, a winner was declared, and people actually started throwing bricks through Walmart windows and lighting things on fire, the page would likely be kept. Right now it seems a bit premature. No need to predict turmoil when little has occurred. KidAd talk 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge and draftify per WP:CRYSTALBALL Nojus R (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nojus R, How does CRYSTALBALL apply? The protests are ongoing, not planned. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Read the proposal:

  It was suggested above that a "2020 United States presidential election riots" page be created – assuming that things play out like they did last time. As an apparent compromise, 2020 United States election protests was created to list a few broken windows.

WP:CRYSTALBALL states the following:

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate.

The entire point of the article is a prediction.

Orcaguy (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Still disagree. Protests have already happened, so not understanding the speculation or future argument. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, this article is already huge, and there's plainly enough sources there to support a separate article. Additionally, while the protests are plainly being treated as significant based on the coverage (and therefore deserve an article), they are not a major part of the broader and much larger 2020 presidential election topic, which makes them more appropriate to cover separately. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. As mentioned, a handful relatively peaceful. Doesn't seem to warrant separate article. | MK17b | (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. Let's see what happens after a winner is called. If that results in massive nationwide protests, OK, we may need an article. Or maybe not. Recall that there actually were huge, days-long protests against the election of Trump in 2016, and all that activity is summarized in a few paragraphs at the 2016 election article. I favor the same thing happening here. Right now this amounts to small protests in a few cities, and so far only Portland (lucky Portland) seems to have had serious activities like damage to property. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge. There is presently little evidence that this is a distant event from the election. I would also recommend that we give more distinction to what is happening. There is a large group of pro-Trump protests, a minor group of pro-Biden protests, and a few riots in cities like Portland that seem to oppose anyone being elected president. These should be subdivided or described in detail, and a bullet point list is far less effective than what the article could be. Rioting has been damaging, but it does not affiliate so much with a side; the Trump protests are intending to stop vote counts and many groups are armed. Both of these are stories, but (a) they have different levels of importance, and (b) they are from different sides. Nevertheless, it is probably best to merge unless these protests start doing anything other than building upon the election info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PickleG13 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now it's best to not have to argue over inclusion of every thrown brick here; if there are substantial notable protests in the future the article will surely be kept separately, otherwise it can be selectively merged or deleted later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Appears you made a mistake with your vote. it's best to not have to argue over inclusion of every thrown brick here did you mean to say you support the merger? BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now can always delete later per Aquillion. First wait for announcement of actual winner, and if no significant protests post-announce, can merge. Albertaont (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support we have had a couple of days of these protests now and they've turned out to be....your run of the mill ones. The normal kind of stuff that, you know, goes with every election. Is there a reason why we acting like this article will be gone forever if it gets taken off? BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BCEVERYWHERE's point. I'll note that most of the votes above are prior to today's changes that trimmed the article to a bullet-pointed list. Reywas92^Talk 08:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Any protests are part of the larger overall election event. We have precedent to merge based off 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Protests.   Knowledgeable Raven Comments?  08:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. WP:CRYSTALBALL; the protests are currently not noteworthy enough to have their own article, and predicting them to be is pointless. If they do become noteworthy, the article can always be recreated again at some later point. Orcaguy (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any reason this wouldn't be included in the main article instead. Turning on the TV, I see much, much bigger crowds celebrating Biden's victory than those protesting - and I don't think that deserves an article either. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. These protests are merely part of the res gestae of the election, to borrow a legal expression. Frankly the only reason there are so many sources about them is that the media have been looking for things to talk about while the votes are being counted. Now that the election has been called, there's a real story to talk about.Lordrosemount (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now WP:HASTE and WP:NOTE. If the protests are as large and widespread as they were last time, it would be appropriate to make it its own page. But right now, they are small and localized. Additionally, the current article is mainly documenting arrests and groups with very few details. In my opinion, not enough detail is present to warrant a seperate article. Please call me Blue (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now I see that section vastly growing within the next few days. But currently it's too small. Neovu79 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The protests are clearly of a different scale than in 2016, and may yet rise to being comparable to 1968. It's not merely a difference of degree, it's a difference of type, especially given that they're being centrally pushed by right-wing leaders when the reverse was not the case in 2016 and prior. We can always merge later, but right now they're notable all on their own and seem likely to remain so. Denzera (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an unprecedented historical reaction (both protesting and celebrating) that warrants more attention rather than being merged into the main article. Scott218 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now Until the article meets it's criteria, it should be merged for now. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The reaction to Biden's victory has been unprecedented in an election where more Americans voted than ever before. Meets notability. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support – 2016 also saw protests, but those are included in other articles, not on their own page. Moreover, beyond simply listing every known instance of protests, the article offers no insights; it does not offer any explanation for the protests or background on the topic, so it fails to stand on its own. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - both articles are large, and merge would make reading and understanding more difficult to the casual reader. The protests are notable by themselves to justify the current stand-alone article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - 2020 article is already quite long without including coverage of protests - if included I'd probably argue to split the articles. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now Ytpks896 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - seems like the wisest option for now. Feudonym (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed - They seem to be growing by the day i would say keep the page. WoodLay (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The protests have had minimal to no impact, especially after the election was called. Unless something significant occurs, there's no reason to have separate pages. Darrenr72 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because the 2020 United States presidential election article is already huge and the 2020 United States election protests article is only going to continue growing in size. As per WP:SIZE, this is a merger I will not support. Quahog (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support — The article is too small to have its own page. Moving it to the main page would also make things more consistent and less confusing. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed There is too many separate sources and protests in the other article. Adding them to this article makes it unwieldy. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are enough sources on the protests to establish notability. There is no reason for them to become a footnote in the election article. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZE, for reasons already stated. AlexKitfox (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per now I agree with the prior sentiment that we can not predict whether these protests will be notable per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ HAL333 00:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Many of the so-called "protests" are actually just rallies by Trump supporters. There is always some degree of opposition to any election result, but these are not on the scale seen in 2016 and per WP:NOTABILITY therefore do not merit their own article. Vrrajkum (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. A reasonable sub-topic to be split out given the length of this article. --Jayron32 12:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose lower important topic to merge it. Even, There is no reason for them to become a footnote in the election article. As per WP:SIZE. 37.111.196.226 (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the great points mentioned above Leotext (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge or AfD Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. The riots that some feared did not happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge per WP:RECENTISM. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Candidate table

@Devonian Wombat: There are some inconsistencies in the table:

1. Joe McHugh and Kyle Kopitke had more ballot access than some of the candidates listed. Should they be included too?
2. Princess Khadijah and Cancer Scott had the same ballot access as Mark Charles and Joseph Kishore, although they had less write-in access. Should they be included too? What criteria should be used for inclusion in the table? Should write-in access be considered at all? The text above the table also needs to change accordingly.
3. The Birthday Party was not a real political party, it was only a label that Kanye West invented and it was listed on the ballot only in Louisiana, which allows labels freely. A similar situation occurs with Brock Pierce, who used label Freedom and Prosperity only in Louisiana, and Jade Simmons, who used label Becoming One Nation only in Louisiana and in Wisconsin's write-in list. Should those candidates' labels be included, or should we mark all of them as independent? Should Kanye West's label be treated differently because it includes the word party? In addition, Brock Pierce was listed with political parties in two states, Gloria La Riva and Rocky De La Fuente were listed with different parties in some states, and Donald Trump and Joe Biden were listed with additional minor parties in New York. Should any of these parties be mentioned in notes?
4. Should we add colors to other political parties such as Bread and Roses and Approval Voting? Should we add different colors also to each independent candidate?
5. Rocky De La Fuente's two vice presidential candidates are listed in separate rows, but Gloria La Riva's and Jade Simmons's alternative vice presidential candidates are mentioned only in notes. Is there a reason to split only the first case? Is it because Kanye West was also a presidential candidate? Also, his home state in the vice presidential column is shown as Illinois but in the presidential column as Wyoming. He had residences in both states but voted in Wyoming and ran his campaign from there.
6. Rocky De La Fuente lives in California, Bill Hammons lives in Texas, and Adrian Wallace lives in Kentucky.
7. Dario Hunter's party is the Oregon Progressive Party. I suggest keeping the name in the table as simply Progressive but adding a wikilink.
8. The hyphen in vice-presidential, in the table header, is more common in British spelling. I suggest removing the hyphen.

Heitordp (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the inclusion criteria is "Any candidate with ballot access (not write-in) who has a Wikipedia page or is the nominee of a party with a Wikipedia page is in the table". I would suggest changing that to be consistent with Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, with an exception for Jade Simmons as she is in the ballot access table, meaning that Segal, Huber, Charles and Kishore would be removed.

I would support using the colours over at the Third-party page for candidates in the table.

No objections to fixing home states, or the hyphen.

Not sure on the Hunter Oregon Progressive link, since he was also on the ballot in Colorado.

With the whole De La Fuente-West situation, Peltier officially withdrew from the vice-presidential nomination, so I don't think that that situation is comparable. Maybe Simmons should have a two-colspan as well, but her alternative vp only had write-in access in Florida so I doubt it is necessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Thanks for explaining the current criteria. Based on that, Tom Hoefling and Jesse Ventura would have to be added too, but I prefer your suggestion. The criteria in the minor candidate article is to have ballot access to more than 15 electoral votes, while in the ballot access table it's to have ballot access in more than one state and ballot plus write-in in most states. I'll combine both for the candidate table.

You're right, Dario Hunter was listed in Colorado as simply Progressive. I also agree that the other vice presidential candidates are not comparable to Kanye West because they withdrew or only had write-in access. However, Kanye West was listed for vice president by the American Independent Party, not the Alliance Party, so the party row should be split too. And what do you think about item 3 above? Heitordp (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Once the final results are in, 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Candidate_table should be consistent with 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_results, which has a threshold of 0.05% of the popular vote or electoral votes received. It should not list each person who received zero coverage in the media and less than one vote in two thousand. Ballot access is undue. Reywas92^Talk 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I second that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The other criteria are temporary. Heitordp (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Elected President

This should not be updated until more news sources agree on the final results. As of now, most sources are still not saying there is a clear winner.Nightenbelle (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ has called it, and that is the information source used by most of the media. The media need to write a story and they need to get all kinds of clearance before publishing something so significant. This creates a bit of delay, but they will arrive at the same conclusion soon. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ (DDHQ) appears to be independent organization that was formed in 2012 and does not seem to work with ABC, NBC, Fox News, CBS, AP, nor the BBC. I doubt that "clearance" is actually needed and it is more that the networks do not want to call it without it being 100% guaranteed. Regardless, no one has stated that DDHQ should be a reliable source for the Wikipedia article counts to my knowledge. So, any information from them should not be used to verify who won the presidency, though I am not opposed to a mention in the text that they were the first to make a call. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We need more than one source calling the election, I think, in order for us to say so. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If a fact this important is verifiable, it should be reported widely. Nate Silver has praised Decision Desk HQ's call as correct, but that's also not enough. This information is really a preview of what's coming soon. Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until Biden actually reaches 270 anyway? Nojus R (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

270towin has also called the election, but I don't know if it makes an independent projection or repeats Decision Desk. @Nojus R: Actually reaching 270 only occurs when the states certify results, assuming no faithless electors, or when the electoral college votes on December 14. Until then everything is a projection, which varies by source. Decision Desk does project Biden over 270. Heitordp (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The EC vote is a formality only. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Last time 7 electors voted for other candidates, so if the expected count is very close the EC could make a difference. But I agree that we can report the result here when multiple sources agree with the projection. Heitordp (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Heitordp: - Seems like a repeat, but if not, it still isn't part of the sources agreed upon in the sections above. I would only support a brief mention of 270toWin calling it in the text. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ and Business Insider have called it for Biden.

The New York Times has noted this. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Once a reliable source projects a winner, then we can update the article. Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe based on the above sections that we would be a combination of AP and another one of the reliable sources listed elsewhere on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In one of the above sections, we agreed to update the article even if only one major media outlet projects a winner. But we would have to note that the other networks have not called it. Prcc27 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll reiterate: Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the results are certified per WP:NPOV. I have never seen a case where the vote has been overturned, but we also don't have the state results up for the same reason (I assume). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Vox uses Decision Desk HQ. The TV networks are being ridiculously slow. We should declare the winner (the Dem ticket defeated the GOP ticket) and cite DDHQ as a source. We should also mention Trump's reaction to the results in the first paragraph. Philosopher Spock (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The AP, which most major news organizations defer to, will not call a race if the race will go to a recount. They will also not call a race if a candidate's lead is smaller than the number of ballots left to count. [7] That's definitely the case here, and calling a presidential election is nothing to rush into -- being prudent isn't "ridiculous". --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I read the AP article and you misunderstood the part about the lead being less than the uncounted ballots. DDHQ was actually founded by a Republican precisely because AP and everyone else is so slow. Last time, they were slow to declare Trump the winner. This is beyond prudence. At this point, declaring the winner would be stating the obvious, not rushing into anything. Philosopher Spock (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We are an encyclopaedia not a news site, so being conservative and slow is entirely in our bailwick. IMO we can mention the DDHQ declaration but we should wait for multiple independent sources to make a declaration before we suggest Biden is president elect in wikivoice. We should not be declaring anyone the winner when most of the media are still not doing so. That isn't "stating the obvious", that's getting ahead of reliable sources. It's not like this is a highly obscure story where no one else has reported it because they didn't notice it or they don't care. Sources aren't reporting it precisely because they feel it's too soon. You're welcome to head over to Wikinews or some other news site and argue about how a news site should handle it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd further note that even sources that use DDHQ don't always seem to be treating their call as sacrosanct. Buzzfeed News does, but their page [8] still just says the US is edging closer to knowing [9]. The Economist uses DDHQ and they are perhaps a bit closer to accepting their call [10] including an old story they headline as "Hello 46" on their main page [11], but weirdly their results table [12] hasn't been updated for 21 hours so of course doesn't have Pennsylvania called or even Biden leading. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd add that Biden himself is not declaring victory, so not only are we getting ahead of the reliable sources, we're getting ahead of the supposed winner themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I take your point that this is an encyclopedia, but the current article feels outdated. How about we add the word "apparently" in order to be "prudent", and remove the "if Trump wins" references? IMO sources aren't officially reporting it because they're afraid. Everyone implicitly acknowledges Biden has won. Philosopher Spock (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not our place to judge why sources aren't reporting something. We don't WP:OR what sources supposedly implicitly acknowledge. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AP clearly doesn't refuse to call a race if the lead is smaller than the number of ballots left to count. If that was the case, they wouldn't have called Arizona on Wednesday US EST morning, a few hours after Fox News, a state which a number of media organisations have still notably refuse to call now on Friday US EST night in part because there is still more ballots to be counted than the lead [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. AP came to the conclusion based on their data that Trump would not be able to gain enough net votes from the remaining ballots to win early on, but as the lead has narrowed their call has come under increasing question and I don't mean by Trump supporters. Assuming that it ends with Biden winning in Arizona but with a fairly narrow lead it's possible that each side will stick with their views. AP will say they were right in the end. Others will say the lead narrowed so much that it could have easily reversed if their assumption about how much it would narrow was off by even a small percent. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Not yet. The election is considered "called" when the major networks call it and not until then. They each have their own decision desk and this year they are being very conservative. In any case, they will not "call" the presidential elections until they have "called" enough states to amount to 270 electoral college votes. (Decision Desk HQ seems to be a self-appointed referee that provides election information to a few news organizations that can't afford their own coverage team or decision desk.) -- MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel a need to offer my two cents here. As someone who, on the one hand, has had extensive overall experience in Wikipedia (I've been editing here in various capacities for just under 1.5 decades now), I am also one who is relatively new in contributing to dscussions, deliberations, and decisions as they relate specifically to political articles. With that background in mind, on the one hand, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and should not use one, two, or even a few isolated sources as justification to provide information that is not confirmed in a majority of the reliable sources we have used for content up to this point. So there needs to be a balance as far as content here is concerned to ensure that we avoid going above and beyond what a majority of the reliable sources are saying. But that being said, we are also living in an unsual period of time where the call on some states may be delayed by legal proceedings, voting recounts, and, in the worst-case sceanrio, investigations of fraud. There is a lot at stake here, and my thought is that it would be wiser for us to be more prudent, cautious, and reserved in how we approach what to say and the manner in which it is said.

At the same time, with most of the major television networks in the United States reticent to make even the calls on states where votes are still being tabulated, or where the outcomes may face a legal challenge, and with many of those networks not yet declaring a winner, I'd say it would be more prudent for us to recognize that the nation is in an unprecedented situation that is constantly in flux, and is likely to be so for a while. As a result, my personal feeling is that patience, and reticence regarding what is said and the manner in which it is said will go a long way. I will take my comment further: I am not personally comfortable with the idea of this article using any wording that would indicate a conclusion any readers of this article should draw. I am far more comfortable with the idea of letting things play out. In instances like this, it's easier to be cautious and reserved in things for the time being than it would be to try after the fact to fix something put into this or other articles that is eventually verified as inaccurate or untrue. Just my two cents here, for whatever they may be worth to any of you reading them here. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO we could probably update it now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Pastor Paula White calls on angels from Africa and South America to bring Trump victory

See here:

"Megachurch pastor and televangelist Paula White-Cain, who is spiritual adviser to President Donald Trump, delivered a prayer service Wednesday night in an effort to secure Trump's reelection."

Video fragment of prayer service

Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

LOL! She's a bit late. Does she expect God to destroy ballots after they have been cast? -- Valjean (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Most Christians expect God to destroy almost everything on Earth, at some point, some doubting even the rule of law can can stop a Great Tribulation. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Has PA been called yet?

The only states that weren't definitively called last time I checked were PA, AZ, NV, GA, NC, and AK, where Biden had 253 electoral votes and Trump had 214, therefore making PA have more than the 17 Biden needs to win. 270ToWin says PA is called for Biden, but IDK if it officially, definitively is called for Biden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.2.61 (talk) at 18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It varies by source, but the majority say it's too close to call. Nojus R (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden has pulled ahead in Pennsylvania, but it has not been called yet.  Nixinova   T   C   19:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Only Decision Desk has called it, the others haven't made a call yet. Biden holds a narrow lead at the time of writing. Herbfur (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick question

Greetings! I was just curious; how come on this edit the pictures were swapped from left to right? Thanks kindly! (Keep up the good work) 1holeinmysock (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I would assume because Biden is the likely winner, however the page probably shouldn't be reordered until the winner is actually declared.  Nixinova   T   C   19:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! GoodDay fixed it! 1holeinmysock (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

BuzzFeed, reliable source?

Why is it considered so? Especially given its large amounts of bias and other issues with the site? Aardwolf68 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Aardwolf68, see WP:RSP for more information. Buzzfeed News is a reliable source. Buzzfeed (regular) is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Aardwolf68: WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News, and the multitude of discussion links in its table row, ought to answer your question. Note that it is distinct from WP:RSP#BuzzFeed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert Edit on Ages of Candidates

I think the edit made at 20:40, 6 November 2020 should be reverted. While Joe Biden and Donald Trump would both be the oldest candidates to have been inaugurated, at 78 and 74, respectively, this shouldn't be merged into the same sentence, as the previous versions of the article made a clear distinction between them: If Joe Biden is elected president, he would be the oldest person not just to be inaugurated as president, but to also serve as president in general, as no other president has reached the age of 78 while in office (Ronald Reagan left office at 77 years of age). 2600:8802:800:E4:49A8:CE00:8D10:7369 (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Working on phrasing it clearer, though. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Candidate table

Something is messed up with the Don Blankenship row in this table. I am not confident in my ability to edit this, so I am leaving this note here in case someone with more skill comes along. --Khajidha (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

According to Fox News and Politico: Arizona has been called for Joe Biden, and Maine District 2 has been called for Donald Trump. That brings the electoral votes to 264 (Biden) - 214 (Trump). Kerim123456 (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Per the discussions above, the consensus is to wait for news organizations to unanimously project a winner for a state/district. Most news organizations have not called Arizona, and CNN still hasn't called ME-2. Prcc27 (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

North Carolina is........BLUE ????

North Carolina is........BLUE ???? Really ?? Just look at the map. And look at the results - Trump is leading there !!!! 76.21.97.234 (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What map are you referring to? AFAICT, North Carolina has never been blue in the map in the infobox, and I checked all revisions [18] Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to the results by state table I also cannot see where it's ever been blue going back to this revision [19] Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

For the first time in history, most Americans are cast their ballots before Election Day

According to Washington Post - "For the first time in history, most Americans are expected to cast their ballots before Election Day.". This is an interesting info. Source - [20]. M.Karelin (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

General turnout

Maybe it's early yet, but I think the article should mention something about general turnout, I have the impression it was historically high. Compare 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Statistical_analysis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there hasn't been turnout (measured by percent of eligible voters who voted) since like 1900, is what I heard. Graphic representation. —valereee (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A new section on disinformation?

I just uploaded the following press conference from November 5:

11 05 20 President Trump Delivers Remarks

This press conference is notable because almost every sentence that the president says is demonstrably false, and there are many sources that have noted this particular conference for that fact. I also suggest that the disinformation coming from the White House, Rudy Giuliani, Alex Jones, etc. regarding the election be noted in the article.

Victor Grigas (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: if there is significant coverage and you have already uploaded the video, may I suggest you build an article for it? There may be a lot more coverage of it if Trump doesn't make any public statements this weekend. You can title it something like "Donald trump press conference of 5 November 2020". I am not a regular editor of this page, but I would think that may bog down the article a bit too much, Trump uses a lot of disinformation when it suits his purposes, though this was a particularly egregious case that was perhaps best summed up by Jake Tapper who called it "pathetic" on CNN. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Add into the lead in

I take it once this is all over, we can add a bit saying, Trump is the most successful president* ( * in the respect of his lost... compared to bush snr, carter etc etc) who failed reelection, as he managed to increase his share of the vote while picking up 8 million more voters overall from his 1st election, and only lost the states he required by 61'000 vote.

Remember this is in the current context, of his lose, IE he must be the only person seeking re-election to increase vote and still lose. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Great? Voter turnout is higher on both sides, due in large part to polarization/rising extremism. This looks like nothing but partisan trivia. ɱ (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said Great.. now whos using partisan trivia? The simple fact, even with increase turnout across the broad trump share of the vote shouldn't have gone up. --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As he has now lost, does anyone with a neutral point have a input? no other one term president who losted has never managed to keep or go above there original share of the route. Thats is the point. how else do you skirt around the main points, he was successful in that point, he still lost. --Crazyseiko (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The increase in turnout is interesting and notable. The full context is that both candidates won a very large number of votes. Biden won, I believe, more than any other candidate in the U.S. presidential election. Is the fact that Trump's very large number was the largest increase of a losing candidacy interesting? Maybe, but not in the lead section. And the word "success" is not the right word to use. It's not neutral nor the fitting term. Is there a reliable source that uses it that way? Chris vLS (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) IMO we should mention the historically high turn out and nothing else about record votes for any candidate. Biden may have received more votes than any previous candidate. Trump may have received more votes than any losing candidate. Etc etc. All means is that turnout was particularly high for a US election in a very long time, and also that US population/eligible voters has been increasing. Biden is likely to be far from a popular vote winning margin even in recent times. Trump is obviously far from a popular vote closeness margin for a losing candidate since as we all know, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore both won the popular vote (albeit neither one was an incumbent). Even in terms of percentage, Trump will probably still lose to Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and really that relates more other candidates. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your points, Im just asking some Q's:   Another point is on the 2012 page "Obama was the first incumbent since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 to win reelection with fewer electoral votes and a smaller popular vote margin than had been won in the previous election," Trump is the opp, he increase popular vote margin yet lost. That might be a better way to write it?

For broad summary of what was notable about this election, we can wait a bit and see what the sources say. It's too early right now because while we know enough for the race to be called we don't know all the formal details, so sources aren't making that sort of in-depth analysis of what voting patterns mean. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not accurate, though, since John Quincy Adams in 1828 increased both his vote count and percentage share compared to 1824 despite losing reelection. 170.55.23.174 (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Every day is school day, mind you it was a four horse race.   If there was point was added, it would have to say Trump is the first president since John Quincy Adams, to increased both his vote count and percentage share while still lose the election.--Crazyseiko (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

APT

Iranian apt targeted US voter registration data https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts/aa20-304a Baratiiman (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Targeting registration data does not directly connect to the election. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred the source clearly mentions election.Baratiiman (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-read. It does mention voter-intimidation emails. Not sure how or where to integrate this into the article, though. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

BOLD edit to change electoral votes

Per [21]. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AP calls presidential race for Joe Biden

AP calls presidential race for Joe Biden

It looks like Fox News may follow suit any moment. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

CNN has called the race as well VZkN9 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As has the New York Times. WP Ludicer (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much all major US networks except for Fox News have called it. See e.g. [22]. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox has called the election. As has ABC. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So it would be okay to update the article then and declare Biden winner? IllQuill (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News has called for Biden per YouTube and their website Sau226 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

BBC too. [23]. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

EVERYONE does it now. -- Valjean (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If our past consensus was to reflect this consensus, it seems like it might be time? Chris vLS (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News is now the first one to give Nevada to Biden (290). -- Valjean (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) AP have also given Nevada to Biden [24] Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AP gives Nevada to Biden (290). -- Valjean (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Most networks have called the election

Should the line “ Some outlets, such as Fox News, and Reuters, have yet to call the election.” be changed due to the fact both of these outlets have put Biden over 270? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I moved Fox to the projections sentence and deleted that sentence. What do we do with Reuters? They haven't project but have a headline saying "Biden will be the next president"? [25] Chris vLS (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, they have called it, was just hard to find. [26] Chris vLS (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox consistency

Howdy. Didn't we hold off from using Elected President in the infobox until the Electoral College voted, in the 2016 United States presidential election article, four years ago? Are we going to do the same, here? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct... and should know, since you're the one who changed in last time after the Electoral College met and voted. Following prior practice, and the correct definition of the term, have changed it to President Elect in the inbox. Chris vLS (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Updating the map

Could someone update the electoral college map to add ME-2 for republican?

At present, two outlets have not called it, so not yet.[27]Chris vLS (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Map and EC number for Biden are inconsistent, current map listed adds up to 273 and it says 279 under his name. I’m assuming Nevada was added to the Biden column to reflect that, or 6 EC votes were added by mistake.

- 2605:8D80:602:3C82:E4A5:B21E:D812:88B6 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed all of them. ME-2 is not called by CNN yet... Admanny (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Reactions;

I suggest the creation of a new section of reactions to Biden victory; here the first 5 international reactions (in chronological order)

1. https://twitter.com/fijipm/status/1324941240731840512 (11 hours before)
2. https://twitter.com/edmnangagwa/status/1325114530159075328 (first to announcement)
3. https://twitter.com/michealmartintd/status/1325115676873388035
4. https://twitter.com/ibusolih/status/1325119483799887873
5. https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1325121342568505346

--KajenCAT (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevada

AP has called Nevada for Biden.[28] 331dot (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So has CNN and NBC. Updated accordingly. Admanny (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AP called Nevada for Biden about 2 hours ago, see above. No idea about CNN and NBC. Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

They called it right before I sent that message above yours, so it's pretty clear consensus on news. Admanny (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Map

Everything on the map is correct, except AZ, which hasn't yet been called by NY Times or CNN. Nojus R (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted, but this unfortunately also undoes NV. Hopefully somebody fixes it. Admanny (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Who keeps changing it back? I thought protecting the page would stop edit warring. Nojus R (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're talking about arizona, just a few people who don't know we need full media consensus for it to appear here. Admanny (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Does "full media consensus" mean unanimity from all outlets? That's a pretty extreme standard that I don't think has been used before. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Also @Nojus R: The map has been fixed. Admanny (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nojus R: extended confirmed protecting the page only stops people removing or replacing which image is used here. It doesn't affect the image Commons:File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg. AFAICT, the image is not and has never been protected [29]. Even if the image was hosted on en.wikipedia, it would make no difference since I'm fairly sure WP:cascade protection is disabled for extended confirmed like it is for semi protection. The only thing is its protection would depend only on our policies. However I don't know if anyone has even asked for the image to be protected on commons. But frankly, I'm unconvinced the image needs protection. Yes there have been some premature changes but the number is small, something which should be handled via normal reversion and discussion. 07:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Referring to Biden as the President-elect

I noticed that the article's infobox refers to Biden as the President-elect. The article for President-elect of the United States itself says (in opening paragraph) "If the result of an election is unclear or disputed, no person is normally referred to as president-elect until the dispute is resolved." As the Trump campaign continues to dispute the election result, is it correct to continue to refer to Biden conclusively as the President-elect? Or at least should there be a tag that this is currently in dispute? Kidburla (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump has no cogent legal argument that is making any headway in the courts. What's the dispute? Trump does not have to agree with the result or give a formal concession speech for Biden to be president-elect. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A guy with executive power doesn't need a cogent legal argument to start, prolong or win a political dispute, he commands the same military and paramilitary that overruled several sitting presidents this century, some without congressional approval and in violation of international agreements. All he really needs to suspend civil liberties is a perceived worthwhile threat to national security. So if anybody is happy to see him go down easily, don't destroy your own commercial and industrial hubs before spring! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I find the idea of a hardcore crackdown unfair, unwise and rather unlikely. Just saying that until a sitting president admits defeat, he or she has certain advantages and can drag a dispute indefinitely (or to the death, anyway). The real snafu could come when Trump does say he's done, but the news decides he's lying (or even more awkward, repeats his "claim" as a fact!). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how your comments help resolve this question, Hulk. They seem more appropriate for a message board discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought 331 was arguing that we could consider this election dispute resolved, and go ahead with calling Biden president-elect. It's not over when the news thinks the legal approach is weak. Over when Trump concedes convincingly, because he has other potentially useful evidence and options, just via incumbency. Sorry. A bit unwell today! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and sorry you are feeling unwell. This subject is just fraught with division and stress and it's best to avoid snark and commentary right now. The only way we can make progress with the many opinions editors have about this article is to stick to what reliable sources say is factually true. I hope you feel better tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Aye, could've used fewer words and been clear enough the first time. No snark intended, though. I was pretty sarcastic in "controversy" below, kinda regret that, might delete. Should be feeling worse tomorrow, if history repeats, but better in four days. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Dissonance with front page quote.

The front page states:

"Joe Biden wins the United States presidential election."

While the article avoids claiming that: "All major news outlets projecting the race have projected that Biden has won the election, including ABC News, the Associated Press, Business Insider, CNN, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, Reuters, and Vox.[5] Counting continues to determine the final results. "

and

" Joe Biden, the presumptive winner of the 2020 presidential election, pending the formal voting by the Electoral College in mid-December, is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2021"

Please fix this by either stating that Biden has won the election, or explain why the claim is avoided. Thank you.--TZubiri (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: The page Joe Biden claims the win, while Donald Trump avoids it. Whatever decision you take is ok, I just want to see where this article stands, and take that up to the front page if necessary.--TZubiri (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It is now on the Donald Trump page too. That page had to be full-protected for a few hours, and all recent edits including the election call were removed. We are in the process of restoring the information, describing it as a news organization call rather than asserting it as an official done deal. BTW the Biden article also had to be full-protected because of vandalism, but it already had a lot of information and it does state his election as fact. At this article, "presumptive" and "pending" set the perfect tone IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

The Prime minister of Nepal has Congratulated Joe Biden via Twitter say "Heartiest congratulations to President-elect @JoeBiden and Vice-President-elect @KamalaHarris on your impressive and historic election victory. I look forward to working closely with the new US leadership in further strengthening friendly ties between our two countries."

174.21.108.255 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done because this is too specific for the main article and instead belongs at International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election—that page is unprotected so you're very welcome to add this content there. — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

References

International reactions

I am saddened to see a flag salad international reactions section cluttering up this already overlong article. It has no encyclopedic value, and it is a quotefarm. Should it be deleted? Or be spun off? Abductive (reasoning) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel it should be deleted. As you say, there's no encyclopedic value in collecting tweets about this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, especially since it's mostly just a list of people who reacted, without specifying what those reactions were. Also, the page for the 2016 election doesn't have an international reactions section. Emmablowgun (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not correct, the section makes clear that all these country leaders congratulated Biden and Harris.

And actually there's an entire page regarding the 2016 election: International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election, in stark contrast to the claims above that such reactions to an election are not encyclopedic. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Such reactions by foreign leaders are entirely encyclopedic and relevant, as evidenced by the fact that numerous reliable sources have dedicated coverage specifically to this part of the article topic - e.g. CBS, Associated Press, New York Times, CNN, Axios, Reuters, BBC. It's clear that their judgment about this aspect starkly diverges from the argument-free snarking above ("tweets", "cluttering").

Personally I don't have a strong opinion on whether each entry needs to be accompanied by a flag, but there too it's worth noting that Abductive's snark ("salad") is not reflected in MOS:FLAG.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

First few sentences formatting

The 2016 presidential election page has its second line as "The Republican ticket of businessman Donald Trump and Indiana governor Mike Pence defeated the Democratic ticket of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and U.S. senator from Virginia Tim Kaine." Since we're already treating Biden as the president-elect on his page, would it not be consistent to use the same formatting here now, obviously replacing names and such? Stavd3 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I say that would be appropriate when actual electoral vote occurs. Admanny (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nebraska congressional districts

I noticed that on the infobox under "states carried" we have Biden carrying Nebraska's 2nd and Trump caring Maine 2nd, but don't have Trump carrying Nebraska's 1st and 3rd or Biden carrying Maine 1st. Should we add Nebraska 1 and 3 and Maine 1 to "states carried" in infobox? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No because we didn't do that on 2016 United States presidential election, nor on 2008. For consistency, we shouldn't do it here either. --NYKevin 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We do not do so based on the other presidential election articles where there were times where Nebraska and Maine had their electoral votes split. I would be okay with a note if we must explain it in the infobox, but the concept is decently explained on Wikipedia to my knowledge. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Central Issues Lead Paragraph

I know there's a lot happening on this page and this probably isn't near the top of the list right now, but I think the "Central issues of the election included..." paragraph in the lead is too long and overly detailed right now. IMO, the focus of the paragraph should be limited to COVID, the George Floyd protests and the Supreme Court, as those were clearly the three biggest political issues in the U.S. this year. Honestly I could see an argument that even the Supreme Court shouldn't be there considering the issue of Ginsberg's vacancy was settled by the time of the election. Thoughts? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that LGBT rights deserves a mention considering that Trump turned out to be the most transphobic president in U.S. history while Joe Biden will champion LGBT+ rights. In fact, a key underlying issue of Amy Barrett's hearing was her stance on LGBT rights. Barrett’s evasiveness alarms LGBTQ advocates--24.99.88.86 (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That stood out for me too. I trimmed it a bit, and shortened some sentences. I hate semi-colons. Bullet points in a lead? I think the Supreme Court thing should stay, as Trump was talking about defying the Constitution, and he would then have been stacking the court. After reading your thoughts, I'll tighten it up some more, but leave each concept. I love collaboration! cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If I were to take a crack at revising the paragraph it would be something like: "Central issues of the election included the public health and economic impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, protests in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd and others and the future of the Supreme Court following the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett." I definitely do not think the ACA should be mentioned, or if it is it should be a very brief mention. There were other presidential elections (namely 2012 and 2016) where the ACA was a way bigger and more relevant issue to the election. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that there are entire sections of the article devoted to the environment and health care, I'd say that the old paragraph is better at summarising the contents of the article, which is what leads are supposed to do. I support it being added back. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I take a similar position to Devonian Wombat... the relative importance of various issues in an election is a matter for scholarly debate among those people who can do original research, that is, not us. We should just try to include every issue that is plausible and only leave out completely outlandish issues; the old paragraph was good for this. Airbornemihir (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that including "every issue that is plausible" will lead to a large and unwieldy paragraph which doesn't accurately summarize the issues of the election, which is what I feel that the old paragraph is getting close to. Regarding those specific issues, you can argue that health care has been a major issue in every U.S. election for the past 15~20 years and I would argue that the ACA was a much bigger and more relevant issue in previous elections (2012 and 2016) instead of this one. I'm sure we can find relevant sources for anything under the sun, but when I think of the 2020 election, global warming and environmental issues definitely do not come to the forefront for me as issues which had a huge impact on the race or were heavily discussed. I signaled out the three issues of COVID, race riots and Supreme Court because I believe those were by far the three biggest political issues in the U.S. this year. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"The economy" is still very hot, but like "the environment" and "the government", the general public tends to assume they've heard it all before, understand the main problems well enough and can probably zone out for ten minutes while someone else rambles on about whatever, then get back to what matters most...simplicity! I, for one, Support your idea of a Big Three. Let the bank's article worry about homelessness and drought and gross honey yield! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord I see the point you've made twice about healthcare (including the ACA) being a bigger issue in 2012 and 2016, but using that as a basis for excluding healthcare would be original research. In theory you could find reliable sources to say healthcare was not a prominent issue, but I think those would be hard if not impossible to find, given that the issue was brought up in at least one of the two general election debates (I didn't watch either, only clips after the fact...). Also, while I referred to the general election debates, it's also a fact that healthcare was a big issue in the Democratic primary which is a component of this page. If we keep on excluding healthcare from the lead section, we're going to privilege some issues over others in a way that might even violate our neutral point of view policy. Let's get back to the original and make sure the lead section covers everything it needs to. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I just don't see how it is possible to write the paragraph without "privileging some issues over others." Unless I'm mistaken, that's what the point of summary is, which is what the lead is for. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Voter Turnout?

Voter Turnout deserves a sub heading in results, can someone please add? Tx Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

But with a lowercase "turnout", please! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

On that note I noticed the voter turnout in the infobox still says TDB. I suggest changing it to the currently reported one (with an "as of" on the side so people know it is still being updated). On the page Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections they cite the source http://www.electproject.org/2020g for this year's numbers. Skordiac (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

controversy

There is no mention of the massive voter machine fraud - which is being reported on local news. See https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/michigan-antrim-county-election-results-trump-biden-blue/6162541002/ Why is that? --Massintel (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Massintel: Because that is a fringe theory not supported by reliable sources. Furthermore, your source describes an "apparent glitch" that "could add a few thousand votes to the tallies", not "massive voter machine fraud". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thousands of reliable sources, can I post them here? This is one example, there are many - only on local news. https://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/election_headquarters/possible-voter-fraud-in-chandler-area-after-woman-asks-to-take-peoples-ballots/article_9dc88e54-14d3-11eb-b15d-7fdb0ac0a4ec.html --Massintel (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"Possible" fraud is not fraud or evidence of fraud. Anything is "possible". It's still a fringe theory, sorry. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump seems to consider any vote that is not for him as fraudulent, keep that in mind. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The four or five thousand sketchy ones here were for Trump and Republican Senate loser John E. James. I have no idea if Trump ghostwrites for the Detroit Free Press in order to hurt his own party, but haven't read anything suggesting he might. The "fringe theory" in the Arizona story originated from the Chandler Police Department, which may or may not be captained by a Russian trollbot, but is known to investigate and eventually disclose evidence of suspected criminal activity in open court. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Massintel, yes, you can post them here. Thousands may be overkill, but dozens might make the vastness of the alleged fraud clearer. If you put the URL in single brackets, like this, more can fit easier. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

https://westphaliantimes.com/nevada-poll-worker-whistleblower-claims-poll-workers-fabricated-proof-of-residence-data-potentially-creating-illegal-voters/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/chinese-parts-hidden-ownership-growing-scrutiny-inside-america-s-biggest-n1104516

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/it-defies-logic-scientist-finds-telltale-signs-election-fraud-after-analyzing-mail-ballot

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ten-attorneys-general-join-supreme-court-case-against-pennsylvania-mail-ballot-deadline

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/michigan-usps-insider-delivers-testimony-of-shady-postmark-scheme-to/

https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/05/the-2020-election-fuckery-is-afoot/

Yes, the media is blocking fact based results and 'fact checking' the truth in an attempt to twist reality into a blue state. The media is involved in aiding and abetting - no winner has been declared in the election. If you read the rules (Federal Law) we are in the early stages of the process:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2020-11-09/us-presidential-election-not-over-heres-where-things-stand-right-now

Everyone needs to take a step back and understand how the actual election process occurs based on federal law, not media reporting.

1) The election occurs in early November.

2) Votes are tallied while officials from both parties (Democrat and GOP) are present.

3) Provided officials from both parties are present during the vote tallies and there are:

No credible accusations of fraud. No software glitches. Then the vote tallies are ratified.

4) If the vote margin between winner and loser is 0.5% or smaller, an automatic recount is required.

5) If the margin between the winner and loser is larger than 0.5%, but either candidate (or a 3rd candidate for that matter) wants to dispute the results, he or she can pay to have a recount performed. The cost if roughly $3 million per state.

6) Once the recount is completed, or if a recount is not necessary, the individual states formally declare the winner on December 14th when they officially cast their electoral college votes for him or her.

7) Then, in early January of the next year, the new congress meets to count the electoral college votes and formally declare the winner.

8) The new President is sworn into office on January 20th.

This is how Presidential elections work in the U.S. under normal circumstances. Massintel (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ZeroHedge is not a reliable source, it's an anonymous blog. Project Veritas is a discredited smear factory. Westphalian Times is a random website. Monster Hunter Nation is a random blog. None are of any use to us on Wikipedia.

Recount rules actually vary widely by state - not all have automatic recount thresholds. And vote tallies may be ratified whether or not anyone has made "accusations" of fraud, credible or not. There is no requirement that literally everyone agree to certify a vote count. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

Change:

The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, and won by Joe Biden.

To:

The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Former vice-president Joe Biden and US Senator from California Kamala Harris defeated incumbents President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Miss Show Business (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think there is some form of statement above that indicates this will be changed after the electors actually cast their vote - technically speaking, Biden isn't elected yet because the people doesn't technically vote. Juxlos (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Can the first sentence be accepted at least. It does seem odd to seperate the date from it being the 59th election and instead include it in the sentence where Biden won. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Uninformative state results

It could be more informative and visual to replace the gray states in the electoral map at the top right of the article with light blue and light red states according to the latest count. This vote count is current objective, official true data, regardless of how the counting of the remaining in-mail votes will turn out. The map would be updated anyway if the voting trend switches.

Similarly, the "Results by state" table is rather useless: It's mostly blank, it does not even show the number of Electors for pending states, or the latest number of votes for any state. A better layout might also allow to view all states on one screen in 2/3 columns for all states, and moving other candidates to a more detailed table. The "Sort ascending" icons could be removed and this functionality moved to clicking on the column header, changing its tooltip. This table could use the same color coding as the electoral map, i.e. light blue or red to reflect the latest count of votes, and there could be 2 "Total" lines, the current one with all state counts that are officially closed, and one according to the latest vote counts. Eventually, as state counts get closed, these 2 totals will become identical, so it's not a political projection to provide this true data and update it regularly. Even so, wikipedia could perform projections, as long as they are based on objective mathematical formulas, not subjective opinions or polls. For instance, projecting what the final count would be based on the known or estimated remaining number of votes to count and the latest average percentage of the latest votes counted. Sure, it could change depending on specific counties, but the table averages would be updated as soon as the data for these counties are integrated, so the table can only turn more and more precise, and at the end, would be strictly identical to the official data. But really, not displaying such basic information as the number of Electors for pending states and the latest official count for every state is not helpful at all. The same table would work great for both the on-going election and the archived elections once all results are officially in. You would just need to remove the useless projected total line at that time. Chimel31 (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of this would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. Admanny (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. The current count is what it is - these numbers are available, as they go along. Reflecting the current count on the map with lighter shades as the OP suggested would not be to predict the outcome in those States that are currently grey. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless you meant the second paragraph of the OP...I had only really read the first part. The second part..TLDR. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph is WP:CRYSTALBALL. First goes against consensus, so cannot do much there. Someone tried doing that before but got reverted. Admanny (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Registered voters?

Is there any source that will eventually give us a total of registered voters for this election, so that we can calculate the exact turnout? --Aréat (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Census Bureau keeps track of this. From the looks of page in the link, it might be available by April of 2021.LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Most votes ever cast sentence bias

In the first paragraph, we find the following sentence:

"Biden received the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate in an American election, beating Barack Obama's record, as did Trump."

This seems to place bias in favor of Biden. As Biden is shown to be the winner of the election earlier in the paragraph, perhaps

"Biden and Trump each surpassed Barack Obama's record of the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate in an American election."

would be better; attempting to show equal footing for the two major candidates. LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it can be worded better to convey that both Biden and Trump surpassed Obama's record for most votes, however I do think Biden should ultimately get a specific mention in the sentence considering that he is going to end up with the actual record total once all votes are counted. So for example something like "Biden's total of [insert final vote count here] is the most votes cast for a presidential candidate in an American election, with both Biden and Trump surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million in 2008." I wonder if we could also tie this sentence in with a sentence about the election's record breaking turnout, once the votes are counted and the final turnout percentage is known? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We should say Biden and Harris received the most votes ever cast in an American presidential election. They couldn't have and did not tie for first place alone. Of course the news outlets that called her "unelectable" this summer may still favour Biden in word choice now, but facts are Wikipedia's thing, not preference. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Most votes ever cast proportion

Perhaps it would be worth the research to find the proportion of votes cast per the population of the US. According to National Archives the electoral college in this election is based on the 2010 census. Seems it would be more accurate to use population figures for 2020, which can be found at the Population Clock. Would need to find out how many people are eligible voters, though. Or, if a good source can be found, number of registered voters? LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Edited to add signature. LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

LuciusAreliusVerus, we don't do WP:original research here; instead we report what reliable secondary sources say. —valereee (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ohio

Should we mention how this could be the first time since 1960 that Ohio hasn't gone to the winner? Cards84664 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be trivia to me, but its noteworthiness could be argued. I would mention one line and that's it. Admanny (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It could definitely go into the Ohio 2020 elections article.NightFire19 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ohio's status as a bellwether is discussed a lot during presidential elections. Of the 204 presidential elections Ohio has participated in, it has only voted for the losing candidate three times, so I'd say it is noteworthy. BWellsOdyssey (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting 204 presidential elections?--Khajidha (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't things like this are noteworthy. They are used as a predictor of the result, but in this case they are wrong. Statistically speaking it is meaningless.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

And I don't see 1960 or sixty years as possessing any faint numerical oomph, as things that last happened a hundred years ago on a night like this (arguably) do. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles on presidential elections include info on bellwethers, and elections that are first to break a bellwether. For example, the article on 2008 mentions that Obama was the first winning candidate to lose Missouri since 1956. marbeh raglaim (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including it, since we include something similar for Missouri in the 2008 article. Prcc27 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't oppose it, either. It's not a bad thing to learn, just far from important or useful, in context. Same goes for a lot of stuff that's already here, or in similar articles, go for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

Under the "Racial unrest: section I would like the first sentence changed from "As a result of the killing of George Floyd and other incidents of police brutality against African Americans, combined with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of protests and a wider period of racial unrest erupted in mid-2020." to "As a result of the killing of George Floyd and other incidents of accused "police brutality" against African Americans, combined with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of protests and a wider period of racial unrest erupted in mid-2020." because the left calls actions done by police "Police Brutality" regardless if it was necessary or not. If a police officer is being attacked and kills the person the left says "Lets riot because this is 'Police Brutality' " so to keep this partisan please make that edit because many "Police brutality" claims this year is just the effort of the left to have the police removed for free reign as we've seen in various cities. Baseplate RBLX (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please cite reliable secondary sources to support your change. Sixula^Talk 17:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Baseplate RBLX: While the edit request is satisfactorily answered, I should also add that we don't use sneer quotes, or any other variations of scare quotes, in article prose. Especially as the primary purpose of such quotes is typically to provide a false balance, in giving a prominent place for minority viewpoints relative to what a majority of reliable sources say. This should be avoided in future edit requests. While reliable sources differ in their reporting on individual events as to how they characterize a specific incident, there's general agreement that the protests are in response to a larger documented phenomenon of police brutality. The last part of your edit proposal is clearly a partisan opinion, and thus falls into WP:NOTFORUM territory. This isn't the place for political rhetoric and a subjective interpretation of events. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Central issues of the election

Hi everybody, what do you think about inserting this paragraph in the head of the article?

"Central issues of the election included the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left more than 230,000 Americans dead, as well as its economic impact; protests in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd and others; the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement; and Biden arguing for protecting and expanding the Affordable Care Act, with Trump pushing for its repeal."

I ping Basil the Bat Lord, who wanted to start a discussion about that, and Davide King, who thanked me for the edit which was later reverted by Basil :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon Please see the discussion further up on this page. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

First time a party has held the White House for one term since Carter

"This was the first election since 1992 in which an incumbent president failed to win re-election to a second term"

It should also be noted that this is the first time that a party has held the White House for one term since Jimmy Carter for the Democrats.

The one problem that George H.W. Bush had coming into the 1992 campaign was that he was a President who had followed on from a member of his party Ronald Reagan who had served for two terms.

This was a problem that neither Carter nor Trump had when they lost.49.3.72.79 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that one political party failed to be elected to a second consecutive presidential term may be more notable -- certainly it's a less recent occurrence -- but I don't think we should be filling the article lead with trivia, so this election should be compared to either the 1992 election or 1980 election but not both. I think it's easier to convey that "the incumbent failed to win a second term" though if we want to keep the trivia concise. Corporal (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not trivia it is about how long people waited until they voted for change since Carter - 12 years for Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 8 each for Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama and finally only 4 for Trump. There is also the fact of the 22nd amendment which prevents anyone from running for a third term. That is why Reagan could not run and H.W. Bush did and won in 1988 and why it added to the total of 12 years of Republican control of the White House. That is why because of 12 years H.W. Bush lost as a one-term president in 1992 because Clinton made a strong case for change.49.3.72.79 (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, but probably not here. --Jayron32 12:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be good mentioning it in that other article but I still think it should be mentioned here as well otherwise it gives a misleading impression that George H.W. Bush had the same difficulty in achieving re-election than Trump did. Bush did not, his task was much harder in that he had the difficult task in making a case to the people to extend Republican rule to the total of 16 years.49.3.72.79 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Like most other factoids about the election, unless this is receiving significant coverage already, we should wait a bit and see what the WP:RSes focus on in terms of what's important about this one. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

From the 1980 election article: "Also, Carter was the first incumbent Democrat to serve only one full term since James Buchanan and lose re-election since Martin Van Buren; Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms while Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson served one full term in addition to respectively taking over following the deaths of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy."

All that was stated without the citation, which isn't needed, can be included in that article, then what I had asked to be included in the 2020 article shouldn't be a difficult ask.

The fact that certain things have not been said in sources does not make it untrue. It just mean that the writers concerned hadn't thought if it.

Wikipedians should be able to make their own assessments without checking to see whether it has been stated from outside source(s) and don't quote me Wikipedia rules as I don't feel that you are getting what I am saying.

At least one media outlet I know of does not give Wikipedia any credence. If that is the attitude to Wikipedia from the media in general then I don't see Wikipedia owes them any favours. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Should Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania really be shaded blue on the map?

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.

---

I don’t think these 3 states should be shaded for Biden, in light of the fact that Trump is/has been litigating the result in these 3 states. I’m not sure if there will be an appeal for the Michigan results, and unless there is no appeal within the next couple of weeks, I don’t think it should be called either way, at least at the moment. There could be an appeal, even up to SCOTUS, so I think it’s best if they are shaded grey, like the states that haven’t been called for either side.AlJenko98 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@AlJenko9: we do not call results, we simply report what media sources are saying. In this case, every major news source (AP, CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox) has called Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for Biden. Therefore, they are showed as being for Biden. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 01:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Sixula, we cite to what major news sources are reporting and it is undisputed that all the major news sources are reporting. It appears only one news source is disputing the results and at most should have a citation in the article explaining the counterargument. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jurisdicta: What source are you speaking of? Nojus R (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)`

@Nojus R: Newsmax (https://www.newsmax.com/), see cnn.com/2020/11/08/media/conservative-media-trump-reliable/index.html Jurisdicta (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

File:ElectoralCollege2020_with_results.svg goes by what ABC News, CNN, Fox News, New York Times, NPR, Politico, and Reuters. (Plus, there was talk of using AP as well, but they don't publish their own electoral maps; instead they sell access to the API from what I can tell.) Newsmax, was given a no consensus as a source, but this does not read as "Generally reliable" to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nojus R: I think that articles like this should make it clear that my opinion is Newsmax belongs in the "Generally unreliable" side of things, but even so I did find Newsmax's electoral maps. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are all called for Biden. (So far as I can tell, their map is currently the same as ABC News, CNN, New York Times, and Reuters.) I don't think Newsmax matters with regards to the map. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We went through this stuff 4 years ago, when folks wouldn't accept Trump's election. As others have said, we go by the sources. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 9 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.

Fireworks and celebrations in European cities

On November 7, the projected win of Biden and Harris triggered celebrations in multiple European cities including London, Paris, Munich and Edinburgh, with several celebrations featuring church bells or fireworks.

I've marked this as dubious. People do know that this is the weekend after Guy Fawkes Night, right? (and the source is Fox, and Fox's source is a bunch of tweets making the assertion based on seeing fireworks being used, which were shot because it's Guy Fawkes Night...?). Also, what is up with the insane amount of talk page banners here? Even Donald Trump has less. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Fireworks in Edinburgh and London could easily be for Guy Fawkes. But for whom the bells toll in Munich and Paris churches is a mystery. Possibly celebrating an even higher, but mundane and daily, power. Anyway, it's stuff like this that Reaction articles are built to accumulate. Even there though, dubious (also, the Fox guy mistook "ook" for "took"). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It could be Guy but If I remember that would need to of been the 5th of November? PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No idea, around here our Guy heroes rhyme with "gee". I apologize for mistaking Audrey Conklin for a Fox guy, though won't let the truth get in the way of a bad pun. Sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

After closer inspection, yeah, that "Fifth of November" rhyme does ring a bell. But weekends are more convenient. Article says the fireworks coincided with Diwali in 2010. That starts in three days this year, so could still be taken as Hindus lighting up for Harris. Stay discerning, people. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If this happened there should be more sources. If no other sources are found, I think this should be left out as a probable mistake.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I too would like to see more sources. Fox News and The Hill are the only vaguely RS i see reporting it. Both are not top tier sources though. If BBC or AFP report it, then yes it should stay. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say The Hill reporting on it is good enough for it to stay. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're reading the same story, Seipel attributes this to "people reported", not her own voice. And nobody mentions Paris. The guy mentioning Munich bells heard it from a friend, not his ears, third-hand hearsay (the friend didn't apparently say why they were ringing, buddy maybe assumed). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

True, it seems to be gossip. It's not reporters on the ground saying they witnessed celebrations. It's journalists reporting tweets by people who saw fireworks and heard bells and who appear to be presuming this was in response to the US election. Church bells (generally) don't get rung spontaneously. Who authorised this?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

First, someone on Twitter needs to ask Trask which church his supposed friend was near at the time of the incident, Wikipedia has 26 notable potential hotspots. Then one of us gets on the horn with the appropriate rector/vicar/prelate and asks what his bellringer was thinking. Or we agree that's too much work and delete this confusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sure I will have to do penance for this as it is original sin, but I have checked Trask's tweet, and several people have told him the bells were not ringing because of the US presidential election. Apparently in Munich they ring regularly.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well that just about settles it for me. It should certainly be removed. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a rousing and thoughtfelt victory speech based on a Metallica song and Jim Duggan promo, in which I properly thanked everyone personally (and justified leading Jack headlong into temptation) but was edit-conflicted. The horror! But yeah, good job, everyone. Forgive Jack eventually, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Jumping the gun?

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.

---

The voting is over. One side has come out victorious in the count. The other side has disputed the counting, as per the statutory provisions in the US election codes.

So, the election result is still under dispute.

Let the dispute get settled, through the statutory procedures. Till then, it would be most unwise to proclaim anyone as the winner.

Why should Wikipedia jump the gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:309:B47F:7DD3:B9D5:4C82:7BAB (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and almost all of then state that Biden has won and that any legal challenges have little chance of success. If sources state Biden is the winner, then that's what we state. You are free to believe as you wish. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The BBC here [30] calls Mr Biden "US President-elect", but states "his win remains a projection as key states still count votes". It gets its lead from CBS: [31], [32], [33], and [34] all state "projected" win. Bazza (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The CBS sources are from a few hours after the projection on Saturday. By now, even they are in line with the preponderance of other sources, which are calling him the unqualified president elect. For example This story doesn't mention "projected" or "presumptive" or any other similar word in the text (though links to Saturday's early stories do). That leaves the BBC standing alone in hedging. --Jayron32 14:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't hedge: it takes its lead from network in the National Election Pool[35]. Not sure why you don't read what I wrote and referenced? There is no issue about Mr Biden being called president-elect. There are still references (in this case CBS) which I gave above which you can visit now (as per timestamp for this entry) which state the election result is "projected". Bazza (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The new one you just added to your prior post is dated November 7. The BBC one you just posted now is dated 6 days ago. At some time in the past, it may have been appropriate to use the "projected" language in this article. We no longer live in that past. --Jayron32 16:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Prior to this post, I have only made two others to this talk page, at 13:36 and 14:41 today; so please explain how I added to the first of those. The one I posted at 14:41 links to the BBC explanation of what "projection" means for non-US readers (like me) and clarifies that the BBC does not make any "projection" (or "hedge") itself but takes it from reliable US sources; it was, as you say, published six days ago but I fail to see how that is relevant. You're saying that the CBS articles I linked to are out of date, but I can't find out when the result became "official" (or whatever it is you call it over there) and who made that decision. Bazza (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said it was official. I'm merely pointing out that you have not established that the preponderance of reliable sources are using the language you wish to see inserted in the current article. If you can establish that the preponderance of reliable sources are using the phrasing you wish to see added, we may have something. --Jayron32 16:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Dear pro-Trumpists, please give us a break. Trump is the loser of this election as much as all the previous losers who lost their elections. His opinion of the results is of no consequence to the way we verify facts. The election has been called for Biden by every major media outlet, even by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, two publications owned by Rupert Murdoch, a strong Trump supporter. The results are not even close, certainly not the way they were with Bush v. Gore. Your man has been called a sore loser because instead of conceding graciously, he's alleges cheating without any evidence, the way a spoiled child would throw a tantrum. Please don't come to Wikipedia in an attempt to support his strategy, because we don't report on wild speculation. Rest assured that if verifiable facts come out related to any alleged vote fraud, we will report them when they do. Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: Who is that aimed at? It looks like anyone who's trying to get some clarity on how this works. Please don't insult me by assuming you know how I would have voted in an election I am prohibited from taking part in. There are some readers and contributors to Wikipedia who, living in jurisdictions where such things are done differently, are struggling to understand your election system, in particular who decides who's won and when. I am one of them; where I live, it's up to a 93-year old expert to invite a participant to win. Bazza (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am addressing the pro-Trumpists who visit this page. I don't know if you are one of them or not because I have no way to verify what you say. The way it has always worked is that Wikipedia reports the consensus view of major news sources who "call" the election. Some time next month the Electoral College will meet to formally elect the president because this is assumed to be just a custom and has not resulted in any surprises since 1876 United States presidential election, and it's very unlikely to this year either. Jehochman ^Talk 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: Thanks. WP:DGF is a nice read. I didn't vote because I'm British, not American, and glad not to have to put up with the electoral circus we've had in our own news for some time now. Having said that, it's been interesting to follow the emerging outcome, although it's still unclear to me how the result is formally determined; I hadn't realised what looks like the formal bit isn't really. Regardless, all of my friends and neighbours think your country's decision to have Mr Biden as your new head of state for the next four years is a Good Move, and I agree with them. The other bloke is a joke, and we'd laugh at him even more if he wasn't so dangerous. Bazza (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous legal cases ongoing regarding problems with polling. No one should call the election until the states resolve it all by 8 Dec. 71.220.219.16 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The article states, By November 7, Biden and Harris were declared winners by all major news outlets projecting the results, including ABC, the Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, NBC, The New York Times, and Reuters, which is completely accurate. — Czello 18:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Until the results are certified nobody one. If Trump wins in the courts this site will say that he stole the election.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No, if there are legal arguments that persuade the courts to overturn the current results, this site will explain that and reflect it based upon how reliable sources report. Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Biden electoral votes 279 -> 290, popular votes 75,551,684 -> 75,404,182, Trump popular votes 71,189,789 -> 70,903,094 (data from Associated Press) Herobrine (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: That's one source. The preponderance of other sources still reporting 279 as the electoral count as yet. --Jayron32 14:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, we go with what the majority of WP:RS say. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential for annulment of results

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.

---

The incumbent president is planning to challenge the election results in court. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the incumbent, under "Elected President" the phrase "Election results annulled, Donald Trump remains president" must be added and the EV total must be changed to accommodate the court decision. This election has the potential to be the second annulled election in two years; the 2018 North Carolina's 9th congressional district election was annulled in January 2019. We are potentially going to see that election repeated on a national scale, which has never happened before. J4lambert (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not call results. If Trump wins the court case despite it being very unlikely then the article will be changed. I do recall seeing yesterday that the NYT gives Trump a 10% of winning the presidency, so there is still a possible chance. However for the most part it is unlikely and literally every media organisation is calling it for Biden. The media does not call the results of the election but the fact that literally every outlet is calling it for Biden makes a clear and consice point. Wikipedia does not get to decide who the president is and we instead rely on the media and source our information from there. A lot of the media thinks Donald Trump is using SCOTUS as a PR stunt to create a press narative than actually trying to win the election. I also see that you used the word "potential" over there. There is a "potential" that the world would end tommorow however I dont think that deserves a Wikipedia article. I can see where you are coming from and if events does turn out to change then it will get changed but the chances are too low. Haris920 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The incumbent President often does a lot of heretofore unseen things. Unless and until something actually changes, I see no reason to change the current formatting of the text of this article indicating Biden as the President elect. If something unusual actually does happen, we will actually change the text after it happens. But not before. --Jayron32 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The most likely outcome that is going to happen as a result of annulled results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin is that Trump would order the state legislatures in those states to appoint loyal electors who would vote for Trump. In the last 4 states, Democratic governors control the government but the state legislature is either controlled by Republicans or is nonpartisan in nature. The first two states have Republican governors and therefore would be able to send Trump loyal electors with legislative approval. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have Republican legislatures and Democratic governors, which would disqualify a total of 46 electors from Biden's total. Under this scenario, 27 or 35 electors would be switched to Trump and those 46 electors would remain uncounted, pushing both candidates totals to below 270. A contingent election would be required in this case. Now you think everyone says that each representative gets one vote and that Nancy Pelosi picks the president. However, the constitution states each state gets one vote; California gets the same amount of votes as Montana and the Republicans control more state congressional cohorts than the Democrats. This would enable Trump to remain president despite losing this election. Newsweek published an article in July about this debacle that our country is about to follow. J4lambert (talk) 16:55, 9 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.

Separate out a new section for "Post-election lawsuits"

There have been a large number of lawsuits filed related to the results and counting process of the 2020 election. These lawsuits have been filed by a number of parties (mostly the Trump campaign), in a number of states, and on a wide variety of issues. Regardless of the eventual outcome of these cases, they are a notable facet of post-electon events and have been covered widely by reliable sources, though each individual lawsuit may not have been covered by all possible sources. It would be useful to have the relevant lawsuits enumerated or discussed in a way that is convenient for the reader and not mixed with other post-election events.

There are reliable sources on each of these lawsuits and some of them are already presented in the article as it exists now (in the "Election night aftermath" section). While this is good, there is enough material in the "aftermath" section for it to stand on its own without the lawsuit information. It is logical to separate the legal material into a new section and add to it discussion of the lawsuits which are not currently covered in the article. Of these, I can think of at least one lawsuit regarding Pennsylvania (concerning late-arriving mail-in ballots) and one regarding Nevada (concerning counting of ballots with certain "smudges"). I am sure that there are others which I have missed or which have not yet been filed.

My suggestion would be to list the sections in "Voting Process and Results" in the following order: "Election night" -> "Counting continues after election night" -> "Election calls" -> "Post-election lawsuits" -> "Election protests" -> etc.

104.13.110.123 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral vote totals in sections 6.6 and 6.7

The candidate table and results by state table currently state the number of electoral votes each candidate is projected to receive, but they do not note that these are not official totals that could change once electors actually vote in December (especially after seeing how many faithless electors there were in 2016). While I think the information is valuable and should be included, I think we should clarify somewhere in those sections that these numbers are projections (similar to how the article infobox currently says "Projected electoral vote" instead of "Electoral vote"). Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done Prcc27 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Total of electors

Hi everybody, I'm french and I have to say it's very difficult for foreigners to understand how the whole process works... Especially hard to get is why it takes so long to have the results. For example, Alaska still lags at 56% after a week ! But the main incomprehensible thing for me is the total of electors. They are 538. At this point you write 279 for Biden and 214 for Trump, total is thus 493 (which you write as well on this page). But the only missing are Alaska (3) and Georgia (16), it means 19. And 493 + 19 = 512 !!! What about the other 26 ??? Thanks a lot for helping me !!! Jagellon (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You forgot about Arizona (11) and North Carolina (15). 512+26=538. Nojus R (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The confusion was probably because someone added Arizona and North Carolina to the table of results by state and didn't update the total. I removed these states as they haven't been projected by many (or any) sources yet. Heitordp (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Jagellon, don't feel bad. The proces is difficult for us natives to understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The process is difficult for some lawyers to understand. —valereee (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Naming conventions on candidate table

In the candidate table (section 6.6) the presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates for the Democratic and Republic parties have their middle names listed while third party candidates in general do not.

in various other places in the article Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and Mike Pence are named without their middle name (and the title of the articles for each of these people is just their first and last name). I think these four are notable enough under their short name (first name, last name) that inclusion of middle names is unnecessary unless a candidate is regularly called by that name (e.g. Donald J. Trump)

I agree. I changed them to their common names. Heitordp (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Using different color for contested states

I would propose using a different color for states the Trump Campaign is filing legal suits in. Regardless of ones opinion on the merit of the challenges, they should be represented on the map for accuracy of current events. My other option would be keeping them their current color but adding an identifier on the map to show they are contested BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of reliable sources which are doing the same thing? 109.159.88.9 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources highlighting the legal challenges. It would add value to the article to identify them on the map in one location, or as one user said, in the litigation section. As they come and go it can be updated BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. But maybe we could add a separate map in the litigation section. Prcc27 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, just another proposal with no basis in reality. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: Having them on the litigation section, maybe. Having them on the actual top map, no way. All WP:RS have called these states (unless they haven't, then grey) and having them a different colour is WP:OR and doesn't follow WP:RS, not to mention WP:UNDUE. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 02:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, per Sixula. Herbfur (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There is only a handful of states that Trump campaign has filed lawsuits and are not map-noteworthy. Regardless, there is only a tiny amount of votes at stake in those lawsuits compared to massive margins. Admanny (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I can respect that, I disagree on the fact of accuracy. Just because the media is calling a race and ignoring a topic doesn’t mean we shouldn’t include all facts. BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news source. We don't include original research and simply summarize what the reliable sources say. Nojus R (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - this has already been addressed above. Reliable sources are not ambiguous about the winners of the states they called. --WMSR (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Both - Mostly opposing as File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg should only be about who won the states until December, when it will be updated with how the pledged electors voted. However, the 2004 presidential election article has a section called 'Election controversies' along with a map of the number of problems reported in each state. If a similarly named section, a new section named 'Trump challenges' (or similar) or a new sub-section of the existing 'Voting process and results' is created, then I would support User:BlackBird1008 making a map of states where the Trump campaign is suing. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Florida also voted for the losing candidate for the first time since 1992. Can you please add that? Please. 2601:40A:8480:1750:6D0B:C890:CA84:68AA (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Trivia. But adding it to FL's respective page could do. Admanny (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Intro

It does not even state that the supposed loser is contesting the results. [36]. wp:npov is not the rule of the land anymore? 205.175.106.156 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that I think of this, I agree we should include that the campaign is disputing results. Perhaps after where it says Trump yet to concede. Someone else can do this. Admanny (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Done.Herbfur (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction in introduction

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.

---

The following two sentences in the introduction contradict each other:

• The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris defeated the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence.
• Voters selected presidential electors of the Electoral College who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020, to elect the new president and vice president.

The second sentence contradicts the first as it indicates that no winner has been chosen in the 2020 United States presidential election yet, as the election won't occur until 14 December 2020, while the first statement says that the election already happened and Joe Biden has already defeated Donald Trump. I should also point out that the first sentence has no sources, while the second sentence is sourced. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

References

They're both correct. The voters in each state select the slate of electors that their state sends to vote in the Electoral College. The Biden-Harris ticket has garnered enough pledged electoral votes (More than 270) to win the majority of the Electoral College and win the election. Herbfur (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

While 33 states have laws that punish faithless electors for not voting for the candidate that they pledged to vote, that is not true in all 50 states, most notably Pennsylvania and Georgia. And so there is actually nothing preventing for the Republican Party controlled states in Georgia or Pennsylvania to convince its electors to vote for (or amend its electoral rules such that they choose electors that would vote for) Donald Trump instead of Joe Biden on 14 December 2020, at odds with the state's popular vote. One more faithless elector from another state with no laws on faithless electors, such as Illinois or New York, who switches their vote from Joe Biden to another candidate on 14 December 2020 would leave Joe Biden with only 269 electoral votes, which would result in a contingent election. So until 14 December 2020 and the electoral vote, it is not guaranteed that the Biden-Harris ticket would win the election. This scenario of course would yield a constitutional crisis in the United States considering the precedent for the past century, but looks to be absolutely legal in the United States today, and the Republican Party under Donald Trump looks to be breaking with precedent and headed in that direction with its recent actions in the past week. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The Democratic and Republican parties each appoint their own sets of electors. Brad (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The scenarios you describe as "possible" are so fantastical that they have never before happened in 230+ years of Presidential elections. I see no reason to change the language of this article because some weird event, which has almost zero chance of happening except in your imagination, may happen for the first time this year. The article reports the results of elections in the same way that all elections have been reported by every reliable source in the past, as well as by every reliable source this year currently writing about this election, your weird little fantasies about how the electoral college would somehow go rogue this one year notwithstanding. This is how elections are written about, and we will not change this one article because you say we should. --Jayron32 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be based on your own speculations as to what could happen with the Electoral College vote. This is clearly in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Even then, these speculations are very unlikely. Even with the 279 Electoral Votes that Biden has won, it would require the most faithless electors in recent (if not all of) American History to overturn the election results. Biden is on track to win 306 Electoral Votes, which makes any scenario of faithless electors changing the outcome (which has never happened) even less likely. Appointing a separate slate of electors, after the people have voted, has also never happened. In ~1800, legislatures did change the elector appointment methods when they learned that the people were likely to vote for the other candidate, but that's a far cry from actually reversing the results of an already-completed election, and would employ a method not used since the 1840s. These are just fringe ideas that have almost no chance of occurring, even disregarding WP:CRYSTAL. Let's leave the speculation out of the encyclopedia. Herbfur (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Trump's own people won't challenge election results

For convenience with my cellphone, these tweets lead to more info from RS:

• https://twitter.com/RachelAbramsNY/status/1325934210612342785
• https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1325942262476517376
• https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1325989117231063041
• https://twitter.com/NoahBookbinder/status/1325992042196070401
• https://twitter.com/ktbenner/status/1325987873330487297
• This is a five-alarm fire

Valjean (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Anderson Cooper in that last "newsletter", "Anecdotes from people on social media is not evidence" (emphasis Brian Stelter's). That aside, you seem to be missing a whole case here. What do you want our own people to do with this infodump, articlewise? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Can't do much with cellphone right now. Experienced editors know what to do with info from the RS (which is not the tweets). There is no rush. -- Valjean (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The tweets show some relevant quotes to cite. Start there and read more from the RSes. -- Valjean (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm a Master Editor IV, and I have no idea what you want us to do with this. Relevant to what, quotes about/by whom, which section? Does the talk show Reliable Sources count as an RS, or am I supposed to find the right link within its "newsletter"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you pointing at Trump person William Barr saying "specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries"? Prosecution firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur alleging "irregularities" in Pennsylvania voting? "I must regretfully resign", Richard Pilger? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Barr is Trump's ally in lying about unproven massive voting fraud. He's asking the DOJ to go fishing, IOW he's pushing Trump's conspiracy theories without having evidence, and Pilger and the lawyers are saying "Hell no. Don't misuse us in your specious crusade." That's the gist of what's happening. -- Valjean (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So because Trump's people are preparing to challenge, and those opposed are stepping down or away in dismay, your headline predicts Trump's own won't challenge? Which quote from which lawyer did you paraphrase "Hell no" or "specious crusade" from? Didn't you say some quotes themselves were relevant? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Direct links to the articles: Growing Discomfort at Law Firms Representing Trump in Election Lawsuits - The New York Times, Barr Hands Prosecutors the Authority to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims - The New York Times -- Related articles that might contain more information to use: Trump campaign lawyers worry about pushing lawsuits that could undermine election: report - The Hill, Barr tells prosecutors to investigate 'vote irregularities' despite lack of evidence - The Guardian, Barr OK for election-fraud investigations roils Justice Department - Politico, DOJ's top election crimes prosecutor quits in protest after Barr tells federal attorneys to probe unsupported allegations of voting irregularities - CNN, DOJ's election crimes chief resigns after Barr directs prosecutors to probe voter fraud claims - NBC News. Personally, I think there is something that can be added to the article, but the only current things to add would be a sentence about Barr's memo and a sentence about the resignation since nothing else has occurred yet as far as I can see. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

FAQ created

Based on the clear pattern of questions from new users and IP editors, I WP:BOLDly created Talk:2020 United States presidential election/FAQ. Please modify or update as needed. My goal was to reduce energy and time repeating the same information. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The situation is still very fluid at present moment and I don't think the FAQ would come that handy but nonetheless useful (for now). Admanny (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A point was brought up at WP:ERRORS whether the election refers to the Nov general election, or does it also include the Electoral College vote in December. That could give background on the 2nd sentence of the lead currently reading "The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris defeated the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence." It would seems like it refers to the Nov election, as the lead sentence reads: "The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020."—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How are state prediction sites chosen?

How are the firms used for showing the outcome predictions chosen? IIRC, in the past Princeton Election Consortium has come very close to a correct prediction, but they are not included. Apologies if this methodology is easily accessible on the wiki; I can't seem to find it. LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not an official process. On Wikipedia, there seems to be a discussion at #RfC: What sources should be used for calling states?. —Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics reverses Pennsylvania call

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.

---

RealClearPolitics, which is often cited as authoritative by media during presidential campaigns regarding its opinion polling averages, has reversed the call of Pennsylvania and now displays the present result as Biden 259 - Trump 214 with four states still uncalled. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/president/

Some of their reasoning here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/10/the_media_should_not_have_called_this_election_144624.html

Should this be relevant towards whether this article displays a "certain" result in Pennsylvania, seeing as court challenges are ongoing? Also note that if mail-in ballots are rejected as invalid at the same rate that normally occurs (around 1-2% of mail-in ballots in recent elections are rejected) that alone could alter the outcome. [37] 85.144.218.248 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This is inaccurate, they never called PA. As for that opinion piece: The author "was nominated by President Trump to serve as U.S. labor secretary. He is the author of "The Capitalist Comeback: The Trump Boom and the Left's Plot to Stop It." I don't think this should change anything we're doing here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This is false. RealClearPolitics never called Pennsylvania. Carter (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC) (sorry, overlapped with Samwalton9's posting.

Besides the objections noted above, this is one source. Even if we concede that this source is as reliable as any other, a preponderance of the rest of the reliable sources still have Pennsylvania going to Biden. Unless and until the rest of the sources also say Pennsylvania went to Trump (or whatever), we should continue to report what most others are reporting. --Jayron32 15:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The current consensus is to add a state to the map once the following media outlets unanimously project a state: AP, Reuters, CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, NPR, PBS, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Washington Post, and the Guardian. That being said, I'm not necessarily opposed to adding RealClearPolitics to our list of sources (we would probably want to add The Cook Political Report too though). I disagree with Jayron32. If we do include RCP in our criteria, Pennsylvania would be removed from the map and infobox given that the current consensus is to add a state when the media unanimously call a state. Prcc27 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to that consensus please? I've read this page through several times, and I don't see it. I may have missed it, however. --Jayron32 16:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• This was discussed at the RFC. Prcc27 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• I read that discussion. I don't see half of the sources, or more, that you listed above mentioned in that discussion. --Jayron32 17:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought you were asking about the consensus to only add a state when there is unanimous agreement. The discussion on which sources to use was archived by a user, so I would check the archives. The section is called Election Night Prep. Prcc27 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I am unarchiving this discussion. Just because a user made a false claim (perhaps in good faith), doesn't mean the entire discussion has to be shut down. Plus, do we really want to clutter the talk page with even more discussions..? While it may be false that RCP didn't reverse a PA call, it is true that they still haven't called PA yet. Prcc27 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should come to a consensus on what race callers to use before implementing anything. I don't know much about RCP's procedures and I certainly haven't heard of them as a reliable/notable race caller before. I think it would be best if we used the Outlets listed here. These are the major outlets, and I think we'd be running into a notability problem if we keep adding more and more race callers. Herbfur (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

RCP is not in our list of reliable sources, and that is for a damn good reason. This is an organisation that said both Connecticut and Indiana were lean states, they are not reliable enough for this sort of thing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I looked into it and it doesn't look like RCP meets the standards of WP:VERIFIABILITY. It seems like it's a self published source with no oversight, so I don't think we should be using it to call races. Herbfur (talk) 20:53, 10 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.

70 percent of Republicans don’t think the election was free and fair

See here:

"After the presidential race was called for Democratic candidate Joe Biden, Republicans’ trust in the election system plummeted, while Democrats’ trust soared, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

Multiple new organizations announced Biden as the election winner on Saturday after four days of counting in several swing states. Following the news, 70 percent of Republicans now say they don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair, a stark rise from the 35 percent of GOP voters who held similar beliefs before the election. Meanwhile, trust in the election system grew for Democrats, many who took to the streets to celebrate Biden’s victory on Saturday. Ninety percent of Democrats now say the election was free and fair, up from 52 percent before Nov. 3 who thought it would be.

Among Republicans who believed that the election wasn’t free and fair, 78 percent believed that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud and 72 percent believed that ballots were tampered with — both claims that have made a constant appearance on the president’s Twitter thread. Like President Donald Trump, a majority of the people that thought the election was unfair, 84 percent, said it benefited Biden.

The lack of trust in the election system has led to Republicans being more skeptical about the election results. Although only 18 percent of Republicans had said the results would be unreliable prior to Election Day, now 64 percent feel the same way following Biden’s victory. By contrast, 86 percent of Democrats say they trust the results.

Republicans were particularly wary of the results coming out of swing states, especially in Pennsylvania, which counted votes for four days before delivering Biden a decisive win on Saturday. Sixty-two percent of Republicans said the Pennsylvania results would be unreliable, a stark contrast to the 8 percent of Democrats who held the same beliefs.

Distrust is similarly high in Wisconsin (55 percent), Nevada (54 percent), Georgia (54 percent) and Arizona (52 percent). The skepticism has particularly been fueled by the Trump campaign, which has filed more than half a dozen lawsuits in states like Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan and Georgia since Election Day. Two days after the race was called for Biden, Trump continues to tweet out that “Nevada is turning out to be a cesspool of Fake Votes” and “Pennsylvania prevented us from watching much of the Ballot count.”

However, despite their lack of trust in the results, Republicans are split on whether or not the outcome will change. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans believe the results will be overturned, while 45 percent say it’s unlikely.

The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted Nov. 6-9, surveying 1,987 registered voters. Some interviews were done before the race was called, but the majority were after the official call. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points."

Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the suggestion for incorporating this into the article, specifically? Btw, do these polls break down the numbers by day? That would be interesting (Trump looks like winning = "yeay fair elections!", then couple hours later, Trump starts to lose = "rigged!") Volunteer Marek 16:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

70% of Republicans are more than entitled to that opinion. It does not change what reliable sources have reported about the results of the election. --WMSR (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Entitled to their opinion" means absolutely squat. What specifically are you referring to when you say "what reliable sources have reported about the results of the election"? Volunteer Marek 18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that a large fraction of Republicans don't accept the results should be mentioned. Acceptance of election results by the public is what makes democracy works. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The devil is in the details here. We aren't putting the giant paragraph you wrote above into the article. I think one single sentence, with in-text attribution to the specific organization and poll, and put in the appropriate section of the article, may be sufficient. What text do you propose to add, and where do you propose to add it? --Jayron32 17:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think *something* about this should be added but I'd like to see a specific proposal. Volunteer Marek 18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the above editors, a sentence or two about this should be added, but a full paragraph is too much. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support this should be added to reflect the sentiment of Trump voters during this election as voter confidence is a big political issue this year BlackBird1008 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the points above it would be worth it to see if any of the other presidential election articles include statistics about each party’s acceptance of the election. And if they don’t would it be worth it to add the respective statistics to each respective article (provided there are statistics of this nature in other elections). For example we add a sentence to the 2016 election displaying the sway of opinion from Hilary will win fairly to Hilary had the election stole from her. As well as display the sway of opinion that trump will be robbed to trump won fair and square. What are your opinions? CaseyP513 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

the only objection I’d have to going back to previous election articles is that Hillary conceded and did not contest the results. This is different because neither candidate conceded and there are multiple lawsuits in multiple states specifically alleging fraud BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That is true it is a different situation but it would still be important information pertaining to the acceptance of fair elections. Or if not all elections at least the ones with controversial results. But I see your point in this being a unusually contested election CaseyP513 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (2)

change the term "defeated" to "has been projected to defeat". 72.80.52.183 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. Prcc27 (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No. Not sure why we would do that. Gsquaredxc (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. We follow reliable sources and the consensus of reliable sources say that Biden has defeated Trump. The article needs to reflect that. Herbfur (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, news organizations usually say something along the lines of "we project Biden will defeat Trump", so the proposal actually seems to be in line with what reliable sources say. I think the distinction that it is a projected win is important because it makes it clearer that the results aren't certified yet, despite Biden being the clear winner. Prcc27 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are some examples of news organizations noting that it is a projected defeat for Trump: [38][39] Prcc27 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You just conceded "Biden is the clear winner". We don't wait for formalities like certification or the EC vote. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @331dot: Biden being the clear winner, and Biden being the projected winner is not a mutually exclusive statement. Trumps defeat is based on projections pending official certification. Would it kill us to clarify the electoral process to the readers? Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Except it doesn't do that, it introduces the suggestion that it is illegitimate. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The fact that it's projected is just a formality, as a Trump victory is essentially mathematically impossible at this point (hence why outlets have called the race). Herbfur (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Herbfur: Those networks always note that them "calling" the race is based on their projections. Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: Like I said, it's really a formality, calling the race means that the victor has essentially won, even disregarding the certification of the vote and later processes. At this point, "projected winner" and "winner" are pretty much synonymous. From the work of the outlets, a Trump victory is mathematically impossible. Herbfur (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Herbfur: If a candidate is not certified the winner, they can't legally take office. The currently wording seems to insinuate that the process has already been completed. Anyways, I proposed different wording below. Prcc27 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WMSR (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @WMSR: I already provided reliable sources that support the change: [40][41] Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose this wording, it puts a level of doubt into the results that is not reflected in the sources. Perhaps the sentence needs to be reworded somewhat, but this proposed change is not better than what we currently have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the IP was intending to propose something with a doubtful tone, but I certainly am not trying to cast doubt on the outcome. I just think we need to make it clear that the process is not over and that we are waiting for formalities to play out for Biden to officially be elected. Could we change the sentence to "The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris were declared the winners of the election by major media organizations, defeating the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence.×" Sidenote: The last two sentences in the lead should probably be consolidated into another paragraph. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: If we add in sentences making it clear that the reason media outlets declared Biden the winner was because their analysis finds that a Trump victory is a mathematical impossibility, then I do not oppose your proposal. Herbfur (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with explaining that projections make a Trump victory extremely mathematically improbable. Although I do have some reservations about adding that sentence to the first paragraph, and would prefer that we add that specific sentence to the third paragraph. Prcc27 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Support The sources do indeed refer to Biden as the "projected" winner. Not sure why other editors are trying to claim the sources do not use this language since they clearly do and sources have been provided multiple times. Stating the winner as fait-accompli is false and does not align to sources. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• It is true that they do specifically say "projected". So in that case, I would change the sentence to "the Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris were projected the winners of the election by major media organizations, defeating the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence."Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election. — Bilorv (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Hillary Clinton information

User:Neutrality, you recently removed information on Hillary Clinton's comments about conceding the election, declaring that such information would need consensus to be added. I agree with you, but there was consensus to add it, see Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 14#Adding to "Potential rejection of election results". I ask that you revert that particular edit, since the article is under 1RR restrictions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that this was discussed some time ago (pre-Election Day), but I don't see that there was consensus to add it. At least one participant in that discussion said that the addition "has sufficient support unless and until there are objections to that addition." I am making such an objection now.

On the actual substance: this text is undue weight because Clinton's comment was mundane; she merely said that Biden should not concede on election night, given that the shift to mail-in voting means that vote-counting would take some time before results became clear (which obviously turned out to be true). In this tumultuous election, Clinton's comment strikes me as among the least important things.

More importantly, the placement of this content under "potential rejection of election results" inaccurately draws an equivalency between Clinton's and Trump's comments, which implicates WP:BLP. So I'm challenging this content, and I don't intend to self-revert given the lack of a prior consensus and the BLP issues involved. Tagging participants in earlier discussion: Jgstokes, MelanieN, Grahaml35, Tartan357. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

As the one who made the statement alluded to above, noting that I felt the material could be added unless and until it is objected to, I will say that the objection offere d here is well-taken. The comments made by Trump about potentially not accepting the election results are far different than the advice Clinton gave Biden about not accepting the election results, since Clinton clearly qualified her remarks by saying that concession should not come from Biden towards Trump on the night of the election.

Another point: with that statement made before the election results were in and being analyzed, clearly, the onus is not on Biden here to concede, since he won. And since the race has been called by many major entworks, that begs the question: is including Clinton's remarks even necessary now that Biden has been projected as the winner? Maybe Clinton's advice to Biden played into him waiting for the win, but maybe it didn't, and since there doesn't seem to be a sufficiently neutral yet reliable source post-election that verifies that Clinton's advice directly played a role in how Biden did or did not respond to the results. that changes things post-election that weren't a factor when I offered that initial opinion in the days prior to the election.

That being said, if the consensus determines there is a way to include this information in a wahy that satifies the concerns expressed above, I think I'd not have any qualms about supporting that consensus. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (3)

change "The President voted by mail" by "The President voted in person in Florida on saturday before election day" 2A01:E35:2E1F:6BE0:E116:C01B:5BBF:F175 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)