Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

RfC on adding Georgia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The !votes were roughly 20 supporting adding Georgia prior to the media unanimously projecting the state to 13 opposing the addition. This discussion became moot before final resolution due to Georgia being projected unanimously by the media. The issue regarding what the criteria should be for adding a state to the infobox & map will likely have to be revisited for the 2024 presidential election. (non-admin closure) Prcc27 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

---

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, AP, USA Today, WSJ, The Guardian, LA Times, BBC, CBS, the NYT, Politico, the Washington Post, Reuters have so far called Georgia for Biden. The question posed:

Should we reflect Biden's projected win in Georgia?

This would change Biden's count to 306 and add georgia as blue on the map. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• If all those sources have called it, then yes, we should. I would note this RFC will probably be moot by the time it closes. -- Calidum 17:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Edit: I should clarify, but I'm not looking for unanimity among sources, as long as the majority of them have called the state. I do believe those organizations that have called the state to date are more than enough for us to call it. We can always change it back if necessary. -- Calidum 18:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think so as editors are still arguing over it. Some sources will not make the call until the recount is complete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I am strongly against this RfC. Especially given that an RfC on when we should call states is already active. We added states to the map and infobox when news organizations unanimously projected those states, I don't think Georgia should be any different. And we should try to be consistent with our map criteria. Prcc27 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is just for Georgia as all of the other states are called and placed on the map. I don't see this as being in conflict as the other RfC would be good for future elections. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support as I feel we have plenty of bipartisan sources which have made the call. We could wait for a recount but if we do that then we might as well wait for certification of all the states. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We used the criteria to only add states to the map and infobox once the media unanimously projects a state for a candidate for the other 49 states et al. So why would we have a separate criteria for Georgia? That doesn't make any sense and seems inconsistent. This seems like a violation of WP:NPOV to me. There is a recount going on in razor thin Georgia, I don't see any harm in waiting for a unanimous media call, just like we did for all the other states.. Prcc27 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Because it clearly has not worked for all 50 states and there is constant argument among editors here on what to do. If the previous consensus holds then fine, but I for one am tired of the back and forth arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27: It seems that AP has not yet called GA for Biden!Ppt2003 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27:,But infobox shows 306!Ppt2003 (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Ppt2003: Yeah, it was re-added without consensus due to edit warring. I was hoping someone would revert whoever added Georgia to the infobox total. I can't do it per WP:1RR. Prcc27 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

One thing is for certain, we must have the projected electoral votes lining up with the electoral map. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27:,It's November 14. GA will certify the results on November 20. So everyone needs to be on board with patience. These recount efforts certainly make things complicate for us. Do ya remember 2000? G.Bush was ahead by 2,000 votes. Recounts shrank his margin by 537 votes. All on a sudden, SCOTUS stopped all the recounts,and boom! Gore could win the White house if SCOTUS allowed the recount to continue. While Biden's margin is seven times larger than that, the recount may still have a significant impact. While my logic seems laughable , the same laughable logic AP has in mind when it refuses to acknowledge Biden victory in GA.AP has been making projections since the nineteenth century,their procrastination certainly has a degree of significance . They fell into an extraordinarily difficult situation in 2000. That's why they are waiting . And my fellow Wikipedians, you should wait too.It's 5/6 days only. Do you agree Prcc27? Ppt2003 (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, those are good points. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't really have any reason to rush a call. As an encyclopedia, we should at least have as much restraint as some of these other media networks that want to be careful about calling a state when there is an ongoing recount. Prcc27 (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is zero harm in following the same procedure that was used for all other states in this election. A recount is currently in progress because the margin was so narrow. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - How did we handle it in 2016? concerning Michigan? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we removed Michigan from the map and infobox during the recount. Or at the very least, we did so briefly. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • By repeatedly engaging in an edit war to the point that it was protected three weeks after the voting had concluded. The last time it was edited was because of this article which showed that Michigan had certified the vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support - most news sources have called the race; to mark it as not-called is putting undue weight on the few news sources which have yet to call. Note that most news sources have called it thanks to the fact that recounts never overturn victory margins as big as Biden's in Georgia. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • At the very least, there are only slightly more news sources that have called the Georgia race than have not. Despite what the OP said, LA Times, USA Today, and the WSJ have not called Georgia for Biden. Plus, the AP has historically been seen as the leader when it comes to election projections. So given the AP's prominence and given that about half of news sources haven't called the race; I do not think it is undue weight, even assuming that that would even apply here. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, it looks like the Guardian hasn't called it either. The intro to this RfC is very misleading. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What about Reuters? Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I had a feeling we were forgetting a source. It looks like they have called Georgia. Prcc27 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Your listing at the beginning of this discussion above omits NBC which has also called Georgia for Biden.[1] With all three major broadcast networks plus CNN calling it, that should be enough. I think it is frankly ridiculous to hold out until EVERY SINGLE media outlet has made the call. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Still Opposed - Pretty much for the same reasons as discussed here. As noted at the summary of the file, it is an intersection of eight sources, which was done for each state outside of Georgia. Given that we do not call things, but instead go by sources, I do not see the reason why we cannot wait a few days for those sources to call it. I am open to an agreement to color Georgia should their Secretary of State declare that the vote has been certified and those sources still have not called it. Until then, and given the edit warring got so bad at Commons that it resulted in the file being protected, I think that being patient is the best way to go. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• (Amended to Abstain) Based on comments by AntiCompositeNumber and Prcc27, I seem to have mislead myself at some point. Given that the sources at the Electoral Map are not the intended sources, I have removed my opposition to adding Georgia and will instead refrain from supporting or opposing. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Additionally, to be clear because of some comments above, the current agreement is to use the intersection of ABC, CNN, Fox News (Georgia not called), The New York Times, NPR (AP; Georgia not called), PBS (Georgia not called), Politico, and Reuters. Fox News, NPR (AP), and PBS have not declared the state for either candidate so far. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does the "current agreement" include ABC but not CBS or NBC? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: CBS and NBC are among the several sources we use when determining when to add a state per this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That discussion makes sense to me; it looks as if they required a concurrence of at least three of the named sources (which DO include NBC and CBS) to make the call. So where did the notion here come from, that there has to be unanimity among all sources? And that NBC and CBS are not among the sources we look at but PBS and NPR are? This makes no sense. The three major networks have massive election coverage with professionally staffed decision desks; what does NPR or Politico have that can compete with that? I really don't understand where the supposed unanimity rule comes from. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit by User:AntiCompositeNumber at Commons:Special:Diff/510702220 was when the sources were added. While Prcc27 linked to a discussion, I would have also mentioned the November 2nd RFC as being influential to the decision. Honestly, if I had been on here prior to the election, I would have supported adding CBS and NBC. By the time I noticed their absence, it was two to four days after the election and most of the map had already been completed. To my knowledge, the calls made by CBS and NBC were at similar times to calls made by ABC, thus I believe their exclusion did not impact how the map would have been edited with their inclusion. (That said, I do believe they should be included in future elections.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Throughout the process, there has not been a clear consensus about what sources to use for what results and when. My initial interpretation of the discussions on this page was that states should be colored when there was a consensus among reliable US media sources on the race. My personal criteria were to wait until WaPo, NYT, NPR, Politico, Reuters, & Fox had called the race before I would color a race, but that was (of course) not binding on others. I chose those six sources mostly because those sources had websites that were working well, spanned print, web, and broadcast journalism, and had differing perceived ideological bias, but it was a mostly arbitrary list. I could not find results directly from the AP in an easy-to-access format, so NPR was used as a proxy (they did not do their own calls and only repeated AP calls).

My primary role as a Commons administrator in this situation is to prevent edit warring on Commons, not to interpret the consensus of enwiki editors. Commons is not the correct place to have disputes over the content of a file -- that is much better handled on the downstream wikis. c:COM:UPLOADWAR only permits new versions of a file to be uploaded when they are uncontested. Because Prcc27's reading of the consensus at the time was plausible, and more conservative than my previous interpretation, it became the de facto interpretation on Commons. I later added the list of sources in use to the file description so I could close those tabs. If you would like to avoid that situation in the future, have the RfC on inclusion requirements before election night. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Ah, that also likely explains why PBS got added in later on. That was something that didn't make sense given that it wasn't on the summary the day or so the infobox was updated to point to the map. As for the rest, I do understand about the edit warring. Sadly, it seems like it occurred this year as well, though thankfully not to the degree 2016's had. Still, it should not have happened, so I apologize if I caused you trouble on this talk page. I will say that there was a few attempts to decide which sources to use, but that didn't work out in the end. (Perhaps there could be an RFC on sources for the 2022 midterms as that would make it less contentious due to the reduced amount of races.) Anyways, I thank you for your clarifying what I did not know about. I believe I was pointed to the summary over a week ago and I thought that was the list based on the other discussions. That was clearly not correct. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• • I am also open to coloring Georgia if the Secretary of State in Georgia certifies the votes before the media unanimously projects. For the record, the sources you just listed are not the only sources we use when updating the infobox. We literally had a discussion about which sources to use a month ago. But that discussion has been archived. Prcc27 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with MelanieN. It's ridiculous to wait until "EVERY SINGLE media outlet has made the call." That extreme criterion was a mistake. We should limit it to a pool of about 8 sources. (I'd suggest a pool of Reuters, AP, UPI, NPR, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS.) Then go by the supermajority among them, IOW at least 6 of the 8. We should not allow a couple holdouts to bind our hands. -- Valjean (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that proposal makes a lot of sense. BTW most people would add Fox News to that list. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

To make sure this is clear, we are not waiting for every source to say so. See the summary of the file, which lists ABC, CNN, Fox News (Georgia not called), The New York Times, NPR (AP; Georgia not called), PBS (Georgia not called), Politico, and Reuters. Currently, five have called it for Biden, zero for Trump, and three have not called it. Thus, under your supermajority suggestion, I believe it would be enough to include. (Note that I am still opposed.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add to your list that NBC and CBS have called it. That makes seven for Biden and three not called. How much more do you need? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, it is a summary of the sources listed at File:ElectoralCollege2020_with_results.svg. Personally, I don't want to see an edit war like 2016, so I am fine with discussing it here. (I was just pointing out that the every source part wasn't correct. If the supermajority suggested was accepted, it does not seem to matter what number of sources we would need as they would be for coloring Biden as the winner of Georgia.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The summary at the file doesn't determine consensus, we do. We are using more sources than is currently listed at the file to determine when to color a state. Prcc27 (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that; the list of sources seems rather random to me. The list proposed by Valjean is far better, in terms of the journalistic reputation of the source and the skill, professionalism, and manpower they devote to election coverage. And yet that seems to be the list that is dominating this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, the consensus absolutely is to wait for unanimous projections from the media per the original RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If you’re referring to the discussion called “Election night prep” that you linked to earlier, that doesn’t seem to reach any such consensus. I guess you are referring to the RfC higher up on this page. The earlier part of the discussion seems to lean toward basing the call on AP only. The second part of the discussion is when you, Prcc27, introduced this idea holding off until all major media organizations have projected - unanimous projections. That was a new idea but it got a lot of support. So I guess that’s where this “rule” came from - that we need not just a majority, not just a supermajority, but every single source? I find that bizarre, but I bow to consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of requiring a majority of sources here and NOT a supermajority... I mean someone could throw in newspaper sources from Australia next (we already have the UK). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus at Election night prep was split with regards to using the AP only, not updating at all, or using 3+ of the sources listed in that discussion. But the consensus was clear that all (or at least most) of the sources mentioned in that section qualify as "major media organizations" for the purpose of updating the infobox and map. When I proposed holding off until all major media organizations project a state in the RfC, I thought it was already understand that at the Election night prep section, we already achieved consensus on which sources to use. The whole point of that discussion was to agree on which sources to use before election day. Nobody there disagreed with the sources proposed- some of us just had WP:SYNTH concerns. Obviously using all of those sources unanimously takes care of WP:SYNTH. Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

we already achieved consensus on which sources to use Except that not a lot of thought was given to the suggestions. Or else NBC and CBS would never have been overlooked. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Recounts are highly unlikely to change the outcome of any state, nor the outcome that Biden won. Arizona was shaded in when AP called it, but ABC hadn't. Now with Georgia, many others called it including ABC, and there are some saying it shouldn't be shaded because the AP hasn't called it. It doesn't stand up. Someone also said not to shade it because it's razor thin, but the margin in GA is 14,000, whereas in Arizona the margin is around 10,000. AZ stays shaded but GA, with 4,000 more votes, must remain un-shaded? It makes no sense. Both should be shaded as multiple sources have called both and recounts haven't changed such margins in US elections hardly ever, if not never. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @PersistantCorvid: I don't think that's true... We waited for Arizona to be unanimously called before shading it. At the very least, ABC called Biden the "apparent winner" when we added Arizona. The reason Arizona is called by all media outlets is because they have a different threshold for recounts (I think a 200 vote margin), whereas Georgia's threshold is .5% margin. Prcc27 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been following the article the whole time, Arizona had been shaded on this page for several days before ABC called it. That would be the threshold for an automatic recount, true. But the core point I was making was the same as others, being, a majority of RS have called it already for Ga which has a margin larger than one already agreed to be called. The previous RfC consensus is too strict of a burden. I was around for the 2016 article as well and the general consensus was a majority of RS, not Unanimous sources, from what I remember. I still support shading Ga as called.Persistent Corvid (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Arizona had been shaded on this page for several days before ABC called it. I believe you are mistaken. According to the file at Commons, Arizona was blue for 36 minutes on the 4th and 37 minutes on the 7th before being reverted. Since the end of November 12th, it has been blue the whole time with the exception of eight minutes on the 13th. Additionally, 2016 is not a good example as there were 24 reverts in a 24-hour period to its Electoral Map and at least 8 further reverts in the following weeks. (A few users uploaded new maps instead of reverting, so I didn't count those.) I believe that and some comments made by one of the candidates was the reason for the RFC to be strict about things. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it was coincidental that I checked the article at those specific times, thanks for the good faith heads up. I'm still for shading it, but I retract those two things from my reasoning. I'm also willing to wait for the recount btw, just supporting on principle, so no hard feelings to all editors here. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We should not be the ones calling the states. Pretty much for same reasons listed elsewhere. Admanny (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no point in adopting consistent standards if we're not even going to follow them. All other states were added based on an agreed to standard, that requires that we follow said standard for all states. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It has become so apparent that blindly following our earlier decision has pushed us into an absurd situation, the type where invoking WP:IAR would be justified. Instead, I have joined MelanieN and others in calls for reexamining the situation, and I have proposed a reasonable modification above, one which MelanieN thinks is a step in the right direction. It is EXACTLY for situations like this that we have IAR. -- Valjean (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    • You can't ignore a rule, unless there is a strong consensus that ignoring a rule would improve the article. Being inconsistent with the map and infobox criteria does not improve our article- it will confuse our readers. While consensus can change, as of now- it has not changed. Prcc27 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support If we don't add Georgia, it will give impressions that Wikipedia is LAGGING BEHIND in information. I agree with Persistent Corvid that Recounts (by hand) won't change the outcome, maybe 200-300 votes difference, but not enough to change the outcome. So anyone, on Planet Earth, that oppose the inclusion is biased, not neutral, not so bright, not so smart, not so wise, in my opinion. Or maybe they cannot bear the defeat of their dear president and accept reality.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 04:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the apparent consensus earlier was to wait for the Associated Press to call a race, and I don't see any sufficiently compelling reason to change that now, although their recount rule is a bit weird. Wikipedia is supposed to lag behind in reporting information, we are not a newspaper. In any case, the point will be moot in a week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support direct application of WP:V. Consensus can change, especially when circumstances change. The prior RFC was designed to guide election night coverage, and I think it was good advice to follow when the results were in flux. Now that we are more than a week after the election, things are quite stable, allowing us to apply our usual, nuanced approach. So long as a majority of reliable sources have called a state, we should too. Doing anything otherwise would give undue weight to the minority of sources that have not called Georgia. Called: NYT, WaPo, Reuters, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS. Not called: Fox, WSJ, AP, NPR. The ratio is about 7:4 in favor of calling Georgia for Biden. Jehochman ^Talk 05:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:V doesn't apply per WP:ONUS. Your 7:4 ratio excludes many agreed upon sources including PBS, USA Today, The Guardian, and the LA Times (all of them have not projected a Biden win for Georgia), as well as BBC & Politico (which have projected Biden the winner in that state). So even if WP:UNDUE applied, the fact that only about half of the sources have made a projection (and given that the AP, which is often deemed as the most prominent source for election projections, has not made a projection)- we are not giving undue weight to the viewpoint that Georgia has flipped blue. Prcc27 (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Consensus is not a vote. Admanny (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm fine with mentioning that a number of outlets have called Georgia. Heck, I'm even fine with mentioning that if Georgia was won by Biden, it would be the first time in whatever. But I see no compelling reason to overturn the previous consensus and so the map and infobox should wait until all major RS we agreed with call it. If something weird happens like one of the sources refuses to call it even after the state certifies the result, then we can reconsider. Us lagging behind doesn't seem harmful. We are an encyclopaedia and not supposed to get ahead of the news. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support We originally agreed that three reliable sources calling a state was enough for us to indicate the winner of that state. Apparently, the criteria eventually changed (or is under discussion?) to require all reliable sources. I can't think of another Wikipedia article that requires unanimity from such a large number of reliable sources. Being careful and cautious is a virtue, rigid perfectionism is not. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Markworthen: I'm glad we didn't adopt the 3+ criteria. If we would have done so, Arizona would have been added to the map prematurely per Fox & AP calling that state on election night. The reason why the 3+ criteria ultimately failed was WP:SYNTH (those concerns are now moot, but were definitely valid) and WP:NOTNEWS (still applicable). One could also argue that a threshold of only 3 sources gives undue weight to a few sources, even if a majority of sources have not called it. I don't think it is perfectionism to wait to update the map and infobox. Why would we as an encyclopedia show less restraint with regards to updating the map than nearly half of the media sources that are waiting for a recount to play out? Even though I'm opposed to the footnote in the infobox (we never had a footnote for the other states that weren't yet added)- I think it gives due weight to the sources that have already called the race. Prcc27 (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Requiring not just a consensus of the reliable sources but unanimity from all of them is an extreme standard that to my knowledge isn't used for any other subject on Wikipedia. And it's not a standard that was used for articles about previous presidential elections either. It's not a standard that makes sense. If a majority of reliable sources have called a state for one candidate and none have called it for the other candidate, there's no reason for us to hold off on placing it in that candidate's column. Nor is a recount a reason to hold off on it. In 2016, there was a recount of Wisconsin. Did we change that state from red to grey on the map until the recount ended? Unless we have reliable sources suggesting that there's a realistic chance of the recount changing the outcome (and in this case, none are saying that), we shouldn't consider that a factor in whether to "call" Georgia for Biden. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think you can compare what we're doing this election to what we did in 2016. In 2016, the criteria was to update a state once one reliable source called a state (although this criteria may or may not have changed once recounts occurred). Not only was this a violation of WP:UNDUE- it also was a gross violation of WP:SYNTH, given that we had Donald Trump as the winner of the election before any of the media sources projected that he was the President-elect (if I remember correctly). The 2016 mess is why we scrambled to come up with a new criteria for updating the infobox and map this year. Just to be clear, the recount is not the reason why Georgia is left off the map. The reason why we haven't updated the map is because a significant number of reliable sources have not called Georgia. Those sources' reasoning for not projecting Georgia is the recount, but that isn't Wikipedia's reason for not adding Georgia. For example, if all of the sources projected Georgia, even if the recount was still going on, we would add Georgia to the map and infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Given that most outlets have already called Georgia, it makes no sense whatsoever to withhold shading the state blue because Fox, NPR, and PBS haven't called it yet. There are already a plethora of outlets such as CNN and The New York Times who have already called the presidential election in Georgia. At this point, it's worth shading it in for Biden without having to wait for the last few outlets to make the call. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• I know my !vote is already apparent, but I oppose adding Georgia. The criteria we agreed on was unanimous projections by the media. It makes no sense to have 1 criteria for 49 states+D.C./CDs and 1 separate criteria for Georgia. This RfC shouldn't have even been made- we already have an active separate RfC on what the criteria should be to color in a state. There is no merit in giving Georgia its own special inclusion criteria. Prcc27 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until AP calls it. Default to more general consensus if it is in contradiction as I see a competing RfC. — Bilorv (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - no compelling reason to apply a separate standard for Georgia. Nothing bad happens from waiting some more days before it is changed from grey to blue.--Staberinde (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. We have never required unanimity of reliable sources, nor have we ever required a specific source such as the AP. We have ample sourcing to say that Biden won Georgia. It also seems appropriate to say that a recount is underway. R2 (bleep) 19:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The absolute vast majority of reliable sources have called it. I think we're misrepresenting the state of the race if we wait for literally everyone. Furthermore, since we're now at 12-7 Support-Oppose, I think we should make the change now, since the recount will probably be over before we get consensus. And no, I don't think this conflicts with other RFCs. Cpotisch (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cpotisch: Absolutely not! You can not disregard the !votes of Wikipedia users from a relevant and active RfC. I think we should ping all of those users at that RfC to see what they think about adding Georgia. I will do so if there are no objections. Also, not everyone here bolded their !vote, so it looks more like a 12-8 Support-Oppose split if you include @Ppt2003:. @Calidum: said "if all those sources have called it, then yes, we should" (add Georgia), but the sources that were in the intro at that time were incorrect, so it isn't clear if they would still support updating Georgia. If we counted their !vote, it would be a 13-8 split. Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • See my revised comment. -- Calidum 18:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm seeing several oppositional statements to the effect of "we can't change the rules for Georgia", but that assumes that those supportive of shading Georgia blue believe those rules should have been in place. Had I been here to argue earlier, I would have said that we needn't wait until all outlets called the states in the presidential election. In all other cases, a majority would have sufficed just as it is the case for Georgia. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur, as the standard precedent is to not depend solely on one source alone nor a unanimous viewpoint. A majority view amongst Reliable Sources should suffice, as it does in other articles. The AP shouldn't be, the be all and end all, source either, even if they are known for calling political races, as it detracts from the perceived value of other reputable sources. This is not to rush things or "to be the News," it is to prevent an unnecessary burden caused by an onus on unanimity. The race doesn't depend on only Georgia, so why treat it like it does, by maintaining such a strict arbitrary rule? Yes, consensus made such a rule in an earlier RfC, but the last time I've checked a new consensus can be reached, in order to change said rules when circumstances appropriately change. That is my view, and I'm thinking without bias as I believe the race is already decided, with or without this state (the Senate run-offs are another story). Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. You don't need every single agency to call it. Since when is that how Wikipedia works? Just a decent majority of reputable sources or, in this case, a decent majority of reputable agencies. And that's what we've got, with CNN being the latest I think? Georgia has been called for a while now everywhere except in Camp Trump and here on Wikipedia.... 37.250.156.196 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I am pinging everyone from the other RfC to inform them that another RfC (this one) has been created to determine when we should add Georgia to the map and infobox. Please let me know if I forgot anybody.. @Thanoscar21: @Przemysl15: @Zoozaz1: @Risker: @GorillaWarfare: @Devonian Wombat: @Liz: @Risker checklist: @Sixula: @Tartan357: @SusanLesch: @Sdrqaz: @Count Iblis: @VZkN9: @ProcrastinatingReader: @Nojus R: @Lsw2472: @Nixinova: @Whackyasshackysack: @Antony-22: @Sca: @Aquillion: @Lshane23: @Chrisvls: @Herbfur:. Prcc27 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, if the result of the election was hanging on Georgia, I would perhaps support some rule changes in this situation, but it doesn't, so I don't really see any harm in just leaving things as they are and waiting for all the organisations to agree. It really wouldn't change anything in the long run. If an organisation refuses to call even after the electors vote or something wacky like that, I would change my mind but the chances of that happening are low. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think its gone on long enough, most sources have called it and the ones that havent (Mostly speaking for AP here) has made it clear that the reason they didnt call it isnt because they dont think its going Bidens way, but because that particilar outlet has a policy not to call races they (or are) going for recounts... but i mean any other state is coloured and called way before that, if we use that as the determination you may as well leave the map uncoloured until each state certifies the results.152.115.83.242 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, we reflect what the WP:RS say, and they say Biden won GA. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 21:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, though Georgia is to certify their results this Friday which will likely override this RfC anyway. Nojus R (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, even though it is unlikely for Georgia to go in Trump's favour, I think we should still wait for the recount results to come out before making that change. - DG745 (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Most major news organizations have called it, including AP. We shouldn't editorialize on whether a recount will or will not change it; we should leave that up to the news organizations, which by and large have called Georgia for Biden. Zoozaz1 talk 22:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Zoozaz1: AP has not called Georgia for any candidate pending the recount. That's why I crossed out AP in the intro.. Prcc27 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Reluctant though I am to add more verbiage to a 6,200-word confab, if AP hasn't called Georgia neither should Wikipedia. – Sca (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until all major news orgs have called it, per WP:NOTNEWS. It's not encyclopedic if some organizations have not called it yet, and there's no rush for us to call it. We also shouldn't create a different standard for Georgia than we did for every other race. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I think it is clear that Biden will win Georgia, our role is not to impose our opinions. While I feel that the previous "unanimous call" requirement was overly stringent, in the interest of consistency I believe it will be better to wait for the recount to be completed. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Recount ends today. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The audit will be completed today, the votes will be certified on Friday, and a recount can be requested after the results are certified. Even when the votes are certified, we might not be able to update Georgia until after a recount is finished. Prcc27 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Reading over the previous thread in which 'consensus' was allegedly reached to 'call' a state as won when said list of news organisations (which as others have noted seems somewhat arbitrary) had unanimously agreed: it seemeth to me that the question that was being addressed in that thread was whether or not we could, at that time, begin calling States that all of those news organisations had already unanimously called. Because, at that time, I guess, we hadn't yet, and we were lagging far behind. I do not think it is accurate to construe the consensus of that discussion - which was had under a completely different set of circumstances that are no longer remotely relevant - as indicating a consensus that long after 49 states have been called by us, and 50 states have been called by a supermajority of reputable news agencies, that we must hold off because not every single one of that particular list has done so. This just seems contrary to common sense... AND contrary to our own core content policies. As others have said, not such an unrealisticly high standard is held anywhere else, and those opposed are more or less using a prior local consensus that was reached in a day, and which the majority are now opposed to, in order to stonewall. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your comment and I must add that now since Prcc27 is saying even after the automatic recount and upon certification by GA officials we still may not shade it, it becomes more ridiculous.Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Before election day, the consensus was split between waiting until the votes were certified/the electors vote in December before updating the map & infobox due to WP:NOTNEWS concerns and updating the map & infobox when 3+ media sources and/or AP+2 other sources project a state before adding it (the latter proposal had WP:SYNTH concerns). There were also some users that wanted to only use AP projections (which had some WP:UNDUE concerns). Waiting for unanimous projections before updating the map & infobox seemed to be the best compromise to move forward, taking care of the WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE concerns. While the WP:SYNTH concerns are now obsolete- the WP:NOTNEWS concerns definitely aren't. Moreover, for the last time, there is not a "supermajority" of sources that reflect Georgia in Biden's column. Users have repeatedly argued that almost all of the sources have called Georgia. This is simply not the case- only slightly more than half of sources have called Georgia, and AP is not one of those sources. So there are definitely WP:UNDUE concerns with regards to updating the map, since the AP/NPR as well as Fox, WSJ, PBS, USA Today, The Guardian, and the LA Times have not called the race. If there was a supermajority of sources that called Georgia, that's one thing. But as of now, we do not have a supermajority of sources calling Georgia so there is no pressing reason for why we would need to rush to add Georgia. Prcc27 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Was there a consensus as to which sources and how many of those sources constituted "unanmous"? Because you could conceivably continue to add sources, in order to claim the lack of unanimity. There are other editors that have proposed a definitive list of the major news outlets, that you seemed to support. and what about my other concern I added above?Persistent Corvid (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• We already agreed on which sources to use last month. The discussion has since been archived. If we wanted to add more sources to our list, we would have to get consensus first.. But adding new sources just to prevent us from updating Georgia would be unnecessary, and most of the users wanting Georgia to be kept out are actually arguing for the same standards for the other states to apply to Georgia. So I don't think anyone will be adding more sources to the list... The "recount" going on right now is actually an audit. I'm not sure if it is technically considered a "recount" or not. There have been a few users in the "oppose" camp (including me), and a user in the "abstain" camp that have said they would be open to updating Georgia once the results are certified. But there could be another recount soon thereafter, so I'm not sure if more news outlets will call Georgia then or not. Nonetheless, there seems to be significantly more consensus for updating Georgia once the votes are certified, than updating Georgia right now. I wouldn't mind waiting for all outlets to project a state even once the results have already been certified, but I don't think consensus is leaning that way, and Georgia will probably be added once the vote is certified. Prcc27 (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Even I'm beginning to lose patients here. Between now & the 2024 elections, may I suggest a change to the criteria for sources-required. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should update the map and infobox based on how patient we are. Especially when Georgia will likely be added tomorrow after the votes are certified.. As for changing the criteria for 2024.. The criteria will likely have to be revisited, but a criteria of updating when a slim majority of sources call a state has WP:SYNTH concerns. Even a criteria of inclusion when 2/3 of sources call a state could have WP:SYNTH concerns. I think the unanimous projections criteria worked pretty well, until people got impatient with Georgia. Perhaps we could tweak the criteria to something like updating when all but maybe 2 or 3 sources project a state. I think waiting until unanimity or near unanimity would work the best. But of course, this discussion will be for another time. Prcc27 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

To SquidHomme

Totally unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SquidHomme:, That kind of attack (someone who can not bear the defeat of their dear president and accept reality), is completely repugnant. Biden does not need to win GA to secure an electoral college victory. He already has won the election. I am a person who currently sides with @Prcc27: and others who oppose the rush to make GA appear blue right now. The state will eventually appear blue, but you have to be patient. Do you think AP is pro-Trump? And without proof, you are asserting us as Pro-Trump without a solid reasoning. I reiterate what I said before- someone from the upper echelon of Wikipedians should intervene. Ppt2003 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @Ppt2003: My statement is meant for the Opponents of the RfC in generali. Please don't take this as a personal attack because no one said you are that someone who can not bear the defeat of their dear president and accept reality. It is my personal opinion, I respected yours ( although it might be biased and unacceptable) and you must respect mine. But since you've already revealed yourself and disclosed your bias, please tell your dear president to concede. Also, I believe that you've already known this, but please read WP:NPOV. Thanks.—SquidHomme (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @SquidHomme: please strike through like this your aspersions about Trump supporters. That commentary is not helpful even if it were true (which I do not suggest to be the case). Once that is struck through this little subsection may be removed. We don't need tangents. Jehochman Talk 05:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC) We are biased and pro-Trump..? The unanimous projection criteria was implemented before Biden was the projected President-elect. The fact that we agreed on this criteria before the outcome was fully known actually means that we were are acting in a neutral and fair manner. While I will assume good faith, I can't help but wonder if the reason why some people are all of the sudden wanting to rush to update Georgia is because they are excited that Georgia apparently is flipping blue for the first time in several years. This may not be anyone's motivation consciously, but it could be an implicit bias.. If anyone is confused about my political leanings, feel free to check out the userboxes on my page. Prcc27 (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @Prcc27: It's not like I accuse you personally for being biased. Also what I meant by 'being biased' isn't just limited to pro-Trump, but also pro-Biden or another Democratic primary contender. I can't help but wonder if the reason why some people are all of the sudden wanting to rush to update Georgia is because they are excited that Georgia apparently is flipping blue for the first time in several years. This may not be anyone's motivation consciously, but it could be an implicit bias.. I want this to apply to ALL states, not just Georgia. And the fact that Biden has already won the election makes this Georgia case less important, but it's still a state under the Constitution and must be respected (we don't want another civil war from the South lol). So Biden won, Georgia's electoral votes becomes less important and Wikipedia will be less desirable by readers if we don't include Georgia a.s.a.p., as it gives the impression of Wikipedia "is not up to date for at least last week". @Jehochman: The wording might be too much, I admit, but I still stand by my words. Also, what's this subsection is all about? Just for replying to me?—SquidHomme (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC) I do not believe they will be striking it out given that, in addition to the comments, they have had 19 reverts since starting to edit this article and have said things like CNN is a fake news and Fox is fake news. The AP IN FACT had already called it on Monday. This might need to be an AN discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Actually, according to their talk page, they are already involved in a dispute at one of the noticeboards. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC) And what any of that has to do with this topic? Not so bright, eh?—SquidHomme (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @Super Goku V: Why don't you just go and take your partisan bias with you. You're not helpful at all in improving and updating this article. In fact you are the obstacle.—SquidHomme (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @SquidHomme: Please consider striking your attacks and consider taking a break from articles covered under WP:ARBAPDS for a few days. Your edits are currently concerning and you do not seem to be rectifying the situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @Super Goku V: Actually, it's you and your bias that is concerning. Have you seen why all my 19 previous edits got reverted? It's because of biased user like you!—SquidHomme (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC) SquidHomme, the only reason this place exists is because of its users. We need consensus, especially on heated topics like this one, and the easiest way is by talking it out. If you think I am bias, then fine as I cannot change the way you think. It is attacking people that crosses the line. You seem to be taking this discussion personally in a sense. You need to at least strike out all of the attacks and consider the other person. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @Super Goku V: I don't care if you choose to take this personally, but I don't think that I've personally attacked you. The term 'bias' is not even an offensive term. It's a constructive critical term. I said what I've said in generali and of course you can ignore it if you don't feel like to agree with it as it is a personal opinion that must be respected. Also, please fact check before accusing me of not striking my "attacks."—SquidHomme (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC) It is extremely painful to see a trivial matter getting so much argued over! What began a constructive discussion has transformed into pervasive trading of personal attacks. Everyone is really intrigued about "GA" turning blue. Look, Solidly Republican Vermont, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts have turned blue.VA was considered a red state even in 2004.Meanwhile, solidly democratic Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas have turned red. GA was a solid blue state; then the southern strategy turned it red. It is poised to be a blue/swing state again. That's politics. In a country like USA, the trajectory of politics always takes a dramatic turn. That is true about AZ, that is true about GA. While you have every right to be excited about it, you just can't use Wikipedia as a platform to outpour it. I don't think @SquidHomme: should be treated in a negative light. I think he has the full right to say what he wants to say. But his words may not yield results until there is unanimous consensus to color GA blue. But this "unanimous consensus" theory, while I currently support it, I think the other side has some good arguments too. And ordinary users will continue to battle over it for days,until someone with greater authoritative power presents any stronger/viable alternative.Ppt2003 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ending this RfC

The Georgia recount has just concluded, with the Secretary of State saying that it affirms Biden won the state.[2] The certification deadline for Georgia is 5pm tomorrow.[3] This all renders the RfC above moot. We should close this RfC and move forward with coloring Georgia blue. Any objections? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No objections. Go for it! This matter is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

AP just made the call [4]. Recount is over. Go for it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's gonna be updated. Please update all of it, not just the electoral votes. Colour Georgia blue & have Biden at 25 state & 1-Neb. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, no objections here. We should go ahead and color it in. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No objections. All of the sources we use now list Georgia as won by Biden. Chris vLS (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Prcc27 (talk) 23:29, 20 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.

No mention of Biden losing Ohio and Florida, while still winning?

Ohio has always voted for the winner since 1960, and Florida since 1928 (with 1960, 1992 and 2020 being the exceptions). Why isn't this mentioned in the article? It's pretty historic for the winning candidate to LOSE both states Dpm12 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This used to be in the lead but was removed. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Facts and reality versus opinions

The caption in this article for the election outcome map states the following:

“The electoral map for the 2020 presidential election, based on calls made by a consensus of media outlets.”

I think it is strange that this article continues to report the opinions of media outlets when a dozen states have already certified their election results. If the states have certified results, then why not report those instead of media opinions.

Here is a link to an example map showing the states which have certified election results:

https://usafacts.org/visualizations/when-will-each-state-have-official-election-count/ Unitfreak (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Patience. We started with media outlets. It was just a couple days ago we completed the map. Once certifications are complete I'm sure we'll mention that.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Error in the third sentence, Biden won with largest popular vote share instead of margin since 1932

There is an error in the third sentence. Biden didn't win by the largest margin against an incumbent since 1932, but with the largest popular vote share against an incumbent since then. The two sources (NYT and WP) also state it that way. Rogl94 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I think I got it right. It may work better split into two sentences, if the three references can be divided correctly. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020 (2)

I want to replace between the number of votes in Montana state: between the votes of The Democratic Party and the votes oh The Republican Party. Now it's written that Biden recieved 343,602 votes and Trump recieved 244,786 votes, but it is the other way around. I would like to fix this mistake. Ryanco88 (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done by another editor. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Virginia has now certified its results and they are official and can be added to the results tab on the page.

https://results.elections.virginia.gov/vaelections/2020%20November%20General/Site/Presidential.html BoringFacts (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. They were added by another editor shortly after this edit request was made. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect state results on Montana

I cannot edit due to Extended Protected. The "Results by state" table (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Results_by_state) currently shows Biden winning Montana, because the Biden/Trump vote counts are switched relative to the numbers in the source (https://electionresults.mt.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=FED&map=CTY). Can somebody with permission fix it? --2605:E000:8640:BA00:506A:32FD:3938:BC30 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This also aren't certified results, which would show up here: https://sosmt.gov/elections/results/ Should be removed as per the note above the results table. Rogl94 (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

How come that page doesn’t present any results yet? Some results are clear and already certified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.20.147 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Montana has not certified the results yet. See the red banner on this page: "The State Board of Canvassers will meet at 9am on November 30, 2020 to canvass and certify the results for the 2020 General Election." Heitordp (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC for Results by state table

( popeter45 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Margins shouldn't be listed as negative, it shows the difference of the winners votes for that state from the Runner up so would never be Negative

• Oppose. The margins should be relative to the same candidate in all states, so they can be sorted by party preference when clicking on the margin header. The articles for all other US presidential elections also have negative margins. Heitordp (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Georgia should be coloured in

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.

---

Georgia has certified its result now. While Biden’s win was not as big as first reported, he is still certified as winner in the state now. So Georgia should be coloured red for the Democratic Party (or blue, as Wikipedia for some reason choose to colour it on this page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.20.147 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

And now it is. Thank you, that was quick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.20.147 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Blue has become the commonly recognized color of the Democratic Party in almost all contexts over the past 20 years; Wikipedia did not choose it. If you want to see the colors reversed then it would likely require a sitewide RfC based on reliable sources in the media (and the parties themselves) switching their color usage. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You probably just needed to refresh your cache.. Georgia has been colored in for quite a while... Prcc27 (talk)

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.

Infobox images centering

Is it only me, but aren't the images of Biden and Trump off-center? -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The infobox has 3 columns. The first column has labels (nominee, party, etc.), and the other 2 columns contain the information on each candidate. Each photo should be centered in its own column with the information on the respective candidate below. Is that what you see? Heitordp (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Heitordp, I see both images together and pushed to the right side of the infobox. The same issue applies to previous election articles. -- Valjean (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: This isn't an issue. The left side of the infobox needs to be used for the labels, so the pictures can only be in the center and right. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

But there is no text on the left side of the images, so there must be some solution. It looks bad. -- Valjean (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This is how the infobox is done for all elections everywhere on Wikipedia. I don't think it looks bad, but you may suggest a proposal on Template talk:Infobox election. Heitordp (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It is essentially a table in which the pictures are the column headers. Like many tables of this type, the upper left corner of the table is blank. That's how such tables work. Not a problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the good explanations. Unless someone wants to add a nice symbol, like the Presidential Seal, to the left of the images, so there isn't that odd blank space, I will just have to resign myself to it and try to ignore it. -- Valjean (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can add a symbol as it is just how the template is formatted. The only way to shrink the space is to set the "image_size" parameter to 172x172px or lower. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Voter turnout

The articles on previous US elections cite the voter turnout percentage provided by the FEC and the Census Bureau, but these sources use only valid votes for president as the numerator and the whole US population over age 18 as the denominator. (Edit: see below.) That's the lowest possible way to calculate the turnout percentage, and I find it misleading. Other sources use all ballots as the numerator and eligible voters as the denominator, which I find more accurate and more similar to the calculation in other countries. The difference is significant, for example 55.7% vs. 60.1% in 2016. Some states use registered voters as the denominator, which results in an even higher turnout percentage, but I also find it misleading since a lot of eligible people don't register to vote. Which option should we use?

1. Numerator: valid votes for president
2. Numerator: all ballots counted in the election, including those that didn't include a valid vote for president (they may have voted for other offices on the ballot)
3. Denominator: US population over age 18, regardless of citizenship or other eligibility
4. Denominator: eligible voters only (US citizens over age 18, including those residing abroad, and excluding those in prison, probation or parole not eligible to vote)
5. Denominator: registered voters only

• Edit: The Census Bureau asks people whether they voted, instead of using the actual number of votes for the numerator. Then it calculates two turnout rates, one with the denominator as the whole US population over 18, and the other with the US citizen population over 18.

• I prefer 2/4. Heitordp (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

We should use what sources say. If we really want to, we could included the numbers by the FEC and the Census Bureau, but show a source critiquing how the original source got the numbers. The problem is making it work and making it sound natural. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As Super Goku V said, we should use what the sources say; I'd add we should be consistent with prior articles (or go back and apply a consistent methodology to them) to ensure things can be compared from article to article. For the numerator, #1 makes the most sense for this article; it's about the presidential election, not down-ballot races. For the general 2020 United States elections article, using all ballots would make more sense. For the denominator, I'd say the Census Bureau's "Total Citizen Population 18 and Older" would be the best value to use even though it would include some people ineligible to vote due to current or past incarceration. Carter (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I accept using the FEC or the Census Bureau for consistency with previous articles, with a note explaining the differences and citing numbers from other sources. It shouldn't be difficult. 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. Or should we just keep it as TBD until then? Heitordp (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding electoral records

So the 1948, 1960, and 1964 elections all have electoral records/milestones added on their pages, and 2020 has enough to where it could have such a section on its own, too. Here are the records we could add.

• This is the first US election where both major Presidential candidates were over the age of 70.
• Joe Biden is the first member of the Silent Generation to win the Presidency, and is the first outside of the Baby Boomer generation to do so since George H.W. Bush in 1988.
• This is only the third time in history that a President will be succeeded by someone from the preceeding generation. 11th President James K. Polk and 14th President Franklin Pierce were members of the Transcendental Generation (born from 1792 to 1821) and they were respectively succeeded by 12th President Zachary Taylor and 15th President James Buchanan of the Compromise Generation (born from 1767 to 1791).
• This is the first Presidential election where, discounting faithless electors, the projected electoral vote exactly matched the one from the previous election (though it was 306-232 in Trump's favor in 2016 and in 2020 it is 306-232 in Biden's favor).
• This is the third time in US history that the major Presidential candidates got an even split among the states, which has only happened before in 1848 and 1880 (though Biden also got additional victories in Washington, D.C. and NE-02 compared to Trump's sole additional victory being in ME-02).
• This is the first Presidential election where Nebraska and Maine both split their votes between the candidates, with Joe Biden getting an electoral vote from Nebraska and Donald Trump getting an electoral vote in Maine. Before, Barack Obama had gotten that electoral vote from Nebraska in 2008 and Donald Trump had won that same electoral vote from Maine in 2016.
• Not only is Joe Biden the first Democrat to win Georgia since 1992 and the first Democrat to win Arizona since 1996, but he is also the first member of the party to win both states in the same election since Harry Truman in 1948. This is also the first Presidential election since that same one where Virginia voted Democratic in the same election as either of those two states.
• This is the fourth time in Georgia's history that it voted for a different candidate than the rest of the Southeastern United States in a Presidential election, having done so before in 1824, 1872, and 1980.
• Joe Biden is only the fourth person since the American Civil War to win a Presidential election without the state of Ohio, after Grover Cleveland in 1884 and 1892, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944, and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
• This the third time since World War II that Florida backed the losing Presidential candidate in an election, after voting against Kennedy in 1960 and against Bill Clinton in 1992.
• Donald Trump is the first Presidential candidate to lose the popular vote in two consecutive elections since Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956.

A problem I had while formulating this list is citing my sources. My references for these, with the exception of the generational things and the popular vote note, came pretty much from looking at every single electoral map since 1788. And then, of course, we can add links to the pages for many of these people and candidates if this gets approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFlash411 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with adding a section listing most of these milestones, and I don't think that we need to cite sources for those that are objective such as the ages, electoral votes and states. But I prefer not to mention generations, as I find the whole notion of named generations oversimplified and their definitions vary by source. Heitordp (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough on the generations thing, I did feel like I was stretching particularly on the ‘third President to be succeeded by someone from a previous generation’ note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.87.10 (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the whole problem with the generations that has already been noted, "only the third time" type things are rather pointless. "The only time this has happened" can be interesting, these more qualified ones just seem like you are trying to force things for the sake of having something to write. And, before you ask, I don't care what pointless inanities are on other pages, as I haven't looked at them. This discussion is about this page. If the others are as silly as this, then I vote for a massive slash and burn campaign on this sort of junk. --Khajidha (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Then it looks like we’re gonna have to burn and slash through some stuff, because yes. The other stuff on the others page is like this. Trust me, buddy.

Created an account just to do the ‘burning and slashing’ on the 1960 and 1964 election pages without my IP address showing up. Been wanting to edit a Wikipedia page for some time. But back on point, those sections were deleted, so no need for this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetDreams2 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

isn't this a biased statement?

"12% of Black men voted for Trump despite his racism; they were drawn by his hypermasculine, anti-establishment, pro-capitalist rhetoric" One would think an encyclopedia would use less loaded language.

@Fant123 Why sugarcoat Trump's racism..? I agree we should be neutral, but if most reliable sources view Trump as racist, that should be reflected in our article. I'm not sure if most sources do say he's racist, but if they do, we would have to give due weight to the claims that he is a racist. Prcc27 (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that should be a quote. It's almost word for word except "despite" has replaced "regardless".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reliable source actually say that Trump is racist himself. They do say that he has avoided clearly condemning racists, supposedly to gain their votes. Trump repeatedly denied being racist during the debates, citing various achievements, so I think that we should maintain a neutral point of view. To me, the expression "regardless of his racism" sounds more neutral, like "whether he is racist or not", while "despite his racism" sounds like "even though he is racist". So I also suggest adding quotes and using the exact words in the source. Heitordp (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to quoting it. Prcc27 (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously. This is not at all encyclopedic. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's a quote from a reliable source, then I think we should quote it. But otherwise, this is biased and unencyclopedic. It also smacks of original research because how do we know why they voted for Trump without a reliable source? Herbfur (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit last sentence of 3rd paragraph

With President Trump recent tweet about the transition, I think the last sentence should state: As of November 23, Trump has not conceded but has directed his staff to proceed with the transition for the "the best interests of the country."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331013908971261953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliboy101 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that's what conceding is. BJackJS talk 19:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

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 results of the election should be changed from Biden winning to it being undecided, as the Constitution says that it is not over until the electoral college votes. 2600:6C5D:5B00:C2E3:55D9:3A83:22E3:5433 (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop beating a dead horse? cookie monster (2020) 755 02:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. We don't wait for formalities to occur. Reliable sources can do math and figure out who will have the most votes when the formalities are carried out. If you disagree with what the reliable sources say, you will need to take that up with them. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 24 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.

Updates regarding Michigan's certification of the election results, and the start of the Biden transition

• Michigan's elections board have certified the presidential election results.
• Trump has recommended for his team to begin the Presidential transition of Joe Biden after Emily Murphy, the Administrator of the General Services Administration made the required federal resources available.

References

Aluxosm (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Georgia

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 State has already been called to President-elect Joe Biden by all the major news networks in the United States (including CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, The New York Times, The Associated Press and Also BBC) KILLERXR (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox has not. AP has not. A handful of others not listed has not. Unless you have a source? Admanny (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the current situation we should list 306 electoral votes for Biden with an asterisk or footnote that says Georgia has been called by a majority of sources, which ones, and that a minority, which ones, have not yet called it. WP:V and WP:UNDUE require that we report facts consistent with the sources, not that we ignore the majority of sources (who say 306) in favor of reporting what the minority of sources say (290). Jehochman ^Talk 04:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have one source to refer that Georgia has been called to President-elect Joe Biden: "Final states called: Biden projected to win 306 electoral votes to Trump's 232". KILLERXR (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

call it cowards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:52B8:107:B43D:F75:8391:9B77 (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not "call" things; we merely report what Reliable Sources say. Please read the FAQ at the top of this page, along with the following sections and the map summary. Additionally, feel free to participate civilly at the two discussion I linked to. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

call what the networks said then cowards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:52B8:107:B43D:F75:8391:9B77 (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Already done as that is the current state of the article. There are currently three sources that have not called the election. Please review the FAQ and feel free to participate at the other two discussions. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't need every single outlet to call it, in order for it to be "called". As the OP says, scores of mainstream outlets have called Georgia for Biden. It is a sad reflection on Wikipedia that you are 'holding out', waiting to see what Fox does. Biden has won Georgia. Time to change the page accordingly! 37.250.156.196 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It’s a sad reflection on you that you cannot accept the consensus. There is also a recount going on in Georgia. Guess you didn’t hear about that.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:4C46:6CFA:F5EB:2FFC (talk) 21:54, 17 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.

I think an image should be resized under section 7.3 (False claims of fraud).

The tweet screenshot is just a little small. I feel that it'd be better if it were made a bit larger so it's more legible to the reader without them having to click on the image to see the full size. Very minor edit suggestion, I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blank2nowhere (talk • contribs) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Utah Election Results

Since the page has extended confirmed protections I will have to post here. Utah's election results have been certified by canvass as of November 23, 12:00 PM MST. If someone could add the results seen on this link that would be greatly appreciated. [ Darrenrs (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC) ]

 Done Heitordp (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD: Voter Integrity Fund

There is a AfD[5] on the Voter Integrity Fund, a pro-Trump group which was set up after Biden won the 2020 election and which seeks to substantiate Trump's baseless claims of election fraud. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Their efforts to gather evidence are well-sourced, and they've provided evidence for today's hearings on voter fraud. Team includes notable people. Pkeets (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2020 (2)

This was the first election since 1960 where Ohio voted for the losing candidate ([6]. 2603:6010:D400:1C41:A934:D890:6C1C:8733 (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

While trivia isn't banned on Wikipedia, it isn't encouraged to be added. (WP:TRIVIA links to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which explains that "'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.") WP:HTRIVIA explains in greater detail what information to include and what not to include. Personally, while we do have similar sentences on past election articles, I am not convinced that they should all exist. I will say that the information does sound notable, but it is not nessarily a good fit for this article. (I would consider reviewing this category for articles like 2020 United States elections and Bellwether where it might be more relevant. I am not currently convinced that it should be included, but maybe another user does feel that it should be included. (Note: Not setting the text to answered in case someone else does believe it should be included and wants to chime in. I am not rejecting the request.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is currently mentioned at 2020 United States presidential election in Ohio. I believe that is sufficient. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Ohio hasn’t voted for the losing candidate in 60 years might not be an extremely bit of useful information, but I feel like it’s notable enough to be mentioned at least once here. SRD625 (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.—Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

In the Results By State table, on the row for Montana, the '–' (U+2013 : EN DASH) preceding the votes margin and % margin should be changed to '−' (U+2212 : MINUS SIGN, as used on all the other rows) so that Montana is correctly sorted on those columns. Wikkiwonkk (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikkiwonkk, does this edit fix the problem? -- Valjean (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Valjean Yes, that does it. -- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden

[[:File:2020 GSA Emily W Murphy letter to Biden.pdf|thumb|GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden notifying him of her decision to "ascertain" U.S. federal resources for transition of Presidency of Donald Trump to Presidency of Joe Biden.]]

Added image of GSA letter to the page, feel free to move it to a different location, remove it, and/or discuss. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is excessive for this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I'm not so sure. Just after it was released, Trump gave for go ahead for the transition. (See: Updates regarding Michigan's certification of the election results, and the start of the Biden transition) Aluxosm (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Aluxosm, mentioning the transition is important. An image of the letter is excessive for the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the image from this article (and all the articles except Emily W. Murphy where it was spammed); Right cite has been sock-blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)