Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

Title brainstorming

Originally this was titled "Attempt to overturn the 2020 United States Presidential Election", but an editor expressed concerns that it wasn't neutral. What would we think about Attempt to overturn the apparent results of the 2020 United States Presidential Election, which would still be neutral about the election results but less vague than "disputes" which could be anything. Or some other win-win that's both neutral and non-vague? Feoffer (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States Presidential Election results → Attempt to overturn the apparent results of the 2020 United States Presidential Election – Neutral AND specific Feoffer (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Overturn" is a loaded word, "dispute" is more neutral. ... discospinster _talk 16:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know the best title, but wherever this article ends up at, "presidential election" should not be capitalized. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this title implies a more organized attack on the election that what is occurring, which is a scattershot group of lawsuits in several states alleging different types of misconduct and fraud. I don't think it's a serious attempt to overturn the election. I think "Disputes" is more appropriate description. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggested name is a complete muddle. The current version is verbose, but seemingly accurate, and nowhere near as frightening as the suggestion. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:41, 22 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.

Article scope

There are many terms to cover here, so, taking my cue from RS, here are a few that are relevant here:

• Trump's attempts to steal the 2020 election from Biden
• Trump's attempts to undermine the 2020 election results
• Trump's attempts to overturn 2020 election
• Trump's attempts to disenfranchise voters in 2020
• Trump's voter suppression in 2020
• Trump's attempt to rig vote in 2020

All of these are logical parts of the scope here. Google searches of each suggestion turn up myriad RS we could use.

We are seeing attempts to literally throw out the lawful votes of whole counties, disenfranchise/suppress minority voters, ignore all the votes (Democrat and Republican) in counties carried by Democrats and certify all the votes in the counties carried by Trump, Trump observers obstructing recount, robocalls to keep people from voting, get judges to invalidate the lawful results and just declare Trump the winner, and attempts to get electors to become unfaithful and ignore the will of the people.

We are watching an unprecedented refusal to accept the will of the people, a full-court press to invalidate the lawful results at the end of the game, and then keep the ball by any means possible, regardless of traditions, laws, regulations, and Constitutional succession of power.

Even though this is now turning into mostly unsuccessful attempts, we should document this for posterity. That is part of our job here. -- Valjean (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should continue to cover all of these logical parts. The "Michigan officials pressured not to certify", the "Wisconsin recount obstruction" and the "Robots who keep people from voting" (not currently noted). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It is proposed that Stop the Steal be merged here. Stop the Steal is a relatively short article focusing on the movement by supporters of President Trump to not accept the election results and repeats much material covered here. This content can be covered as part of this broader article, which as indicated in discussions elsewhere (such as here and here), a main article discussing all issues surrounding the election results is sorely needed, and it seems like this article is it. Stop the Steal is also not a widely known name for this movement. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A long merge discussion at Talk:Stop the Steal#Merge was just closed yesterday, with numerous editors commenting that the article ought to remain standalone. This discussion should probably be closed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion was that it would be inappropriate to merge to a list page, with no prejudice against a subsequent discussion to consider a merge with a more appropriate article. Some editors (including you) floated the possibility of considering a merge elsewhere. A merge will only occur if there is consensus from this discussion to do so. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "stop the steal article" is about the conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, but this one is supported by a president of the united states and may be one of the most litigated conspiracy theory of all time. It could perhaps use a better name, and certainly should expanded.-- Work permit (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe a merger is necessary, Stop the Steal is sufficiently notable for its own article given its prominence and perpetration by top Republican leaders, including the President. While it may require expansion and some minor encyclopedic cleanup, it does not warrant being merged into another article. I believe the article's name is fine, as this is what most news networks and believers in the theory alike refer to it as. Builder018 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a superior article because it addresses the specific disputes point by point, instead of an evidence-free blanket denial of all possible election fraud like they do over at Stop The Steal. Just delete stop the steal.2600:8801:20C:7500:6:C0A9:8113:80A4 (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• We already went through this once and I still oppose it as StS is notable as a standalone article and it isn't a dispute, it's a conspiracy theory. Implying it's anything less violates WP:NPOV. Praxidicae (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Your profile violates WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:20C:7500:6:C0A9:8113:80A4 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I think you probably need to read WP:NPOV if that's what you think. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Support: I think Stop the Steal should be condensed and rolled into a substantial section of Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results, then deleted with a redirect.soibangla (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think we should wait until the dust settles per WP:Recent. This would allow both articles to develop as events unfold. If 'results' is removed from the title, the scope of this article will expand as more controversies arise or are revealed. IP75 (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support The article “Stop the Steal” could easily be boiled down to a small section in this article, considering that it barely talks about the conspiracy theory itself. The first paragraph mostly sums up the election fraud claims and debunking already covered in other articles (including this one). The second touches upon who created the thing, but most of it is about a Facebook group that was closed after less than a week. The rest of the article mentions other Facebook groups and lists some cities where there have been protests. In my opinion, protests should be (and already are) covered by the article 2020 United States election protests and I highly doubt that any of these short-lived Facebook groups have encyclopedic value (WP:NOTNP). My impression is that the article uses many words to say very little. I found it when googling “#StopTheSteal” after I saw it on a picture in the news (I am neither from nor living in the US), but it did not really enlighten me much. Is it for example necessary to list eight examples of media outlets and seven examples of cities where there unorganised groups have protested instead of writing “major media outlets” and “several U.S. cities”? The “Gay Communists for Socialism” Facebook group story was quite funny, but is it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? 2001:4643:C09B:0:C4EF:6E97:2252:827C (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, this is not just a part of Disputes_surrounding_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election. "Stop the Steal" was created by Roger Stone in 2016. Actually, Stop the Steal is a specific subject notable on its own, and it is still developing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Support The topics of these articles are closely intertwined, and it need not be a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 05:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Support There isnt a Disputes surrounding the 2016 United States presidential election results page so there should not be one for the 2020 election. It's pointless and is more of a knee jerk reaction to trump not wanting to concede.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Nothing on Wikipedia should suggest in the title, especially, whether there is merit in the legal attempts to change the apparent election result or whether there has been any significant fraud allegation. Not sure what was shown for the 2000 election, which was clearly a different situation entirely, but whether one would consider Russian influence in the 2016 election a decisive factor, the losing candidate conceded, and no credible fight against the result was pursued, so that precedent should be more instructive. That the losing candidate in 2020 has not conceded should not be binding, since the electoral results are at least as overwhelming, and there again has been no court challenge or recount that has suggested the end result would change. All state electoral entities have also ratified (certified) that result. Also, the US Justice Department has stated there was no fraud that would change the result, and the GSA has also indicated that the Democratic nominee should be deemed the President-elect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose Stop the steal has become a movement like Black Lives Matter, so the same way that there is a separate article for black lives matter, there should be a separate article for Stop the Steal. --Imconcerned (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Stop the Steal is a particularly notable and odious episode in the fraudulent and illegal preparations for the abortive coup attempt by the Trump administration. It can be referenced here but should stand alone in its own article. Darkest Tree Talk 20:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead is unreadably long

Might be good to trim it for concision. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's go over it piece by piece. First paragraph:

After the 2020 United States presidential election in which President-elect Joe Biden prevailed,[1] the presidential campaign for Donald Trump and its proxies pursued an aggressive effort to subvert the results of the election.[2] With more than fifty lawsuits and numerous false and unsubstantiated assertions, the Trump legal team alleged an international communist conspiracy, rigged voting machines, and polling place fraud had stolen the election from Trump.[3] Their claims of election fraud were rejected as lacking in merit by numerous judges, state and local election officials and the Justice and Homeland Security departments.[4][5] Most Republicans refused to acknowledge Biden's victory.

This is all significant and a reasonably concise summary. On the other hand:

Emily Murphy, the administrator of the General Services Administration, refused to initiate the presidential transition.

While that loomed large at the time, in retrospect it now feels like it's getting into the weeds a bit. It felt like it mattered a lot at the time, but at this point it feels more like just one point in an extended series of Trump Administration maneuvers that ultimately went nowhere - it definitely deserves coverage in the body (it was more impactful than most of what they did) but I'm not sure it's needed in the lead. Similarly:

December 8 was a statutory "safe harbor" deadline by when states were to resolve disputes and certify voting results, and all states had certified results by the deadline, though the Trump legal team stated it would disregard the deadline and continue to challenge results.

It's an important part of the timeline, but it doesn't feel like it has long-term significance for the lead - its inclusion there feels a bit WP:BREAKING in that it was important on December 8th but probably isn't, overall, vital to summarizing the topic. Another thing that definitely ought to be mentioned in the body but probably doesn't need extensive focus in the lead.

Paragraph two:

The Trump political operation filed about fifty unsuccessful lawsuits after Election Day,[11] and officials in swing states were encouraged to throw out legally-cast ballots and challenge vote certification processes.[12]

The first part is repeated from the first paragraph, but might be important enough for it, since it's central to the topic. The second part is very significant and needs to be in the lead somewhere.

Trump urged Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia to convene a special session of the legislature to overturn Biden's certified victory in the state; Trump made a similar plea to the Pennsylvania speaker of the house after Biden's victory had been certified in that state.[13] Before and after the election, Trump stated his expectation that the Supreme Court would determine the outcome, and after the election his legal team sought a path to bring a case before the Court, where conservative justices held a 6-3 majority, including three appointed by Trump.[14]

Now we're getting more into the weeds on specific tactics Trump used. I feel like we could condense this a bit, though the Supreme Court bit is important given Trump's repeated insistence that they will determine the outcome both before and after the election.

Recently pardoned former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn called on the president to suspend the Constitution, silence the press and hold a new election under military authority.[15] Trump attorney Joseph diGenova stated that a former federal official who had declared the election secure should be executed.[16] After his legal challenges had consistently failed, on December 10 Trump tweeted, "This is going to escalate dramatically. This is a very dangerous moment in our history...The fact that our country is being stolen. A coup is taking place in front of our eyes, and the public can't take this anymore."[17]

This is getting into the weeds a bit by citing specific figures in such depth, but the overarching point that prominent Republicans advising Trump were calling for such drastic measures seems important; perhaps it could be condensed or summarized.

The next day, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case that sought to subvert certified election results in four states.[18]

This feels oddly-placed, giving the lead the structure of a news ticker or something. It probably should be gathered into one sentence about the Supreme Court - Trump's insistence that they would determine the election and the fact that they declined to do so.

Within a month after Election Day, the Trump political operation had raised over $207 million, largely by appealing to small-dollar donors with baseless allegations of election fraud, and referring to a nonexistent "Official Election Defense Fund", though funds were directed to other purposes, including the finance of Trump's post-presidency activities.[19]

This seems fine; it's reasonably concise, not redundant with any other part, and covers a vital aspect of what was happening and why.

After his dismissal, in a December 2020 interview Chris Krebs, the Trump administration's director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), described monitoring Election Day from CISA's joint command center along with representatives from the military's United States Cyber Command, the National Security Agency (NSA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Secret Service (USSS), the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), representatives of vendors of voting machine equipment, and representatives of state and local governments, as well as his agency's analysis preceding and subsequent to that day, saying,

It was quiet. There was no indication or evidence that there was any sort of hacking or compromise of election systems on, before, or after November third.[20]

Responding to spurious claims of foreign outsourcing of vote counting, Krebs also affirmed that, "All votes in the United States of America are counted in the United States of America."[20] United States Attorney General William Barr stated on December 1 that US attorneys and FBI agents had examined specific complaints and information they had received, but found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election

This last part uses waaaay too much text for what it's saying. The broad point being made here is important, but we could probably condense / summarize it a bit; it's not necessary to list all those acronyms or to give Krebs a blockquote. I don't think it's necessary to include Krebs' reply to the false allegations of foreign outsourcing of vote counting (did that allegation ever go anywhere?) --Aquillion (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Too many uncovered topics

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 article can have a separate section for each of the below topics:

1. dead people voted
2. below age people voted
3. illegal immigrants voted
4. fake signatures
5. prisoners voted
6. voting twice
7. machine glitches
8. ballot harvesting
9. non-resident voters
10. fake ballots
11. stuffing the ballot box
12. votes for pay
13. mistreat to republican poll watchers
14. more votes than people voting
15. unexplained surges in democrat votes

--Imconcerned (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC) — Imconcerned (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fixed that for you. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

These are the claims by Trump campaign, it can be said in the article that "Trump claimed this, but its wrong based on 'fact checking' by these sources". This article is about disputes, so Trump campaign's claims must be covered too. Simply you can search above claims in Google News and see the results saying Trump claiming them. --Imconcerned (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We've already covered the garbage they've spewed, along with sources that have thoroughly debunked those claims. We don't need to add every piece of propaganda that comes from the GOP. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's about "disputes", so every garbage they've spewed should be covered. --Imconcerned (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If we added every asinine and debunked claim by the Trump administration, this article would be 60 pages long. Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate, it will probably be as long as 2020 United States presidential election. --Imconcerned (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay so what changes, as supported by sources would you propose making instead of some vague wave to Parler gossip? Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's very rare for me to see someone so biased that I go and make an account just to point that out. Congrats. For starters, just Friday alone, Judge ordered a release of findings that showed Voting machines with as low as 70% accuracy on some work they did with referendums... Funny that. Source: https://www.depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320]_v2_[redacted].pdf it would be lovely if you'd stop being biased.--Cringewalker (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Cringewalker It would be even better if you'd read WP:RS and WP:NOR. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 05:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me to read that without actually explaining what's unreliable about their law firm. Assuming this is all you can do, feel free to have the final word to secure your ego. I have no more words for someone so obviously biased :) --Cringewalker (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have enough time for completing above mentioned topics, but if there are editors who can cover them it would add to the overall value of the article. --Imconcerned (talk) 21:23, 14 December 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.

Requested move 17 December 2020

Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results → 2020 United States presidential election fraud conspiracy theory – Well, this is clearly a conspiracy theory at this point after around 60 court cases rejected including in the Supreme Court and with most reliable sources describing the claim as baseless and all the mythology surrounding the claims in connection with QAnon, the far-right and other hardcore conspiracy theory-related groups. Is even in the category of "conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump". As I said, is obviously that, a conspiracy theory. Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support this logical move according to how we have done elsewhere in similar situations. -- Valjean (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• OPPOSE. However, a better title might be Trump counter transition, with all the zany antics up to the counter-inaugural, should one happen. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, way too early as all analysis, court cases, and ongoing evidence or non-evidence collection not yet in. We don't want to put Wikipedia into and through another Trump-as-Russian-agent situation and give Larry Sanger more reasoning for his next Wikipedia-critical missive. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• I'd suggest something like Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. The conspiracy theories are just one part of it. Vpab15 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• It seems like this article might be split, as there are likely some disputes that are possibly legitimate, while the vast majority are a conspiracy theory. Red Slash 18:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Move to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election instead - agree with Vpab15 that this would be a better title. Neutrality^talk 18:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I second this motion to change the proposal to consider Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election instead. soibangla (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I’m inclined to agree with Vpab15 soibangla (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• SUPPORT There is no apparent and genuine evidence to substantiate the claims of rampant voter fraud. Furthermore, local and state courts have thrown out/ruled against all but one voter-fraud related case brought forward by the Trump campaign/associates, and the Supreme Court has twice now thrown out cases from Trump and Texas. Balance does not mean giving equal weight to two sides of an argument, it means presenting information in a factual way. There is no factual standing to these claims of fraud, and with so many people continuing to believe the election was rigged, it clearly constitutes a conspiracy theory. Potterjk22 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Conspiracy theory isn't really the best way to describe this. The main topic of the is the attempts to overturn the election, not the conspiracy theories which may underlie such attempts (although they are certainly discussed). Zoozaz1 talk 03:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes. This is like an epic Three-card Monte soibangla (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: we probably need a separate subtopic article specifically on the conspiracy theory aspects at the proposed target title. BD2412 T 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, per Vpab15 and Neutrality. Feoffer (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Light support and comment: It was obvious that this was going to happen for months; perhaps this article can be re-named and focus only on Trump's actual shenanigans that were taken to court, whereas a separate page could fall under the "conspiracy" name. We already have an article on Stop the Steal, which details a (false) conspiracy, perhaps content from this article can be merged with that, under this proposed name. RoBG97MEX (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Well there's an article for Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election with a lot of information that seem to be overlaping. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh wow; this page could be merged with Stop the Steal under the conspiracy label. That lawsuit page would relate more to the actual legal matters; additionally some of those post-election (conspiracy) lawsuits were done independently. RoBG97MEX (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Agree.--Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose A lot of information has still not been explored with the level of appropriate scrutiny to categorically say what is true or false to rename from "dispute" to "conspiracy theory". Conspiracy Theory has a lot of moral and emotion direction tied up in it, and with a lot of unresolved matters still pending, I think it would be best to leave the article where it is for the time being.199.192.183.2 (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "conspiracy theory" falls under the jurisdiction of Stop the Steal, so the name should not be changed unless the articles are merged - 20 December 2020 777burger talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral to Extremely light oppose Although correct it is a POV pushing text, it serves not as a descriptive title as it should but instead an immediate way to call it a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy however I don't see any reason to call it such in the title. We already make clear there is literally no evidence to these claims so whats the point in adding conspiracy? No one is denying it is a conspiracy theory however this new title isn't descriptive overt the old. Vallee01 (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support: "Dispute" is a term that implies some form of legitimacy. There is none of that here. What we have is theorizing on par with that of Sandy Hook and 9/11 truthers - everybody only cares becoming it's coming from the President of the United States. KingForPA (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, as the focus is on the actions taken to subvert the election result as opposed to the conspiracy theories providing the motivation for those actions. CtP (t • c)

Fake electors

The state Republican Parties of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Michigan assembled what they falsely claimed were slates of "alternate electors", something that is not provided for by either the US Constitution (which provides for state legislatures, not political parties, to determine the manner in which electors will be chosen) or state laws. Contrary to what these fake electors claim, they are not in any way endorsed by the legislatures of their respective states, they're just another aspect of the conspiracy theorists' quixotic attempts to overturn the election results. [1] This should be included in the article. — Red XIV ^(talk) 08:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

DONE!!!!Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Coup Attempt?

Does the section about the “coup attempt” deserve its own article? When you search “2020 United States Coup d'état Attempt” you are re-directed to this page, and the attempt is even listed under the article about recorded coup attempts. So there is clearly a sense that descriptions of what is going on is a coup attempt are legitimate, so I am wondering why this doesn’t have its own article yet. Would anyone be in favor of such a move? I, for one, am in favor. I think if this were happening in another country besides the US, most everyone would be recognizing it as a coup attempt. Not to mention, there has been recent confirmation that both some US House members and a Senator-elect all plan to challenge the counting of electoral college votes of the duly-elected president-elect in January. What does everyone else think? District9123 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think there is enough evidence of a coup attempt. It is just some articles saying it "could" be described as a self coup. There are no reports of conspiracy or potential support from the army or any other relevant party. Not even the US president can attempt a coup by himself. Vpab15 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No, because this article already covers the topic, and is all about one thing. There is no reason to split the content into even more articles. We already have information on this article, the Stop the Steal article, the main election article, the Presidential transition of Joe Biden article, and the Post-election lawsuits article. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that we can say it WAS a coup attempt, but there's certainly enough material to make an article about that thesis, its supporters and its detractors if we so desired. There's still a lot of WP:RECENTISM to watch out for, but in the fullness of time, I could see an article like 2020 election disputes as a coup attempt or something. Feoffer (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am against it, because this sequence of events fails to fulfill the definition of coup: a sudden, violent overthrow of a government. It is not sudden, it has not been violent, and the attempt isn't even to overthrow a government, but rather to prevent the legitimate ouster of the current government. Is it a hideous spectacle? Yes. Is it contrary to the very fabric of a democratic state? Yes. Is it an attempt at authoritarianism? Yes. But it is demonstrably not a coup. If anything, it is far worse and calling it a coup actually downplays the horror we should be feeling. --Khajidha (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

NY Times says Trump discussed declaring martial law

See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html

That and appointing Sidney Powell as a special counsel to investigate the election.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - added the following to the "2020 United States presidential election#Attempts to delay or deny election results" page section =>

Later in December 2020, news sources, including CNN News and The New York Times, reported that the White House discussed efforts to overturn the election that was won by President-elect Joe Biden by invoking martial law and rerunning the election under military supervision. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville issued a joint statement saying "There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election".

References

hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)