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.

2020 Presidential Election Results by Congressional District

I made a map of the 2020 Presidential Election by Congressional District. It uses totals from this spreadsheet which are likely accurate, although we don't have solid numbers for all of New York and Kansas. However, we can take some accurate estimates of what the raw percentages are in every district. Here's the map and spreadsheet so far.

The 2020 United States Presidential Election by Congressional District

Spreadsheet of results can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uPaQL4Izv-7nbreQA7N5NVWAduulCtkyw8qZN7bpjCg/edit#gid=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzybf (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we use this in the article, I would say no. This is WP:Original research; we can only use things that have been published by Reliable Sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting this spreadsheet? Is it your own data or is it compiled by a reliable source? If you compiled it on your own, unfortunately, it violates WP:NOR so I would have to respectfully dissent to its inclusion in the article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If all the data is confirmed by an "official" source, can it be added?

unsigned comment added by Fuzzybf (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, no, per WP:SYNTH. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What if I redo the map, but only get the data from one (credible) source? Will that be acceptable?

unsigned comment added by Fuzzybf (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Fuzzybf, please get the message. The problem is not the reliability of the data. The problem is you making it into a map. That is Original Research and not allowed. Also, please sign your posts here. You do that by adding four tildes (~~~~), or by putting your cursor at the end of your message and clicking the button at the top of the editing page that looks like a signature. That will automatically produce a signature and a date/time stamp. This is what happens when I do that: -- MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the message I was reading was that the spreadsheet was the problem, not the map until Herbur's comment, so I can understand why Fuzzybf might be confused. Anyways, according to WP:OI, Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Based on my current belief, I am not so sure it is a problem. If the data is fine to post as it is, then where would the problem be if that data was shown in map form? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The map is original research since Melanie is a administrator and she said so so it cannot be posted unless other administrators allow it 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not inherently true either. The test for original research is based on objective criteria and not whether or not an admin said so. WaltCip-(talk) 12:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This does not make any sense to me. If all the data could come from one source, then it would not be original research to make it into a map. It is no more original research than any of the maps are which are posted on every single election article. If the source of the information is the problem, then fine, say that. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT-@Fuzzybf:- After going through WP:OI as Super Goku V has mentioned above, I am of the view that your map will not violate Wikipedia's guidelines if you can provide published and reputed sources to support your data. CX Zoom (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

My opinion was that of a regular editor; I was not speaking as an administrator, since I am WP:INVOLVED at this article. I notice that User:Muboshgu agreed with me, and I think User:Herbfur may have agreed as well, since he called it WP:SYNTH. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, MelanieN. The policy about images that was later cited still does not clear this image for use. My understanding of the policy is that it's meant to clear editors who go out and take a physical photo with a camera and contribute them to Wikipedia, not necessarily editors who create digital images using their computers. While the later case is still covered by the policy, we should also remember that the policy cited states, "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". This is essentially the same provision as those of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and the map would still be in violation of that for now. That's because the idea of exactly which congressional districts the candidates have won hasn't been covered by reliable sources yet. While some sources like FiveThirtyEight have stated how many districts Biden and Trump won, they haven't said which districts exactly. Even using state certifications to generate this data would still violate these three policies, because the state certifications, as far as I'm aware, don't provide congressional district-level information for the presidential race, so that would be doing original research and drawing unstated conclusions from these sources (WP:SYNTH). I'm certain that this information will come soon from reliable sources, and when it does, I'd definitely support adding this kind of a map. But regrettably, for now, I must oppose the inclusion of the map. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The key is: "For now". There are reliable sources who calculate CD-level results for the Presidential Election, it just hasn't been done yet. I would completely support the inclusion of a map of that once a source is available. yeah_93 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Herbfur and MelanieN: I believe I understand. Out of curiosity, does that mean we can remove the other versions of the image on the other election articles or do they need to be discussed as a group somewhere? (2008, 2000, 1988, 1960, 1956, 1952, and all others I missed) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a local consensus so it affects this article only. Of course, discussions could be started at the other articles and similar arguments made, if anyone feels like doing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we'd have to discuss there first. The other images are probably backed by reliable sources, so they're probably ok. I also looked into Wikipedia policy further and WP:CALC could apply? If the images were generated by doing calculations on certified election results, they could be permissible as is, if the image creator tells us their method for generating the results and the community agrees that the method is sound. Thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Then my current belief is that the 1952, 1960, and 1988 (along with any others I missed) need to be edited to remove the signature at the bottom. In addition, the 1952, 1988, and 2020 files only cite Twitter with no actual link, so those need to be updated to include some actual source instead of saying, Drawn on paint. Previously published: Published on Twitter. The 1960 source links to a Facebook post which has the only mention of the source as A very special thank you to Gary Jacobson at the University of San Diego for providing me the necessary election data! (The 2000 source is a private forum, so I will only note it here for now.) The 2008 map has the best sourcing of the files and the only approval to use the file that I can see, but it seems to have errors in it at a glance. (Districts in Wisconsin (6th), Iowa (2nd), New Mexico (1st), Texas (15th) use different shading between the two maps despite just being a conversion from Red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans to the US norm.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: As a side note, I don't think it's appropriate to put your name and Twitter handle directly on the map that you want in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll take the signature out if need be. --Fuzzybf 2601:602:87F:E6F0:CC32:9530:5127:E9DF (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The signature has been taken out. -Fuzzybf 2601:602:87F:E6F0:4D56:9301:C392:CE4B (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarify 2016 swings in results by state

Can someone validate the percentage swings from 2016 column in the "Results by state" section? Particularly the +/- sign - e.g. Florida's change from 2016 is listed as -2.16%, which doesn't make sense given that Trump increased his victory margin there. Shouldn't it be +2.16%? In general, it's not clear at all what the sign convention is - does + signify increased margin for the victor, or a specific change relative to one party? Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:BB0F:C601:EC1C:88DB:88CA:4C8F (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As with the rest of the table, it relates to the swing towards or against the victor. + is towards the victor and - is against the victor. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The victor of the state, or the victor of the overall election? Again, using Florida as an example - it swung 2.16% for the victor of the state, Donald Trump, and yet is listed as a negative. The sign convention isn't intuitive and needs to be stated, or modified to be more intuitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.180.192.10 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's in comparison to the victor of the election. It's standard convention across all these articles, but I can add a key to explain it if you'd like. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Biden's 2020 current popular vote total: 81,283,098 Trump's 2020 current popular vote total: 74,222,958 DBradshaw25 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spiffy sperry: Their numbers and the ones currently on ABC News' election map are the same. (It claims that it was updated last on December 18th.) I just saved a copy to the Internet Archive, but is that a suitable source for the moment? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm not sure. I appreciate the link to ABC, and it led me to check the total votes listed by other media sources. I found that CNN and Washington Post have the same vote totals as ABC and the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal have different vote totals (from ABC and from each other). This article currently uses the exact sum of the certified results of all 51 authorities (states + DC). The media sources I list here each differ from the certified results in 5-10 states. And in all cases, the media sources do not appear to use the exact sum of their state totals to arrive at their reported national total. I guess the bottom line is that reliable sources differ slightly, so I'm not sure that using ABC above all other options is justified. At some point, the Federal Election Commission will issue a report with the final numbers. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, if this uses a sum of all of the certified results, then we should stay with what we have until the FEC's final numbers. I didn't check for other sources as I just searched for "81,283,098" on Google, so I didn't discover that there were differences. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Should turnout arrow be removed?

According to the note attached to the turnout figure in the info box, it's not comparable to previous years as the figure for 2020 excludes ineligible US residents and includes eligible US citizens abroad (neither of which were done in previous years' turnout calculations). So shouldn't we remove the green arrow indicating an increase of turnout? It's confusing to say "this figure can't be compared to previous figures" and then have a symbol to compare it to previous figures. Thek826 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it might have to be removed. It seems common sense that turnout is higher but like you said, it's contradictory and solid sources aren't available to back up that comparison. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the reason is due to these two discussions: Voter turnout (Archive 21), Voter turnout (Archive 23). According to Heitordp, But it should take a few months until the FEC publishes its report. Until then, should we temporarily cite the estimate similar to the FEC method (1/3) from this source? That's what was done for the previous election before the FEC report was available. Additionally, we have this sentence in the lede, The election saw the highest voter turnout since 1900,[10] which references the U.S. Elections Project indirectly. There are also sources like the AP which shows that turnout as determined on November 9th had increased compared to 2016. (Since then, about 7.5 million ballots were counted, so their numbers are outdated.) Personally, I would say we have evidence of increased voter turnout, but the uncertainty is the percentage of voter turnout and by how much. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Regarding 2020 United States presidential election#January 6, 2021 Objection to the Certification of Electoral College votes, I think the section needs serious refactoring, and I would even support outright deletion. But, at the very least, seeing as how I can't edit it myself, I would request that Harley be changed to Hawley with a wikilink to Josh Hawley; the section remove its title caps; and that which would force his fellow Republicans to vote to choose between rejecting President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud in this year's election or disenfranchising millions of voters be removed as violating WP:NPOV and a copyvio (directly lifted from the article cited). Urve (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Urve,  Done. Mikemikem, please be more careful not to plagiarize sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states

There was voter fraud this should be changed to " alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote-counting process in swing states." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the courts and reliable sources disagree with you. If you have evidence of voter fraud, you should hurry to SCOTUS, since no one else has offered any. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh? That's what's in the lead (modulo a hyphen). While there was voter fraud (see here), it wasn't widespread... which is what our article says. I fail to see what the IP is getting at. Unless you're trying to get us to omit falsely, in which case, no. Urve (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There's basically always some voter fraud. But voter fraud in the 10s or 100s of thousands (or more)? That is unusual and would require a lot of proof. Which hasn't turned up anywhere. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggested minor edit

In the introduction, first sentence second paragraph (referring to Biden), please change

…“in a competitive primary that featured the largest field of candidates for any political party”… to

…“in a competitive primary that featured the largest field of candidates (29) for any political party”…

This extra information comes from wiki page “2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries” Thanks Peter Ells (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Graphic showing shifts in votes compared to 2016

Are the arrows showing how each State shifted compared to the previous election going to be added to this article like in other election articles? I thought those were really helpful and interesting in seeing which States got more Red and more Blue. NutteLarsson59 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@NutteLarsson59: Consider File:U.S._2016_to_2020_presidential_election_swing.svg? Which is close but not precisely what you want (arrows). Otherwise click on the shift button here; I don't see a map with arrows at commons, but the NYT graphic does. Urve (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Urve I was referring to an overall State graphic, such as this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Presidential_Election_Results_Swing_by_State_from_2012_to_2016.svg NutteLarsson59 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia allowing articles to present biased opinions in lieu of fact?

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, like many others thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be an online encyclopedia. Sadly this is no longer the case. I repeatedly see articles with opinions being asserted as facts. This is unconscionable behavior. Like many other supposed reputable news sources, this has been compromised. Just allow facts, not opinions. Mcsgwi (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi, broad complaints like these are not helpful. Is there anything specific you'd like to point out as being potentially biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What "opinion" are you talking about? It is a fact that Joe Biden was elected the 46th President of the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi So news sources and Wikipedia are compromised because they don't tell you what you want to hear? 331dot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi Please let us know exactly what statements you find biased or incorrect. You can also WP:BE BOLD and edit things you find biased, and discuss with other editors on talk pages. But making broad and vague statements doesn't help. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi, Wikipedia depends on reliable and secondary source and most of them are left wing based sources. Conservative editors are having a hard time editing nowadays. Check out this article: Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics. And since I'm using Fox News, I'll be warned for using it because of this: Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims. Happy editing. KRtau16 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s not Wikipedia’s fault that so many “conservative” news sources are increasingly detached from reality.—-Ermenrich (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right! It's good that talk shows are deemed unreliable as it is opinion based. KRtau16 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is veering dangerously close to WP:NOTFORUM territory, but yes, the issue is that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and can experience systemic bias. However, the editor raising this concern should point out specific issues with the article so we can address them. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi I don't know what he wants to talk about in this article. Whether you are the supporter of Democrats or Republicans, this article is mainly based on sources. There are "many others" who want to write about their political facts in here. But Wikipedia is not a space which is advocating to specific political figures or specific political view. I think you should look NPOV and GFCA -- Wendylove (talk)`

Mcsgwi I agree. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This is clearly being violated by pushing narrative over fact. 124.169.150.131 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is this article doing that? Can you indicate the offending passages and provide evidence that they're biased? 24.46.83.131 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Where exactly are the narratives being pushed in this article? Please cite specific passages. Again, these kinds of broad statements are unhelpful. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to raise one example that I see fit: A subsection is named "False claims of fraud" where "False" reads opinionated. "Claims of fraud" seems to be the right term to use for NPOV. --Luminoxius (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Q2 in the FAQ covers why we use the word false, as reliable sources say false claims. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should give equal time to people who claim that the Earth is flat or that climate change is a hoax? Sorry, but no - we are not required to give credence to fringe theories, and the claim that there was any significant electoral fraud in the 2020 American presidential election is demonstrably fringe and rejected by all mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fair that we call the claims false, or that they have been declared false by reliable sources, but it's not necessary to name the subsection with that word. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This is what I mean. Same way the "Presidency" section under Donald Trump is not named "Controversial presidency" just because RS say so. --Luminoxius (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

By the same token, it's "opinionated" to call the Earth round, because there are some crackpots out there who either don't understand science or choose not to believe in it. Jah77 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2021 (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.

Insufficient evidence vs. False, and how it is applied

Despite what the "journalistic" headlines say (using words like "false" or "lack of evidence"), the courts have rejected the cases for the vast majority based on standing, timeliness or insufficiency of evidence, rather than because of presented evidence being false or nonexistent.

For an encyclopedic article, I believe that claims about falsehood should be held to a high standard, not be a mere echo of journalistic opinion (unless the intention is to document the journalistic opinion, in which case it should be clearly noted as such). Unfortunately I don't think this article meets these standards. An example is the sentence that begins with "Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud." (issues: insufficient evidence does not equate to a false allegation, also the use of "subvert" which makes opinionated assumptions about intent and does not add factual information to "overturn"). An even worse example is found later in the paragraph, where "widespread" is not even mentioned: "The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress,[24] still continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by [...] spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud,[28][...]" (issue: election fraud is not a "conspiracy theory" but a historically well-documented fact, e.g., in the Heritage Foundation voter fraud database . The question about fraud in the 2020 election is not whether it happened but whether it was sufficiently widespread to influence the outcome, as indicated by the comments from AG William Barr in this same article [28]: attorney general William Barr told reporters that though he was “sure there was fraud in this election” it was not “systemic or broad-based”). An additional problem with this part of the sentence is that the cited source is a rather weak support of the statement itself (the article opens as an ad-hominem attack in its headline and first sentence, which denotes a debate/opinion intent, and using Sidney Powell as a significantly representative example of "The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress" is a stretch).

Certain newspapers may be acceptable as a reliable source of facts, but that does not automatically extend to opinion in those newspapers (which includes sections of a news article where the statements are not backed by the facts being reported). This is specifically covered in Wikipedia's examples of where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice WP:TRUTH. Q2 in the FAQ is based on the incorrect assumption that because a source considered reliable for news calls his statements false, it is acceptable to repeat that same claim in a Wikipedia article (with Wikipedia's voice), and should be removed.

Proposed improvement: Remove the opinion sections marked in bold above. Remove Q2 in this Talk page FAQ

--Ecrz (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a nonstarter. It is nonsense that courts only rejected the suits because of standing. Numerous judges have ruled that the accusations lack merit and have no evidence, as can be seen by looking at previous discussions of the issue. Wikipedia does not report conspiracy theories as if they might be true.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to even rely on what journalism or courts say to begin to gauge the falseness of the claims: simply compare what Trump and GOP lawyers say in court—where they're liable for committing perjury—to what they say at their staged events when cameras are rolling but they aren't under oath. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, they often have said "fraud" in front of cameras but "no fraud" under oath. Additionally, the editor is proposing things that go against Wikipedia's basic pillars, I mean, whether or not something is true in this situation isn't an opinion. The reliable sources are reporting a fact that these statements are incorrect. Even then, like others have said, the courts have also thrown out cases because the evidence is false or nonexistent, not just standing or timing. The word "false" should stay, per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would respectfully request that you read WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS (as well as what I wrote) in its entirety and refer to the full context, instead of cherry picking. Also WP:NOR is relevant, and I will reiterate WP:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If_it's_written_in_a_book,_it_must_be_true!"

I agree that Wikipedia should not report conspiracy theories as if they might be true, but that is very different from engaging in value-laden labeling, which is explicitly against WP:LABEL. This is what this article seems to be currently doing and I am proposing to remove. --Ecrz (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You have an incorrect and mistaken understanding of Wikipedia policy. We report the world as reliable sources tell us it is, and if reliable sources engage in "value-laden labeling," so do we. We report that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by al-Qaeda at the behest of Osama bin Laden, no matter that some people have different opinions. We report that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, regardless of the fact that some people disagree. I'm sorry that you disagree with the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, courts, and experts - but your disagreement isn't relevant to Wikipedia. We just don't care that you personally think it's wrong. Sorry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you have read the policy?, let me quote one of the pillar pages WP:WIKIVOICE: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.".

Both you and I may agree on the evil of genocide but facts should still be separated from opinion. If you prefer rewording every relevant sentence so that it indicates that it is an opinion, that would be a valid alternative. I did consider that as my initial proposal but when I looked at how it would further bloat the article it seemed to me that the reporting of those opinions is not that relevant to this article and it was much simpler to just eliminate the opinion parts. This may be just a matter of insufficient writing skill on my part, if someone writes something that looks good and separates facts from opinion I'm certainly open to supporting that change and withdrawing my proposal.

--Ecrz (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This isn't an opinion. The lack of systemic fraud is a fact. Joe Biden winning legitimately is a fact. Wikipedia reports facts. None of these are opinions. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see "lack of systemic fraud" or "Joe Biden winning legitimately" in the list of what I proposed to remove

--Ecrz (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Amend paragraph 4 by removing the parts indicated in bold:

Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states.[16][17][18] Attorney General William Barr and officials in each of the 50 states found no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the election.[19][20] Federal agencies overseeing election security said it was the most secure in American history.[21][22][23] The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress,[24] have still continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by filing dozens of legal challenges in several states with all but one minor case being withdrawn or dismissed by various courts,[25][26][27] spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud,[28] pressuring Republican state electors and legislators,[29] objecting to the Electoral College certification in Congress,[30][31] and refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition in what is described by some as an attempted coup.[32] On multiple occasions, Trump has refused to concede and falsely declared himself the winner.[33][34]

Trump's call with Raffensberger

Worth including? ‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor President Trump urged fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call Saturday that election experts said raised legal questions.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also NYT [1], CNN [2], MSNBC [3], Politco [4]. Not at Fox yet but I don't see how they can avoid reporting it (although what do I know?). Now at Fox too [5].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely is. Completely in favor of this. Enough reliable sources have covered it, I think. —GreenFlash411 — Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

While the attempts at overturning the election overall are noteworthy for the article, we have no reason to believe these particular comments will be noteworthy, per WP:10YEARTEST, so they don't belong here in what is already too far large of an article. Onetwothreeip (talk)

The 10 year test is a good one - though I doubt many WP articles on recent events would pass it. It’s looking to be a significant incident at time of writing but the significance will clarify over coming days so probably best to wait for the moment. WP:CRYSTAL. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems roughly in-line with other stuff in 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Pressure_on_state_and_local_officials. I think a sentence is fine, but it's true the article is massive and that sort of nitty-gritty can be covered elsewhere; if we're not going to include it I would suggest generally rewriting / condensing that section, since including other stuff at similar levels of granularity but leaving that one out is awkward. Alternatively an existing sentence in there could be made more general (encompassing both this and other, comparable calls in one sentence.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Move nomination process to another article.

The article is bloated right now and moving the nomination process elsewhere would help condense. A Tree In A Box (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The entire primaries section and the aftermath could be split out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Those are both worthy of an article in their own right. Some of the background information can probably be trimmed as well. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

They are elsewhere, what is there now is just a summary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for voter turnout consolidation

Please change The election saw the highest voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters since 1900,[396] with each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008.[10] in the "Statistics" section to (something akin to) The election saw the highest voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters since 1900 - 66.3%[396] - with each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008.[10] Rationale: Voter turnout is a standard and one of the major election statistical measures and if the "Statistics" section mentions the turnout, it would be user-friendly to actually include the value. Additionally, voter turnout (in pct) is provided at two places in the article - in the top right side main box and in the "Electoral results" sections. These use sources different from the source in the "Statistics" section. Suggestions: - Replace the turnout value and it's source in the main box with the value corresponding to the official results. - Unify the cited sources for all mentions of the voter turnout. TBH I'm baffled by my inability to find official source(s) for votes totals, but perhaps this will be ramified by tomorrow's certification by the Congress, providing an official cite-able results as well. 84.208.61.181 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Election Conspiracy Theories article?

Conspiracy theories on the election are so pervasive that I think an article on them may be warranted. How do people feel about that? I imagine it is possible that there already may be such an article, of course. I don't see one. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be functionally redundant to the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election article. I can't think of a single notable crackpot conspiracy theory that isn't either already there or shouldn't be there. --Jayron32 17:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of the existence of that article. You are right. I think the solution is to create a redirect page for readers looking for an article on the conspiracy theories. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. 2020 United States presidential election conspiracy theories. Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Historic objections, in Congress?

Will this be the first US presidential election results to be objected & debated in both Houses, thus holiding up a certification by the US Congress? GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that also happened in 2004. A senator and at least one congressperson objected to the certification of Ohio.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)