Talk:2020 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bartboy919 (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 4 May 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nominee2020 United States presidential election was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowIn the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
October 30, 2015Articles for deletionKept
November 1, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
March 1, 2017Articles for deletionKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 22, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that potential candidates in the United States presidential election of 2020 include Tom Cotton, Hillary Clinton, and Kanye West?
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 7, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee
Consensuses on pre-election presentation of candidates

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.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dpe12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Strr34, Aah153.

Revised election results in New York

New York has amended its certified election results, adding about 20,000 more votes to their total. Is there a way we can have this updated in the article? https://www.elections.ny.gov/2020ElectionResults.html Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the revised results. Most of the difference is from Suffolk County, which was already known and noted in the table in the article. I didn't think that the state would ever fix it.
Currently the article cites a report from the FEC, published in February, which used the earlier numbers from the New York. I prefer to cite the national total from the FEC, even if it's incomplete, instead of recalculating a new total based on multiple sources. For now, I added the updated numbers from New York in the note but kept the FEC numbers in the table. The FEC is expected to publish a more detailed report later this year as it usually does, and if it updates the numbers we can update the table here as well. Heitordp (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, we should use the most accurate information and we can decide whether or not multiple source calculations are WP:SYNTH. I wouldn't mind adding the 20k votes to the table and not the total with a note or something, but the idea that we should use outdated information on the basis that it makes our lives harder is silly. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should use the revised results. The best option in my opinion would be to just swap the results around and put the totals from the FEC document in the footnote. Rogl94 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add context to claim in the opening paragraph?

In the opening of the article, it states that "Federal agencies overseeing election security said it was the most secure in American history." This feels a bit out of place without context, so should we specifically mention that this is in response to increased suspicion about election security thanks to mail-in voting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITeoti (talk • contribs) 14:03, April 7, 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point. That sentence is a bit out of place, hanging at the end of the first paragraph. Moving it into the fourth paragraph, after the allegations of fraud, might be the best way to make sure the context is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Biden portrait

INVOLVED WP:SNOW CLOSE
There is a clear consensus to change the photo to the 2021 presidential portrait. It's obvious consensus is not with me on this one. Closing per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ― Tartan357 Talk 22:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Current
Proposed

​​​The new official portrait for Biden has been released, and with that has come the inevitable flurry of edits replacing photos of Biden across the encyclopedia. Some editors have changed the photos on this page and the state subpages, which I've reverted as being against consensus (see the consensus link for Biden's photo at the top of this page). I'm starting this section to discuss using the new portrait in the 2020 presidential election series. I'm against this as it didn't exist at the time of the election. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the precedent set by the past few elections clears up the issue of whether or not a photo taken after an election should be used. The 2016 election page uses former president Trump's official presidential photo, the 2012 page uses former president Obama's 2013 official photo and Senator Romney's current photo, and etc. I believe that the proposed change is in line with precedent. Branedc14 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Branedc14, precedent isn't really a part of decision-making on Wikipedia; see WP:OTHERCONTENT. These decisions regarding images are typically made on a case-by-case basis. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, I do see your point in raising WP:OTHERCONTENT. However, I mention it because it the post-election issue seemed to be your main concern. I would also say separately, though, that the new picture just makes more sense. Biden frankly looks like a different man in the 2013 photo – it was taken nearly 8 years prior to the election, whilst this new one was taken just 4 months after. Given that we've used post-election photos in the past, and that this new official photo is more in line with the Biden people know today and knew during the election, is it not more fitting? ––Branedc14 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a more reasonable way of approaching it. Personally, I think he looks pretty much the same in both. However, the Vice Presidential portrait was dominant in the media throughout the campaign, and is therefore more reflective of the election coverage. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, though I take issue with using the media as a barometer here. There was not necessarily a media consensus around use of the photo. CNN, for instance, used their own updated photo of Biden in election coverage graphics. And between MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, only MSNBC used the photo of former president Trump that is used on this page. Biden himself is what is most reflective of the election coverage, and that 2013 photo represents a completely different Biden in a completely different pre-Trump, pre-COVID political environment. He is physically different and situated in a different era. – Branedc14 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do there exist good photos from before the election but sooner than 8 years ago? Przemysl15 (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Przemysl15, as far as official portraits go, there's only these two. There are plenty of good photos of Biden from the campaign trail, but we decided to use his official vice presidential portrait for the general election article to match Trump's. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems silly to only use official portraits when surely there would be better images from the campaign trail. Thanks for your timely response, tho. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Przemysl15, I'm a fan of the campaign trail photos myself. I think we did a great job with them at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. The issue was with Trump, who is honestly not very photogenic. Most of the candid photos of him involve weird facial expressions. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, I am of the opinion we should use campaign trail photos then, as even if most of Trump's photos are silly there surely is 1 decent looking one we can use. Otherwise, I don't see why we cant use official portraits for Trump and campaign trail portraits for everyone else on the basis that there exist no free professional campaign trail photos of Trump. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357I am in agreement with Branedc14 that his vice presidential portrait was not dominant. A Google search of, for example, debate lineup graphics, shows a variety of pictures used for Biden. I would argue that the dominant portrayal of Biden was through speeches, debates, and photos on the campaign trail, thus the more recent photo is more relevant. In addition, a presidential portrait is more relevant to this election than a vice presidential portrait, as this was the election in which he became president. There is a direct link between the results of the election being shown in the infobox and the new portrait.AJD2002 (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AJD2002, he was former Vice President Biden at the time of the election. He didn't become President Biden until after the election. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357For 2012, we used Romney's official photo as a Senator from Utah for his image as opposed to his official photo as Governor of Massachusetts, so what's your point?BazingaFountain42 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BazingaFountain42, what are you talking about? Mitt Romney didn't become a senator until 2019. The photo of him used in the 2012 United States presidential election article is not a senate photo. That is just false. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357 This morning, which was the last time I checked, his photo there was a Senator from Utah. It's been changed since then, so that's probably a separate matter that is under discussion. However, there are other examples, like how on the 2016 United States presidential election page, the photo we used for Trump was his official photo as President even though he was businessman Trump at the time of the election and didn't become President Trump until after.BazingaFountain42 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BazingaFountain42, and that shows the folly of trying to rely on "precedent" to support arguments. An IP editor changed the photo of Romney a couple of days ago from the one that had been in use for years. Other articles are not relevant here. I wish people would try explaining why their preferred photo is best for this article, instead of simply pointing to other articles. We can all come up with examples like that. It's not a productive way to discuss, and has no basis in policy. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357 Well, we should update the photo because it is the most recent photo. And pointing to other articles is a very good reason why. Maintaining precedent helps with consistency. Biden's photo from 2013 isn't as relevant to 2020 as his official presidential portrait. Using a vice presidential portrait next to a presidential portrait when the vice president is the one that won looks weird. You seem to be the only one that says we should keep his 2013 photo.BazingaFountain42 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BazingaFountain42, no, pointing to other articles is not a good reason because anyone can change any article. Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT, which I linked to: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357 Regardless, you still seem to be the only person here against changing the photo. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BazingaFountain42, what's your point? ― Tartan357 Talk 22:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357 My point is that you are the only person that is opposed to this. There is no reason why we shouldn't change it: The Biden shown in the presidential photo looks way more like the Biden that people thought of than the one shown in the VP photo. The argument that we shouldn't use the presidential photo because it was taken before the election is from silly. If it's more relevant to the period, use that photo. The presidential photo is more relevant to 2020 than the VP photo, so we should use that.
  • Yes official portraits for government officials are preferable. I think that is what we should for the main BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PackMecEng, both are official portraits, so I don't understand what you're trying to say. Also, this is not the talk page for Biden's BLP. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tartan357, Normally you use the most up to date official portrait. Make sense now? PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to 2021 - We chose Biden's '13 picture because it was the newest official photograph of his. Now that we have a newer (and more relevant to the 2020 election) official photograph, we should use it. Nojus R (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357 my bad, I didn't notice the discussion. Anyway, IMHO we should use the 2021 official portrait, even if it was taken after the election, as we also did in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004 and 2000 for the elected president. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to 2021 The 2016 election page has Trump's presidential portrait. The 2020 page should follow that for Biden. I thought it was a no brainer? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to 2021 Joe Biden's presidential portrait is far closer to the time period he was elected in than his vice presidential portrait. With this portrait released, it now makes little sense to use a picture outdated by 8 years, even if it is official. Aeromachinator (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Can we please get all the County Results for every State put on Wikipedia put on please?

It's been like 5 Months and I don't know where to find the County Results or how to make a table of the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutcho1424 (talk • contribs)

It was pretty much decided, in this discussion, that county-by-county results are not needed in this article. Could I ask why you want them? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have Clirified that there is not the county results on all the individaul articles of the State Results of the 2020 U.S. Election. For example in Virginia. (Hutcho1424 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

County results tables are available on most of the individual state election articles. For the few that don't have them, they'll likely be added soon; in the meantime, you can probably view them on the Secretary of State's website or on Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Having a county list on this article would simply be clutter. – chri (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incitement

As Before the archival of the discussion on incitement the consensus was for not describing President Trump's conduct as incitement I will now be making that change Transcendent Presence (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout data for US elections based on Voter eligible population instead of Voting Age Population

There's been some talk on prior pages about using VEP vs. VAP. VEP is clearly a better source, since there are people that live in the US that can't vote because they're not a citizen. The Census Bureau releases voting statistics for every election that includes data on the US and every state with a column for "Percent Voted (Citizen)" in table 4C. [1]

Is there a way we can uniformly change every Federal election page to include this statistic? Because right now, it seems like an incredible hodgepodge of turnout stats, especially when you start looking at turnout by state.

Here's how the last 5 Presidential elections would change on Wikipedia of Census VEP data were used:

2004: 63.8

2008: 63.6

2012: 61.8

2016: 61.4

2020: 66.8

Bartboy919 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-585.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1021327886"