Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Presidential elections / Presidents / Government / History High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes

Section size for Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election (85 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	45,959	45,959
Background	132	20,233
Trump's 2012 accusations of electoral fraud	1,043	1,043
Uncertainty over Trump accepting an electoral loss in 2016	3,445	3,445
Uncertainty over Trump accepting an electoral loss in 2020	15,613	15,613
Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss	160	74,992
Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss by Donald Trump	63	25,973
Before results declared	7,600	7,600
After results declared	15,293	15,293
After leaving office	3,017	3,017
Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss by Trump's allies and supporters	80	48,859
Stop the Steal	32,616	32,616
Conspiracy theories	16,163	16,163
November 2020	5,576	93,450
"Fake" electors	7,464	7,464
Lame duck firings and hirings	16,609	16,609
Lawsuits	5,943	5,943
Michigan officials pressured to not certify	9,402	9,402
Attempt to seize voting machines in Michigan	2,097	2,097
Georgia Secretary of State pressured to disqualify ballots	4,185	4,185
Wisconsin recount-obstruction	3,237	3,237
Partisan hearings with Republican legislatures	2,970	2,970
Conspiracy allegations	25,528	25,528
Threats of violence by Trump supporters	10,439	10,439
December 2020	6,947	75,046
Trump's attempt to pressure state officials	12,125	12,125
Supreme Court petitions	8,089	8,089
Consideration of special counsel and martial law	14,471	14,471
Planning for Congress to overturn the election on January 6	2,422	2,422
Pressure on Pence	1,224	14,933
"Pence Card" conspiracy	9,266	9,266
December timeline	4,443	4,443
Pressure on Justice Department	5,779	5,779
Pressure on Defense Department	3,829	3,829
Plan to seize voting machines	3,618	3,618
Ellis memos	1,717	1,717
Plan to obtain National Security Agency data	1,116	1,116
January 2021	7,233	73,404
Gohmert v. Pence	4,965	4,965
Calls with state officials	15,731	15,731
Justice Department pressured and efforts made to replace acting attorney general	6,902	6,902
Preparations by chief of staff	4,143	4,143
More pressure on Pence	8,139	8,139
January 6 joint session	90	10,823
Senate efforts	8,644	8,644
House votes	1,063	1,063
Report by Rep. Zoe Lofgren	1,026	1,026
Capitol attack	11,254	11,254
Trump operatives breach Coffee County, Georgia election system	1,930	1,930
Lindell memo	2,284	2,284
Later developments	26	63,856
Taxpayer costs	741	741
Security concerns over March 4, 2021	1,576	1,576
Election audits	2,647	34,153
Arizona	8,248	8,248
Georgia	4,104	4,104
Idaho	2,080	2,080
Pennsylvania	6,329	6,329
Texas	3,140	3,140
Wisconsin	7,605	7,605
Mike Lindell reinstatement prediction	1,526	1,526
Senate Judiciary Committee report	750	750
Election law reform efforts	1,848	1,848
Post-election voter restriction efforts by Republicans	195	195
Impact on secretaries of state	981	981
House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack	4,241	4,241
2021 German federal election	1,623	1,623
Justice Department investigations	1,460	1,460
Civil lawsuits	551	551
Continuing subversion efforts and 2024 predictions	10,970	10,970
Post-election allegations of statistical improbabilities	3,215	3,215
Reactions	16	54,443
Republican critiques of the "big lie"	1,877	22,517
Administration dissenters	1,829	1,829
Consistent critics	5,060	5,060
Others	13,751	13,751
Description as attempted coup	39	21,886
Before the Capitol attack	14,343	14,343
During or after the Capitol attack	7,504	7,504
"Trump won" and "big lie"	6,091	6,091
Corporate reactions	3,933	3,933
See also	542	542
Notes	138	138
References	33	33
External links	3,920	3,920
Total	506,016	506,016

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Eggers, Andrew C.; Garro, Haritz; Grimmer, Justin (2021-11-09). "No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved 2021-11-16.
House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack's Presentation Outline

Trump reportedly wanted to join the rioters

I don't think we have sufficiently weighty RSs to add this to the article, but its in the media and I wanted to note them for followup later. Politico had this scoop,^[1] which has spawned (of course) a cascade of other media stories based on the original Politco piece. Apparently a secret service agent, Trumps lead guy, gave closed (not public testimony). The committee hasn't disclosed it. So what we have here is he said..... he heard it from a friend.....that the other person told a bunch of people..... stuff (Politico heard it from a source that the agent testified to the panel.) This is why I don't think the report has enough WEIGHT to be added to the article. But it sure is interesting. Even as the violence was happening, Trump was tryhing to talk his detail into taking him down to the capitol. Instead they took him to the White House. At least, if the report is accurate.

Imagine if Secret Service had really taken Pence to Andrews and Trump got to the capitol.....

Anyway, the other part of this story that we might be able to use if the committee discloses the agent's testimony is commentary from Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who studies fascism and coups, and opined that "“If you’re having a coup and summoned everybody, and aim to be anointed as the head of a new illegitimate government, you have to be there,” I'm sure there's a weightier RS than HuffPost but for now, ^[2]

References

^ Swan, Betsy Woodruff. "Trump privately raised Jan. 6 Capitol appearance with Secret Service agent, select panel hears". POLITICO.
^ "Trump Botched His 'Coup' By Not Marching To Capitol Jan. 6, Says Expert On Autocrats". HuffPost. 12 June 2022.

Renaming page for greater accuracy

Should be page be renamed to Republican attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? The page is explicitly clear that it is only about efforts by the Republican Party and Donald Trump. Saying "Attempts" is less specific and can also suggest that non-Republican groups attempted to overturn the election, which is not covered by this page. This would be in line with the naming convention in Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. BootsED (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were never any attempts to “overturn” the election. The entire concept is a lie. “Overturn” implies that the election was concluded and Biden had won, and someone was trying to invalidate that result. But there was no official result until the process concluded on January 6.

In fact, what happened was that Trump and others were trying to *change the outcome*, using (arguably) legal means.

It should be renamed, “Republican attempts to change the outcome of the 2020. …”

But no one cares about accuracy. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The election was concluded. Biden won. Trump and his J6ers tried to prevent the certification of the electoral vote with a riot. We care about accuracy. You care about maintaining the narrative you've been fed. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: the election was not concluded until the House vote on Jan. 6.

The fact that you do not understand this fact is good evidence that the title is misleading. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objections were raised and dismissed. Then they stormed the Capitol chanting "hang Mike Pence". Not legal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has literally nothing to do with what I said. Come back when you learn English. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We base our articles on reliable sources, which generally describe activity after the election's outcome was clear but before January 6 as attempting to overturn it. See the contents of the "attributed to multiple references" citation bundle, most of which cover that timeframe. Just from a linguistic standpoint, there's no particular reason why someone couldn't attempt to "overturn" an outcome that is seen as having already been functionally decided even before the final steps in the formal process have been completed; but either way, if you disagree with how sources covered it you'd have to present other sources that have covered it differently. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity is key in article titles, and we can't assume that everyone who stormed the Capitol is or was a Republican. They can be MAGAs unaffiliated with the GOP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is incorrect. Brevity does not trump correctness. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's not incorrect? We cover all attempts to overturn the election (or at least every one that got significant coverage.) The fact that the attempts were virtually all by Republicans, or at least aimed to overturn it in favor of the Republican candidate, is true but isn't really something that needs to be in the title. It would only be incorrect if there were other significant attempts that we omitted, and in that case it would probably make more sense to just add them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is correct, and the incorrect move was my engaging with this IP. For BootsED, the policy is WP:CONCISE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very long

This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As of 14 October 2024, its readable prose size was 20,872 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.

Word count	What to do
this article 20,872 words	Definitely should be divided or trimmed
> 15,000 words	Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
> 9,000 words	Probably should be divided or trimmed.

— Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)—[reply]

Do you have any suggestion on how to reduce it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 leaked audio from Bannon about Trump's plan

In 2022, audio of Steve Bannon saying that Trump planned to declare victory on election night even if he was losing was leaked. This was reported on by several reliable sources (The Washington Post, The Guardian, Business Insider etc). Should there be a mention of this in the article? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really as he did in fact declare victory, no one made him. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my comment back to how it read as an IP had edited it and put "framed to look like they" between the words "was" and "planned".

I just thought this information would lead more credence to the fact the election fraud claim was a lie. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, a claim by Bannon? Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Blaze: "Dems open can of worms by asking about millions of 2020 Biden voters who somehow disappeared in 2024"

Source: https://www.theblaze.com/news/dems-open-can-of-worms-by-asking-about-the-millions-of-2020-biden-voters-who-somehow-disappeared

I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is by wikipedia standards, but the article does include a lot of links to tweets by possibly reliable sources, as well as this link:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-08/democrat-election-conspiracy-theories/104573550

I think this probably deserves inclusion in this article. It would be helpful to hear what others here think.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSP, The Blaze is not reliable. Conspiracy theories on social media are not worth mentioning, I don't think. Not unless they develop into an actual movement, like Stop the Steal. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, and for letting me know about how wikipedia views the Blaze.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this:

https://www.wired.com/story/election-denial-conspiracy-theories-x-left-blueanon/

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Swan, Betsy Woodruff. "Trump privately raised Jan. 6 Capitol appearance with Secret Service agent, select panel hears". POLITICO.

[2] "Trump Botched His 'Coup' By Not Marching To Capitol Jan. 6, Says Expert On Autocrats". HuffPost. 12 June 2022.

[1]

[2]