Jump to content

Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 22 November 2020

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too many uncovered topics

No further attempts are being made to substantiate the false claims of fraud. Here on Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources and the two SPAs are not inclined to seek them out. WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

Fixed that for you. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
These are the claims by Trump campaign, it can be said in the article that "Trump claimed this, but its wrong based on 'fact checking' by these sources". This article is about disputes, so Trump campaign's claims must be covered too. Simply you can search above claims in Google News and see the results saying Trump claiming them. --Imconcerned (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
We've already covered the garbage they've spewed, along with sources that have thoroughly debunked those claims. We don't need to add every piece of propaganda that comes from the GOP. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It's about "disputes", so every garbage they've spewed should be covered. --Imconcerned (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
If we added every asinine and debunked claim by the Trump administration, this article would be 60 pages long. Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't exaggerate, it will probably be as long as 2020 United States presidential election. --Imconcerned (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay so what changes, as supported by sources would you propose making instead of some vague wave to Parler gossip? Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It's very rare for me to see someone so biased that I go and make an account just to point that out. Congrats. For starters, just Friday alone, Judge ordered a release of findings that showed Voting machines with as low as 70% accuracy on some work they did with referendums... Funny that. Source: https://www.depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320]_v2_[redacted].pdf it would be lovely if you'd stop being biased.--Cringewalker (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Cringewalker It would be even better if you'd read WP:RS and WP:NOR. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 05:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me to read that without actually explaining what's unreliable about their law firm. Assuming this is all you can do, feel free to have the final word to secure your ego. I have no more words for someone so obviously biased :) --Cringewalker (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


Unfortunately I don't have enough time for completing above mentioned topics, but if there are editors who can cover them it would add to the overall value of the article. --Imconcerned (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lead is unreadably long

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

Let's go over it piece by piece. First paragraph:
After the 2020 United States presidential election in which President-elect Joe Biden prevailed,[1] the presidential campaign for Donald Trump and its proxies pursued an aggressive effort to subvert the results of the election.[2] With more than fifty lawsuits and numerous false and unsubstantiated assertions, the Trump legal team alleged an international communist conspiracy, rigged voting machines, and polling place fraud had stolen the election from Trump.[3] Their claims of election fraud were rejected as lacking in merit by numerous judges, state and local election officials and the Justice and Homeland Security departments.[4][5] Most Republicans refused to acknowledge Biden's victory.
This is all significant and a reasonably concise summary. On the other hand:
Emily Murphy, the administrator of the General Services Administration, refused to initiate the presidential transition.
While that loomed large at the time, in retrospect it now feels like it's getting into the weeds a bit. It felt like it mattered a lot at the time, but at this point it feels more like just one point in an extended series of Trump Administration maneuvers that ultimately went nowhere - it definitely deserves coverage in the body (it was more impactful than most of what they did) but I'm not sure it's needed in the lead. Similarly:
December 8 was a statutory "safe harbor" deadline by when states were to resolve disputes and certify voting results, and all states had certified results by the deadline, though the Trump legal team stated it would disregard the deadline and continue to challenge results.
It's an important part of the timeline, but it doesn't feel like it has long-term significance for the lead - its inclusion there feels a bit WP:BREAKING in that it was important on December 8th but probably isn't, overall, vital to summarizing the topic. Another thing that definitely ought to be mentioned in the body but probably doesn't need extensive focus in the lead.
Paragraph two:
The Trump political operation filed about fifty unsuccessful lawsuits after Election Day,[11] and officials in swing states were encouraged to throw out legally-cast ballots and challenge vote certification processes.[12]
The first part is repeated from the first paragraph, but might be important enough for it, since it's central to the topic. The second part is very significant and needs to be in the lead somewhere.
Trump urged Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia to convene a special session of the legislature to overturn Biden's certified victory in the state; Trump made a similar plea to the Pennsylvania speaker of the house after Biden's victory had been certified in that state.[13] Before and after the election, Trump stated his expectation that the Supreme Court would determine the outcome, and after the election his legal team sought a path to bring a case before the Court, where conservative justices held a 6-3 majority, including three appointed by Trump.[14]
Now we're getting more into the weeds on specific tactics Trump used. I feel like we could condense this a bit, though the Supreme Court bit is important given Trump's repeated insistence that they will determine the outcome both before and after the election.
Recently pardoned former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn called on the president to suspend the Constitution, silence the press and hold a new election under military authority.[15] Trump attorney Joseph diGenova stated that a former federal official who had declared the election secure should be executed.[16] After his legal challenges had consistently failed, on December 10 Trump tweeted, "This is going to escalate dramatically. This is a very dangerous moment in our history...The fact that our country is being stolen. A coup is taking place in front of our eyes, and the public can't take this anymore."[17]
This is getting into the weeds a bit by citing specific figures in such depth, but the overarching point that prominent Republicans advising Trump were calling for such drastic measures seems important; perhaps it could be condensed or summarized.
The next day, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case that sought to subvert certified election results in four states.[18]
This feels oddly-placed, giving the lead the structure of a news ticker or something. It probably should be gathered into one sentence about the Supreme Court - Trump's insistence that they would determine the election and the fact that they declined to do so.
Within a month after Election Day, the Trump political operation had raised over $207 million, largely by appealing to small-dollar donors with baseless allegations of election fraud, and referring to a nonexistent "Official Election Defense Fund", though funds were directed to other purposes, including the finance of Trump's post-presidency activities.[19]
This seems fine; it's reasonably concise, not redundant with any other part, and covers a vital aspect of what was happening and why.
After his dismissal, in a December 2020 interview Chris Krebs, the Trump administration's director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), described monitoring Election Day from CISA's joint command center along with representatives from the military's United States Cyber Command, the National Security Agency (NSA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Secret Service (USSS), the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), representatives of vendors of voting machine equipment, and representatives of state and local governments, as well as his agency's analysis preceding and subsequent to that day, saying,
It was quiet. There was no indication or evidence that there was any sort of hacking or compromise of election systems on, before, or after November third.[20]
Responding to spurious claims of foreign outsourcing of vote counting, Krebs also affirmed that, "All votes in the United States of America are counted in the United States of America."[20] United States Attorney General William Barr stated on December 1 that US attorneys and FBI agents had examined specific complaints and information they had received, but found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election
This last part uses waaaay too much text for what it's saying. The broad point being made here is important, but we could probably condense / summarize it a bit; it's not necessary to list all those acronyms or to give Krebs a blockquote. I don't think it's necessary to include Krebs' reply to the false allegations of foreign outsourcing of vote counting (did that allegation ever go anywhere?) --Aquillion (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Fake electors

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

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

NY Times says Trump discussed declaring martial law

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

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

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

Later in December 2020, news sources, including CNN News and The New York Times, reported that the White House discussed efforts to overturn the election that was won by President-elect Joe Biden by invoking martial law and rerunning the election under military supervision.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville issued a joint statement saying "There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election".[8]

References

  1. ^ Lipak, Kevin; Brown, Pamela (December 19, 2020). "Heated Oval Office meeting included talk of special counsel, martial law as Trump advisers clash". CNN News. Retrieved December 19, 2020.
  2. ^ Habberman, Maggie; Kanno-Youngs, Zolan (December 19, 2020). "Trump Weighed Naming Election Conspiracy Theorist as Special Counsel". The New York Times. Retrieved December 19, 2020.
  3. ^ Chait, Jonathan (December 19, 2020). "Trump Floats Coup Plan That's So Wild Even Rudy Giuliani Is Terrified". New York Magazine. Retrieved December 19, 2020.
  4. ^ Elbeshbishi, Sarah (December 19, 2020). "Trump floats naming Sidney Powell as special counsel on election; asks Flynn about martial law, reports say". USA Today. Retrieved December 19, 2020.
  5. ^ Cheny, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh (December 19, 2020). "Trump sought to tap Sidney Powell as special counsel for election fraud". Politico. Retrieved December 19, 2020.
  6. ^ Sheth, Sonam (December 18, 2020). "Trump's former national security advisor says the president should impose martial law to force new elections in battleground states". Yahoo! News. Retrieved December 19, 2020.
  7. ^ Altman, Howard; et al. (December 2, 2020). "Calls for martial law and US military oversight of new presidential election draws criticism". Military Times. Retrieved December 19, 2020.
  8. ^ Blake, Andrew (December 18, 2020). "Army brass rejects calls for martial law: 'No role' for military in determining election outcome". The Washington Times. Retrieved December 20, 2020.
hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Coup Attempt?

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

I disagree. I don't think there is enough evidence of a coup attempt. It is just some articles saying it "could" be described as a self coup. There are no reports of conspiracy or potential support from the army or any other relevant party. Not even the US president can attempt a coup by himself. Vpab15 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
No, because this article already covers the topic, and is all about one thing. There is no reason to split the content into even more articles. We already have information on this article, the Stop the Steal article, the main election article, the Presidential transition of Joe Biden article, and the Post-election lawsuits article. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know that we can say it WAS a coup attempt, but there's certainly enough material to make an article about that thesis, its supporters and its detractors if we so desired. There's still a lot of WP:RECENTISM to watch out for, but in the fullness of time, I could see an article like 2020 election disputes as a coup attempt or something. Feoffer (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I am against it, because this sequence of events fails to fulfill the definition of coup: a sudden, violent overthrow of a government. It is not sudden, it has not been violent, and the attempt isn't even to overthrow a government, but rather to prevent the legitimate ouster of the current government. Is it a hideous spectacle? Yes. Is it contrary to the very fabric of a democratic state? Yes. Is it an attempt at authoritarianism? Yes. But it is demonstrably not a coup. If anything, it is far worse and calling it a coup actually downplays the horror we should be feeling. --Khajidha (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above comments. The election disputes we are witnessing have been dragged on and on, and while the president had every right to challenge the legitimacy of the results, the fact that he has persistently pushed the lawsuits and refused to offer any hope of providing evidence means that we cannot say that his efforts are in good faith. Even if his actions were genuinely in good faith, can he not see why the public would reasonably perceive his efforts to be done in bad faith, judging by his actions? To be considered a coup, it would take more than simply dishonesty or Machiavellianism, such as actually seizing the government by force. FreeMediaKid! 09:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait to see if this becomes large enough to become an undue weight issue in this article. Then we can justifiably spin it off as a sub article. -- Valjean (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for action

I’d like to suggest we accelerate our decisions as to whether Stop the Steal should be merged here, as well as whether the article should return to its original title, Attempt to overturn the 2020 United States Presidential Election[2], in light of this lead edit I just added:

Over ensuing days, Trump considered additional options, including military intervention, seizing voting machines and another appeal to the Supreme Court, as well as challenging the congressional certification of Electoral College results on January 6.

IMO it’s time to move on this. soibangla (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Move to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Feoffer (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Feoffer (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


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

Move to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election instead - agree with Vpab15 that this would be a better title. Neutralitytalk 18:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I second this motion to change the proposal to consider Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election instead. soibangla (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Vpab15, I would be fine with that article name, however I don't think its inherently necessary we already make clear its a conspiracy extremely clear in the article why do we have to make it clear in the title? Other conspiracy theories do not get this same treatment, like as an example the articles on JFK or MLK, however I think this should be looked on a case by case basis. Again I am generally conflicted as to this, however "Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election" would be a fine article name, however we already make clear its a conspiracy theory do we really need the title? Wikipedia is a place of neutrality not a place to make believe something. I think the change of the name could be also considered tabloid journalistic title. Hardcore trump supporters will also spam and vandalize articles if the name gets changed, however they already are doing so on other articles. Vallee01 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, you don't seem to have understood the question. Vpab15 did not ask about "conspiracy theory" language at all, much less "in the title." -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not valid opposition, I'm afraid to say. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not complaints. Anyone with the inclination can file a complaint with a court. Feoffer (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
My apologies for any confusion to which I might have contributed, but I didn't initiate the exchange with soibangla. I asserted, properly and uncontestably, that we would see who if anyone was laughing on January 20. This was in response to soibangla's comment and not to the issue. In regards to the issue, I provided ten sources considered by Wikipedia to be reliable. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Your sources demonstrate that complaints were filed, not that fraud occurred. People can sue God or themselves if they want to, but it won't go anywhere. Feoffer (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The sources you provided are reliable, but they report on the noise that has been generated by many that has persuaded many others that there was fraud, but few if any of these assertions have actually been made in courts, and they have been decisively debunked over and over and over again. They pop up all over the place and get smacked down like in Whac-A-Mole. You appear to be asserting that we should take fraud claims seriously simply because a bunch of Trump supporters keep saying there's fraud. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. This merge should be reconsidered anew given the recent move of this page. The merger proposal notification banners also were removed from both the source and target pages some time ago without this discussion being closed. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

A long merge discussion at Talk:Stop the Steal#Merge was just closed yesterday, with numerous editors commenting that the article ought to remain standalone. This discussion should probably be closed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The consensus of that discussion was that it would be inappropriate to merge to a list page, with no prejudice against a subsequent discussion to consider a merge with a more appropriate article. Some editors (including you) floated the possibility of considering a merge elsewhere. A merge will only occur if there is consensus from this discussion to do so. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "stop the steal article" is about the conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, but this one is supported by a president of the united states and may be one of the most litigated conspiracy theory of all time. It could perhaps use a better name, and certainly should expanded.-- Work permit (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe a merger is necessary, Stop the Steal is sufficiently notable for its own article given its prominence and perpetration by top Republican leaders, including the President. While it may require expansion and some minor encyclopedic cleanup, it does not warrant being merged into another article. I believe the article's name is fine, as this is what most news networks and believers in the theory alike refer to it as. Builder018 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a superior article because it addresses the specific disputes point by point, instead of an evidence-free blanket denial of all possible election fraud like they do over at Stop The Steal. Just delete stop the steal.2600:8801:20C:7500:6:C0A9:8113:80A4 (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Support: I think Stop the Steal should be condensed and rolled into a substantial section of Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results, then deleted with a redirect.soibangla (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I think we should wait until the dust settles per WP:Recent. This would allow both articles to develop as events unfold. If 'results' is removed from the title, the scope of this article will expand as more controversies arise or are revealed. IP75 (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The article “Stop the Steal” could easily be boiled down to a small section in this article, considering that it barely talks about the conspiracy theory itself. The first paragraph mostly sums up the election fraud claims and debunking already covered in other articles (including this one). The second touches upon who created the thing, but most of it is about a Facebook group that was closed after less than a week. The rest of the article mentions other Facebook groups and lists some cities where there have been protests. In my opinion, protests should be (and already are) covered by the article 2020 United States election protests and I highly doubt that any of these short-lived Facebook groups have encyclopedic value (WP:NOTNP). My impression is that the article uses many words to say very little. I found it when googling “#StopTheSteal” after I saw it on a picture in the news (I am neither from nor living in the US), but it did not really enlighten me much. Is it for example necessary to list eight examples of media outlets and seven examples of cities where there unorganised groups have protested instead of writing “major media outlets” and “several U.S. cities”? The “Gay Communists for Socialism” Facebook group story was quite funny, but is it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? 2001:4643:C09B:0:C4EF:6E97:2252:827C (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First of all, this is not just a part of Disputes_surrounding_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election. "Stop the Steal" was created by Roger Stone in 2016. Actually, Stop the Steal is a specific subject notable on its own, and it is still developing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Support The topics of these articles are closely intertwined, and it need not be a separate article. Reywas92Talk 05:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Support There isnt a Disputes surrounding the 2016 United States presidential election results page so there should not be one for the 2020 election. It's pointless and is more of a knee jerk reaction to trump not wanting to concede.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There is no reason Stop the Steal should be a separate article when it is an election dispute that could easily be a major subsection of this article PGaz05 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nothing on Wikipedia should suggest in the title, especially, whether there is merit in the legal attempts to change the apparent election result or whether there has been any significant fraud allegation. Not sure what was shown for the 2000 election, which was clearly a different situation entirely, but whether one would consider Russian influence in the 2016 election a decisive factor, the losing candidate conceded, and no credible fight against the result was pursued, so that precedent should be more instructive. That the losing candidate in 2020 has not conceded should not be binding, since the electoral results are at least as overwhelming, and there again has been no court challenge or recount that has suggested the end result would change. All state electoral entities have also ratified (certified) that result. Also, the US Justice Department has stated there was no fraud that would change the result, and the GSA has also indicated that the Democratic nominee should be deemed the President-elect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk • contribs)
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.

"Strong support" for page move?

An edit summary appears to have been modified, several times. I thought that was impossible, and at this point something seems irregular (but see below on possibility of administrator privilege). Feoffer's current edits on the page move, first moving the page and then removing the two notices, are shown in the revision history as on 25 December at 00:05 and 00:06, respectively. A user contribution search shows these at 06:05 and 06:06; I don't know exactly when they were made, but I don't think this essentially matters. One thing that may matter is that I clearly remember that his edit summary on the move was "Strong support". I didn't remember there having been strong support for the move, so I looked into this. While I was doing so, I noticed that "Strong support" appeared to have disappeared, the edit summary then being, as I recall, simply "moved". Now, however, I see it is – wait a minute, now it's simply "moved" again. For a while it was something like "Strong agreement on the move", if not that precisely.

I really don't understand what's happening here, as I thought editors can't change edit summaries. I've now thought that perhaps an administrator can and that this may be the explanation for the edit summary changes, but in any event there was neither strong support nor strong agreement, and it therefore seems to me that the move was not legitimate and should be reverted.

Feoffer's very similar Requested move 22 November 2020[13] was withdrawn with no support and 3 opposing votes. I can see that the argument will be that there was nonetheless finally agreement on this in preference to the later, non-accepted "conspiracy theory" proposal, but the assertion that this was "strong" was withdrawn in the re-edited edit summary, and indeed it was not generally strong and what consensus there might have been was only among a few editors. I propose that the article be moved back to "Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results" and that it Feoffer really can't tolerate this, e place another page move request from the previously existing title to the one e and a couple of others prefer. Other editors will have to speak up on this if they want the title reverted and maintained in its previous NPOV formulation. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you about edit summaries, but no less than ten people supported this title, miles ahead of any other option. Feoffer (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't comment on the RM, but I support it as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
If you don't know what to tell me about the edit summaries, Feoffer, then who changed them? Are you saying you don't know? If you don't, then would the edit-summary changer please identify emself.
As for "any other option", how about the way it was? There was nothing saying the title had or needed to be changed, as it wasn't inaccurate or misleading. Whatever your motives, you and your diligent colleagues are inappropriately injecting POV here as elsewhere. This assertion assumes that Wikipedia should be an impartial and reliable reference rather than a propaganda ministry. That said, neither Randy Kryn, Red Slash, 777 burger talk, nor anyone else is standing up to this particular twisting of the truth, so it looks like you and your buddies win again. Congratulations. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Roy McCoy, those editors respect WP:CONSENSUS. You should as well. There is nothing violating NPOV in this title. Trump tweeted out the word "OVERTURN" himself.[14] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

While I agree there was consensus for the move, it is clear that Feoffer should not have been the one to close the move discussion and perform the move, as they are clearly an involved editor per WP:RMCLOSE. This user participated and voted in the discussion, and also initiated a previous RM proposing a similar move that was closed a month ago, which is quite involved. Moreover, non-admin closures should be limited to clear cases of consensus, which is arguably not the case here, and non-admins should tread carefully with closures regarding controversial topics in any case. The move discussion had just reached the 7 day mark and presumably would have been closed shortly under normal process. There was no urgency here that required us to circumvent normal process by a day or two. If there were, the best strategy would be to seek an uninvolved admin to request a closure. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mdewman6. I was going to say that if there were any opposition expressed I would call for the title to be reverted and possibly a new RM initiated, but that since none has appeared I wouldn't. However, this implies that the move be permitted to stand, and I don't think it should be. I agree with Muboshgu that consensus should be respected, but I can't readily resign in regard to this one because it's so glaringly wrong that the apparent consensus has to be regarded as suspect. The election being contested is not a legitimate one as implied by the new title; the dispute is over purportedly fake results purportedly obtained by fraud. The first thing I see when I click on Trump's #OVERTURN hashtag is: ""No one is trying to 'overturn' the election. We just want the legitimate results." What is to be overturned is not the election (which Trump purportedly won by a landslide) but the purportedly illegitimate results. I don't like Trump either, but a large amount of purported evidence purportedly indicating a purportedly massive amount of electoral fraud is purported to exist, and it has not yet been objectively established, but only asserted, that these claims are invalid. Because this is important, I call for the title to be reverted on the basis of the procedural irregularities cited by Mdewman6, and possibly a new RM initiated if people are really insistent that the article be demeaned by a misleading POV title. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this issue I would say that:
a) I don't think Feoffer should have use mine move proposal to propose another one, he should had open a new one on his own, as such the whole proccess should be invalid. My proposal closed as not accepted of course, but the new one should had been openned before the move take place.
b) I disagree with Roy McCoy. Onus probandi depends on those who claim there was voters fraud, not the other way around. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, is the accusers' obligation to prove guilt, no the accused to prove to be innocent. In other words, no matter how many accusations are about alleged voters' fraud is not, until is proven in a court, that we can certainly said it was. And that hasn't happened. Thus, is Wikipedia's duty to call the election legit and to call Biden the winner unless otherwise proven beyond a reasonable doubt that such fraud occured. Up until then the fraud allegation are a hypothesis and nothing more and could not be place at the same level than facts.
c) The article is very broad. Not only deals with the legal cases, in fact Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election deals with that. The article also deals with illegal ways to overturn the results like calling to martial laws or resourcing to domestic terrorism. Yes, questioning the results legally in court is valid indeed, but the other efforts are not and as such the "overturn" part is still valid if questionable how the title was changed. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Dereck. Your comments raise several issues that could discussed, but our immediate concern here is the title. I agree with Mdewman6 that "We are supposed to care about things like what is the best name for a page", and we can stick to that in this section.
I have reviewed the article/talk page histories and have discovered that the article was created on 21 November by Feoffer with the title "Attempt to overturn the 2020 United State[s] Presidential Election", very similar to the present "Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election". Upon publication of the article this title was immediately contested by Discospinster, who moved the page to "Donald Trump's actions after the 2020 United States Presidential Election", this being according to him "more neutral". Feoffer reverted to his original title, correctly observing that "Efforts go beyond Trump himself, extending at least to Giuliani and Graham". Discospinster moved to "Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States Presidential Election", again arguing neutrality. Feoffer changed to "Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States Presidential Election results", accepting at that time the word "disputes". Still on the same day of publication, 21 November, Feoffer proposed "Attempt to overturn the apparent results of 2020 United States Presidential Election", suggesting that "disputes" was "vague", and the next day moved the page to "Attempt to dispute the apparent 2020 United States Presidential Election results", later to "Attempt to dispute the apparent results of the 2020 United States Presidential Election". His proposal for this title with "overturn" rather than "dispute" was still up on the talk page, where Discospinster opposed, declaring "overturn" to be "a loaded word" and "dispute" to be "more neutral". Hanif Al Husaini said "Presidential Election" should be lowercase and Liz added a further oppose, commenting: "I think this title implies a more organized attack on the election that what is occurring, which is a scattershot group of lawsuits in several states alleging different types of misconduct and fraud. I don't think it's a serious attempt to overturn the election. I think 'Disputes' is more appropriate description." Paine Ellsworth moved to "Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States Presidential Election results" on 22 November, The Rambling Man expressed further opposition to Feoffer's move request, and Muboshgu lowercased "presidential election". In the face of no acceptance and unanimous opposition, Feoffer withdrew the request and the "Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results" stood, unopposed and with a clear consensus. IP75 suggested deleting "results" on 4 December.
You, Dereck, proposed "2020 United States presidential election fraud conspiracy theory" on 17 December. Randy Kryn opposed. Vpab15 proposed "Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election", i.e. the Feoffer preference though without "results". Red Slash said that "there are likely some disputes that are possibly legitimate, while the vast majority are a conspiracy theory." Neutrality appeared, favoring Vpab15's version, with soibangla concurring. Feoffer supported what was basically his own title, and on 19 December moved the page to it without Dereck's request having been closed. Mdewman6 immediately objected to this, but did not revert. An anonymous user favored retention of "dispute", as did Vallee01, who later observed (before rallying round): "Wikipedia is a place of neutrality not a place to make believe something. I think the change of the name could be also considered tabloid journalistic title.". KingForPA supported "conspiracy theory". CtP appeared, for the first time on either the article or the talk page, supporting the Vpab15/Feoffer form as did Valjean, who struck his initial support of "conspiracy theory". I opposed, asserting that there was abundant evidence of fraud. Several more new faces appeared, AlexKitfox and Cthomas3, supporting the revised change.
That brings us to the present point. Of the nine editors supporting the Vpab15/Feoffer title prior to the move, fully six had never appeared on either the article or the talk page. This, combined with the initial protests against "Attempt to overturn" and the lack of any objection to "Disputes surrounding" on 22 November or nearly a month following, and with the current contestations of myself, Dereck and Mdewman6, and with the evident possibility that the irregular closing may have been rushed to avoid the appearance of further opposition, supports my earlier expressed suspicion that the claimed consensus is suspect. Since the move was not legitimate, I believe it may be immediately reverted without a need to go through another procedure to reverse the irregular one. I agree with Dereck that Feoffer should make his own proposal afterwards if he so desires. –Roy McCoy (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Haven't read all of this, but at the time of closure, I believe ten editors had stated a preference for the current title, with only one person explicitly objecting on the grounds that "We'll see who's laughing (if anyone) on January 20. You can't dispute that, and I don't need any "reliable" sources to support it." It may have been best left to others, but closures don't get any easier than that. Feoffer (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Feoffer: You know exactly how many there were, having stated the figure previously. Your memory seems a bit weak also in regard to your opposition. First there was the immediate rejection of your title at the time of the article's creation as I previously described, whether you read the post or not; it was snide of you to say you didn't, though I'm not surprised or offended. Then there was your RM of 22 November, which was unanimously opposed and you withdrew it. In your recent discussion there were in fact four other voices of opposition other than my own (I referred to three, omitting the anonymous user): Randy Kryn ("way too early as all analysis, court cases, and ongoing evidence or non-evidence collection not yet in"), Red Slash ("there are likely some disputes that are possibly legitimate"), 199.192.183.2 ("A lot of information has still not been explored with the level of appropriate scrutiny to categorically say what is true or false"), and 777burger ("the name should not be changed unless the articles are merged"). Moreover, I myself was hardly "explicitly objecting on the grounds that 'We'll see who's laughing (if anyone) on January 20'", as you falsely asserted. What I actually said in my permitted oppose was solid, with ten references to the most rock-solid reliable sources: "The assertion that there is no evidence to substantiate claims of rampant voter fraud is contested by many, and lawsuits to establish fraud in the 2020 election are ongoing." Furthermore, there was more objection to your move after the fact than I previously recounted. I mentioned myself, Dereck and Mdewman6, but I noticed tonight that Liz also had protested on your talk page. So closures do come easier than yours, and this one would clearly have come considerably easier if you had observed the proper procedure. –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Well if there's any suspicion of sock puppetry or canvassing you can request an investigation for both Roy McCoy. If turns to be either case the decision would be most likely reverted. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Dereck Camacho: Thanks, but the idea of sock puppetry never crossed my mind. I thought of canvassing, but would have expressed this as "sending notifications". –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Something about this discussion is incredibly ironic. For what it's worth, since you pinged me to say I supported the phrase "conspiracy theory", I fully support the page title as it was decided. I was also not canvassed in the slightest, and if I'm a meatsock, that would be news to me. KingForPA (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, obviously there was canvassing and sockpuppetry. He says there was, that's all the proof needed. Kind of like the claims that the election was rigged. Why do we need actual proof? The claim is enough. (That's humor, for anyone who doesn't get it.) --Khajidha (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Khajidha: Thank you for your amusing contribution to this discussion. –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
As for concerns that this was "rushed to avoid the appearance of further opposition" -- It bears mentioning that you're totally welcome to continue trying to build a consensus for other titles on talk. I know the template says "THIS discussion is closed, do not modify it", which sounds very intimidating and quite definitive, but there's nothing stopping you building consensus or even proposing a move to a title you prefer. It just didn't make a whole lot of sense to keep the article at the old title when there was such a strong preference after a full week of discussion. Feoffer (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping me, other than lack of present support on this talk page, from reverting to the prior, less controversial consensus and more truthful title. –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"There's nothing stopping me, except for all the public opposition to what I want" feels quite a lot like the topic of this actual article, have to say! KingForPA (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
As for "fully six had never appeared on either the article or the talk page." -- obviously, if we think these individuals were sock/meat puppets, we'd all want to know that; but the mere influx of more eyes by itself isn't surprising -- when we propose a new title, bots automatically list the discussion at other places on Wikipedia where editors who regularly follow such discussions are alerted to join. It's very common for new folks to show up at these discussions, that's the point of them :). Feoffer (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
My name was brought up as a potential "sock puppet" account as a claim against the legitimacy of the move. I'm happy to answer any questions regarding my support for the change to the current title. I've been an editor for two years now. AlexKitfox (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@AlexKitfox: No problem. As stated above, I never suspected you or anyone else of being a sock puppet. Could you perhaps let me know where you saw the notification? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Roy McCoy: Hi, Roy. I noticed the suggestion for the page move because this page has been listed a number of times in Portal:Current events, which is a page I frequent often. AlexKitfox (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The new title was strongly supported in the RM discussion, and there were no substantive objections expressed to the new title. Indeed, I'm still not seeking any substantive objection to the new title, which is in accordance with the usage of the reliable sources. --Neutralitytalk 06:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
From what I've gathered, the only valid objection to the new title is the process by which it was changed. I heartily agree with others in this discussion that, per WP:RMCLOSE, as an involved admin editor Feoffer should not have had the authority to close the discussion-- this should have instead been done by another admin editor. Doing so effectively de-legitimizes the process of discussing a move action in the first place, regardless of whether I support or oppose the end result. AlexKitfox (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Roy McCoy: we can delete edit summaries (the whole summary, not part), we can't change them. @AlexKitfox:, Feoffer's not an Admin. No comment on the RfC as I'm not involved with this article, just here to make a couple of technical points. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Doug. It's a mystery, then, how this one came to be changed. I can mistakenly imagine one change, but not three or four as observed here. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Roy, you might have linked it above, but I don't see where. What are the diffs for these changed edit summaries? -- Valjean (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
From Roy's description, I assume he's referring to this edit ??? I certainly don't know anything about altered edit summaries -- so far as I knew there's no way to change edit summaries. Feoffer (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
That page move didn't change any edit summary. The only way to change an edit summary is in connection with a revdeletion, which eliminate content and edit summary. That's why I wonder about Roy's repeated claims about "changing" edit summaries. I'd like to see the diff(s). -- Valjean (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Lin Wood writes Pence will face firing squad

Lin Wood is a "Trump election lawyer" "who has litigated numerous failed attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 US election". Gohmert sued to "allow Mr Pence to only count the electoral votes for Trump" but "Mr Pence’s lawyers asked for the case to be dismissed." Wood wrote that Pence may be executed for treason, comments denounced by his fellow attorneys and clients denounced his remarks and restated their commitment to the rule of law.

This material was deleted by Onetwothreeip as "Absolutely irrelevant to Trump attempting to overturn the election". I think it's relevant and should be restored. Feoffer (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an attempt by (or for) Trump to overturn the election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, is the scope of this page limited to Trump's attempts only? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu We could include attempts for Trump by others, but this still isn't one of them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The full scope covers any and all attempts (attempts begin with thoughts that transform into more and more obvious actions, so we include as close to the thoughts as RS allow) to contest, resist, steal, rig, gaslight, and overturn Trump's loss, whether done by hi or his allies (which could even include Russia, which has originated some of the conspiracy theories advocated by Trump and the GOP).

Let's avoid wikilawyering, because the exact wording in the title is not the key, but any synonyms that deal with a less than normal transition and concession process are fair game. We can't have separate articles for each term. They all belong here. If it's tangentially-related, include it. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah-HA!!!! That's it!!! It's not just Trump himself. It's everyone on the team in the effort. Look at the title. Trumps name isn't there.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Valjean, "gaslighting" is certainly not part of the article's scope. This is not even tangentially related to either Trump itself or to actions that are attempts at preventing Joe Biden from succeeding Trump. These are comments made by somebody against Mike Pence by a supporter of Donald Trump, and do not have any means of challenging the election. Russian propaganda aren't attempts at overturning the election either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Wood has worked with Sidney Powell, who is in Trump's inner circle, the press coverage of his efforts has been extensive, and he is another person calling for violent solutions if they don't get their way. You may not have this problem on your side of the pond, but over here there's lots of heavily-armed self-proclaimed "patriot militias" who have been waitng a long time to hear a signal to take up arms, and in some cases, to round-up and execute the "Satan-worshipping pedophiles" who oppose Trump. Honestly, I suspect that the security details of numerous prominent Americans have been significantly reinforced in recent days. soibangla (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
As of now it's only someone who has worked with someone who has worked for someone who has worked for Trump, making extraordinary comments in support of Trump. These comments are not part of an attempt to overturn the election. We can include this in the article if and when these sorts of comments have any impact on the post-election process. For now the comments may be due in some other article, but not here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
These comments are not part of an attempt to overturn the election. They plainly are. soibangla (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not say they are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course Lin Wood's comments are tangentially-related and should be included. Lin Wood wouldn't have made the absurd comments about Roberts, Pence, et al, if it wasn't for the subject of this article, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Look at the sources used, do they mention attempts to overturn the election, yes they do. If reliable sources think his comments are related to the subject of this article, then they should be included. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate objections - WP:PROFRINGE or insufficiently explained content removals

This edit makes various removals (highlighted in green text below) that I consider unconstructive, lacking a basis in Wikipedia policy, and somewhat WP:PROFRINGE:

In December 2020, several Republican members of the House, led by Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama,[1][2] as well as Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, declared that they would formally object to the counting of the electoral votes of five swing states won by Biden during the January 6, 2021 joint session.[1][2].[3] The objections would then trigger votes from both houses.[3] At least 140 House Republicans reportedly plan to vote against the counting of electoral votes, despite the lack of any credible allegation of an irregularity that would have impacted the election, and the allegations' rejections by courts, election officials, the Electoral College, and others,[1] and despite the fact that almost all of the Republican objectors had "just won elections in the very same balloting they are now claiming was fraudulently administered."[4]

Eleven Republican senators and senators-elect (Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, James Lankford, Steve Daines, John Kennedy, Marsha Blackburn, Mike Braun, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, Bill Hagerty, and Tommy Tuberville)—one-quarter of Senate Republicans—announced that they would join Hawley's challenge, while acknowledging that it would not succeed.[4] In seeking to invalidate Biden's victory, none of the senators made any specific allegation of fraud; rather, they vaguely suggested that some wrongdoing might have taken place.[4] Other Senate Republicans were noncommittal or opposed to the challenge.[5] On December 30, 2020, Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, denounced his Republican colleagues who have sought to overturn the election results, terming them "the institutional arsonist members of Congress" and the submission of objection to counting the electoral votes as a "dangerous ploy" by Republican members of Congress who—in seeking "a quick way to tap into the president's populist base"—were pointing "a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government."[6]

After Senator John Thune, the second highest-ranking Senate Republican, said that the challenge to the election results would fail "like a shot dog" in the Senate, Trump attacked him in a Twitter rant.[4][7]

References

  1. ^ a b c Jake Tapper, At least 140 House Republicans to vote against counting electoral votes, two GOP lawmakers say, CNN (December 31, 2020).
  2. ^ a b Nicholas Fandos, Defying Trump, McConnell Seeks to Squelch Bid to Overturn the Election, New York Times (December 15, 2020).
  3. ^ a b Trevor Potter, No, Jan. 6 isn't another chance for Trump to reverse the election, Washington Post (December 17, 2020).
  4. ^ a b c d Luke Broadwater, 11 More Republican Senators Plan to Back Futile Bid to Overturn Biden's Election, New York Times (January 2, 2021).
  5. ^ Burgess Everett, 'Exercise in futility': Republicans lambaste Hawley's push to challenge election, Politico (January 1, 2021).
  6. ^
  7. ^ Joe Sneve, Trump again attacks Thune via Twitter, Noem repeats she won't challenge for Senate seat, Sioux Falls Argus Leader (January 1, 2021).

This content was removed under the edit summary "Far too much criticism here is undue" but that's mistaken. There was no "criticism" here, merely a recitation of the facts, conduct, and positions of the parties, as reflected in published news (not op-eds). To the extent that any of it is "criticism," it's nevertheless proper weight. Some of the removals are just baffling. Why on Earth is it controversial to include Mo Brooks' role, or Trump attacking Senator Thune? I propose that this content be restored promptly. Neutralitytalk 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. It appears like whitewashing, and NPOV does not allow that. The tone of RS is critical of these attempts, so we should make sure the article preserves that critical tone. Neutering such content violates NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur. The green text looks fine (open to tweaking, no doubt, but basically fine). XOR'easter (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree. NPOV requires the article reflect criticism in RS. Geogene (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
1) On the balance of all sources, there is no reason to name Mo Brooks of all the representatives who were pledged to challenge the counting. It's not controversial, just not especially notable. 2) While there isn't "credible allegation of any irregularity", this is not required to challenge the counting of the electoral votes. This part, and the quote at the end of the paragraph, are clearly here to make those representatives look bad. 3) It is not encyclopaedically relevant that the senators challenging the count have not made any specific allegation. 4) We do not need to quote Ben Sasse nearly as much as this, and I left one quote of his as a response. We don't have any quotes from politicians supporting the challenge, though maybe we should. 5) Likewise, we don't need John Thune's comments when we have Ben Sasse's, and getting into Trump's non-notable responses is far too off-topic and clearly designed to reflect negatively on Trump.
Without the removed portions, there is still sufficient criticism of the planned objections to the counting. Criticism is much better assessed after the events happen, when critics know exactly what they are criticising. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of these are just your ipse dixit statements, but:
  1. that the Republican senators did not make any specific allegation is of course relevant, as they are (1) baselessly containing fraud and (2) as they say in their own statement, seeking to discount EVs on the basis of the claim that the votes were not "regularly given" by an elector or that the electors were not "lawfully certified").
  2. the president's reaction to Senate Republican leadership's refusal to go along with him is obviously part of the story. As the RS reflect, this whole thing is being done at Trump's behest. The argument that it should be ignored because it might make him "look bad" really doesn't pass the straight-face test.
  3. the Thune and Sasse comments are totally distinct (for one thing, Thune is talking about the chances of success (zero), whereas Sasse was talking about the institutional damage to be wrought by the ploy).
Neutralitytalk 01:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
absolutely the deletions were inappropriate and effectively profringe. Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you prove that the fact there are no specific allegations is relevant? You're saying at the same time that they do have a reason to object to the electoral votes, with the justification that votes weren't "regularly given". Trump's reactions are usually not sufficiently notable for an article, and this is no exception. If his reaction is not something that would be remembered in ten years, it doesn't belong in the article. Otherwise we can simply say he expressed support or opposition to something, if that's relevant. A senator saying that the vote of objection won't pass both or either house is certainly irrelevant, and unnecessary if we have neutral sources which state this.
Nobody has made an argument that something should be ignored "because it might make him look bad", and you should withdraw that claim immediately. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Your personal notions of what is "relevant" and "irrelevant" are immaterial. We are guided by what the reliable sources say. In any event, this now has consensus for inclusion, and I see that Feoffer has helpfully restored the content already. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not consider this relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The RS extensively cover all of this specifically in the context of attempts to overturn the election results, so I have no idea on what you're basing your contention. Neutralitytalk 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to demonstrate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Try [15], [16], [17], and [18]. The consensus among RS is that most of them are saying nothing of substance and that almost any fraud claim is baseless. We're leaving it in. Cpotisch (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate objections - WP:PROFRINGE or insufficiently explained content removals

This edit makes various removals (highlighted in green text below) that I consider unconstructive, lacking a basis in Wikipedia policy, and somewhat WP:PROFRINGE:

In December 2020, several Republican members of the House, led by Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama,[1][2] as well as Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, declared that they would formally object to the counting of the electoral votes of five swing states won by Biden during the January 6, 2021 joint session.[1][2].[3] The objections would then trigger votes from both houses.[3] At least 140 House Republicans reportedly plan to vote against the counting of electoral votes, despite the lack of any credible allegation of an irregularity that would have impacted the election, and the allegations' rejections by courts, election officials, the Electoral College, and others,[1] and despite the fact that almost all of the Republican objectors had "just won elections in the very same balloting they are now claiming was fraudulently administered."[4]

Eleven Republican senators and senators-elect (Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, James Lankford, Steve Daines, John Kennedy, Marsha Blackburn, Mike Braun, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, Bill Hagerty, and Tommy Tuberville)—one-quarter of Senate Republicans—announced that they would join Hawley's challenge, while acknowledging that it would not succeed.[4] In seeking to invalidate Biden's victory, none of the senators made any specific allegation of fraud; rather, they vaguely suggested that some wrongdoing might have taken place.[4] Other Senate Republicans were noncommittal or opposed to the challenge.[5] On December 30, 2020, Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, denounced his Republican colleagues who have sought to overturn the election results, terming them "the institutional arsonist members of Congress" and the submission of objection to counting the electoral votes as a "dangerous ploy" by Republican members of Congress who—in seeking "a quick way to tap into the president's populist base"—were pointing "a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government."[6]

After Senator John Thune, the second highest-ranking Senate Republican, said that the challenge to the election results would fail "like a shot dog" in the Senate, Trump attacked him in a Twitter rant.[4][7]

References

  1. ^ a b c Jake Tapper, At least 140 House Republicans to vote against counting electoral votes, two GOP lawmakers say, CNN (December 31, 2020).
  2. ^ a b Nicholas Fandos, Defying Trump, McConnell Seeks to Squelch Bid to Overturn the Election, New York Times (December 15, 2020).
  3. ^ a b Trevor Potter, No, Jan. 6 isn't another chance for Trump to reverse the election, Washington Post (December 17, 2020).
  4. ^ a b c d Luke Broadwater, 11 More Republican Senators Plan to Back Futile Bid to Overturn Biden's Election, New York Times (January 2, 2021).
  5. ^ Burgess Everett, 'Exercise in futility': Republicans lambaste Hawley's push to challenge election, Politico (January 1, 2021).
  6. ^
  7. ^ Joe Sneve, Trump again attacks Thune via Twitter, Noem repeats she won't challenge for Senate seat, Sioux Falls Argus Leader (January 1, 2021).

This content was removed under the edit summary "Far too much criticism here is undue" but that's mistaken. There was no "criticism" here, merely a recitation of the facts, conduct, and positions of the parties, as reflected in published news (not op-eds). To the extent that any of it is "criticism," it's nevertheless proper weight. Some of the removals are just baffling. Why on Earth is it controversial to include Mo Brooks' role, or Trump attacking Senator Thune? I propose that this content be restored promptly. Neutralitytalk 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. It appears like whitewashing, and NPOV does not allow that. The tone of RS is critical of these attempts, so we should make sure the article preserves that critical tone. Neutering such content violates NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur. The green text looks fine (open to tweaking, no doubt, but basically fine). XOR'easter (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree. NPOV requires the article reflect criticism in RS. Geogene (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
1) On the balance of all sources, there is no reason to name Mo Brooks of all the representatives who were pledged to challenge the counting. It's not controversial, just not especially notable. 2) While there isn't "credible allegation of any irregularity", this is not required to challenge the counting of the electoral votes. This part, and the quote at the end of the paragraph, are clearly here to make those representatives look bad. 3) It is not encyclopaedically relevant that the senators challenging the count have not made any specific allegation. 4) We do not need to quote Ben Sasse nearly as much as this, and I left one quote of his as a response. We don't have any quotes from politicians supporting the challenge, though maybe we should. 5) Likewise, we don't need John Thune's comments when we have Ben Sasse's, and getting into Trump's non-notable responses is far too off-topic and clearly designed to reflect negatively on Trump.
Without the removed portions, there is still sufficient criticism of the planned objections to the counting. Criticism is much better assessed after the events happen, when critics know exactly what they are criticising. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of these are just your ipse dixit statements, but:
  1. that the Republican senators did not make any specific allegation is of course relevant, as they are (1) baselessly containing fraud and (2) as they say in their own statement, seeking to discount EVs on the basis of the claim that the votes were not "regularly given" by an elector or that the electors were not "lawfully certified").
  2. the president's reaction to Senate Republican leadership's refusal to go along with him is obviously part of the story. As the RS reflect, this whole thing is being done at Trump's behest. The argument that it should be ignored because it might make him "look bad" really doesn't pass the straight-face test.
  3. the Thune and Sasse comments are totally distinct (for one thing, Thune is talking about the chances of success (zero), whereas Sasse was talking about the institutional damage to be wrought by the ploy).
Neutralitytalk 01:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
absolutely the deletions were inappropriate and effectively profringe. Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you prove that the fact there are no specific allegations is relevant? You're saying at the same time that they do have a reason to object to the electoral votes, with the justification that votes weren't "regularly given". Trump's reactions are usually not sufficiently notable for an article, and this is no exception. If his reaction is not something that would be remembered in ten years, it doesn't belong in the article. Otherwise we can simply say he expressed support or opposition to something, if that's relevant. A senator saying that the vote of objection won't pass both or either house is certainly irrelevant, and unnecessary if we have neutral sources which state this.
Nobody has made an argument that something should be ignored "because it might make him look bad", and you should withdraw that claim immediately. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Your personal notions of what is "relevant" and "irrelevant" are immaterial. We are guided by what the reliable sources say. In any event, this now has consensus for inclusion, and I see that Feoffer has helpfully restored the content already. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not consider this relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The RS extensively cover all of this specifically in the context of attempts to overturn the election results, so I have no idea on what you're basing your contention. Neutralitytalk 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to demonstrate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Try [19], [20], [21], and [22]. The consensus among RS is that most of them are saying nothing of substance and that almost any fraud claim is baseless. We're leaving it in. Cpotisch (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Emily Murphy and other things

OP indef blocked.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

@Onetwothreeip just got rid of the entire Emily Murphy section, which BTW, was there from the very creation of the article and is a vital part of the narrative. He also put this charming little note on my talk page: 

  "Even worse POV edits have been made by you on Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. This is deeply concerning behavior. I urge you to not make any edits that are likely to be reverted for neutrality purposes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)"

No one thought we would be here at this point in time. Generally, the election pages end with election day, with one-line add-ons for the Voting and counting of the electoral votes and inauguration day. Yeah, there WAS 2000, but it was before Wikipedia existed and there's no timeline for that. Also, 2000 was just one state and it was very, very close. There also wasn't an article for the Electoral Count Act of 1887. No one thought it was necessary, it was really obscure, and with a couple of blips no one really cared about, governed a ceremony that only political junkies like me would watch on CSPAN for an hour.

By all rights, we are not supposed to be here. Yet here we are.

This is the unique fourth act of a most unusual election cycle. Never before has an incumbent, even a demented crybaby, and prior to this, there have been a few in the Oval, ever tried to pull this off. They couldn't and they knew it. Yet here we are.

The article needs some restructuring. The reason is that the narrative has to be coherent. While it is in parts, some reorganization. Which I, in my limited way, tried to do, is necessary. So let's get down to brass tacks. What is the narrative we want? here's my take (yeah, I'm going to use some possibly offensive POV wording, and I apologize, it's necessary here):

  • Babykins makes a funny: Trump has been libeling our democratic system for years. Oh, it's all rigged he says. Massive voter fraud he says. I will accept the results IF I WIN he says. He claimed to be joking on that one back in '16. Hardee harhar.
  • Babykins woses: A number of states, such as Pennsylvania had Republican majorities that had specifically changed the rules for absentee voting in order to make it look like something was amiss. This would make it easy if there were a really close race. There wasn't. Trump says he won anyway.
  • Babykins throws a tantrum: Depicting Trump as a baby here (and not on the main page, obviously) is done because the enablers in high and elected office were treating him as such. That's why Emily Murphy of the GSA did what she did. She didn't want a 70+-year-old toddler firing her like he did several other people. That's why most Republicans refused to acknowledge Biden's win. That's why a bunch of minor officials voted to gum up the works.
  • Babykins' throws his toy Kraken at the mean, mean judge!: According to the Democracy Docket website, Trump's lawyers have been thrown out of court a minimum 60 times. SIXTY. A chart showing all of them might be nice. Yeah, here are several other articles, but this is, should be a landing page. There is a notice on top of the main election page that it's already too long and almost unnavigable. We need to Make THAT much shorter, and that means expanding this somewhat to make it more comprehensive on the subject of the post-election litigation hangover.
  • Babykins gets all the widdle boys and girls to help him stage a coup!: Then we have this Wednesday. Trump is advertising a monster rally on that day, and up to 150 Congressmembers and Senators are going to try to gum up the works on the Counting ceremony. We need a preview to inform our readers about what they might expect. An editor reverted my saying that because it was POV. It was not. This is why they say they're doing this, and this is what they are promoting it for. It's working. Why do you think there are credible reports of 150 congressmembers voting against democracy itself?

The one thing we shouldn't have in a preview that's being bandied about is Trump's activating the Innsurection act of 1807. That would warrant an article all it's own. Put the Emily Murphy stuff back please. End of rant. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

While this was entertaining to read, I need to make you aware of WP:BLP and that a lot of what you have said above (describing Trump asw "demented crybaby" for instance) goes against that policy. I suggest you trim your impassioned rant to the more salient points of argument that you're trying to make, minus your own personal invective. WaltCip-(talk) 15:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
That's why this is on the talk page, the rules are slightly different. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You are wrong. WP:NOTFORUM applies to project space and that includes talk pages. WaltCip-(talk) 20:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I know that. This is about how to do the article. 11 Senators and up to 150 congressmembers are planning to disrupt the ceremony. A preview for a couple of days will be helpful for a few days.Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Lot of text with a very combative tone is unhelpful, but I do tend to agree the GSA delay is an important part of the story. Whatever led to the delay, it's relevant. Feoffer (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the attempts by Donald Trump to somehow change the result of the election so that he is the winner. This article isn't about his attempts at delaying a transition to Joe Biden. As for the Electoral College count, my preference would be to treat this similar to when the Ohio electoral votes were challenged in the count for the 2004 election, when this last happened. We can do with less of the drama and more of the facts. I suggest that Arglebargle79, if they have any actual point related to editing the article, start a new section and make those points there before this section gets closed for being off-topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
"This article is about the attempts by Donald Trump to somehow change the result [...] This article isn't about his attempts at delaying a transition". Distinction without a difference when a smooth transition is the expected outcome of an election. Whatever whatever motives historians ultimately ascribe to the delay, in the moment it was publicly perceived as being done in service to the attempt to overturn the election results -- The GSA admin got death threats, after all. Feoffer (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
It has nothing at all to do with overturning the election results. All reliable sources assess it as part of Trump's refusal to concede the election, not overturn it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you can seriously defend the claim that a delay in recognizing the apparent winner has 'nothing at all to do with overturning the election results'. The NYTs put it this way: "the head of the General Services Administration has given no public explanation for her delay, but it has coincided with President Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the election". ref Feoffer (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
As you can see, the New York Times doesn't say the delay has anything to do with overturning the results either. They have said the events coincide. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
And we likewise don't say the delay "has anything to do with" overturning the results, we simply cover both events in our article, just like the reliable sources we take our cues from. Feoffer (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
TBH, (though not to the degree of 2021) attempts were made in the past to stop a president from taking office (2001 & 2017 for examples) & staying in office (2005). GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The GSA thing wasn't about delay. It was about the assumption that Trump won. Romney's and Hillary Clinton's Transitions we're shut down immediately. This is the same thing. It's part of the whole plot.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
We do not deal in plots, narratives or stories. This article has a defined topic and that can be left in the article about the presidential transition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
"Plot" as in conspiracy, not story structure. This is about the COUNTER transition. The narrative voice has a lot to do with the writing of history. History is storytelling, except that it is fact-based. The storytelling has to flow. This is indeed a story. A true story. The timeline goes from November 7 to January 7. It tells the tale of Donald Trump's failed attempts to steal the election. First he declares he won and ignored the fact that someone else did. The GSA thing. Then there are the lawsuits, bribes of legislators (a trip to the white house with free flight and accommodation at Trump international hotel!!!!) Pleading with local officials, to no avail! SIXTY failed lawsuits. Now what might be the final act: The crashing the counting ceremony. Trump is Wile E. Coyote and Biden is the Road Runner. We need to make this article readable for five years from now.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not part of that "plot" in that sense either. Delaying the early transition isn't overturning the election. Even if there was no early transition at all, the election would not at all be overturned. This content is relevant for the presidential transition article, not here. Obviously it's something that makes Trump look bad but that doesn't mean it's relevant to this article. As for your claims that Wikipedia is about telling stories, that is blatantly untrue, see WP:NOT. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
It was an attempt Cancel the Transition. Also, everything in the article makes Trump look bad. It's the Wile E. Thing. Incompetent failure after incompetent failure. That is the theme.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
It had nothing to do with stopping, preventing or delaying the transfer that would happen on 20 January. The only thing that could do that would be the lawsuits, alternate electors, and Electoral College objections. All that the GSA delayed, and eventually acceded anyway, was to help Biden prepare for the transfer, not the transfer itself. There is plenty here that makes Trump look bad, and on every article to do with Trump, without having to include non-neutral descriptions or purposefully include as much content that reflects negatively on him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Arglebargle79 - could you please dial it back a bit and remember this is not a forum or a blog? Your tone seems to indicate you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you think editing this article will "get the info out" (i.e. "We need a preview to inform our readers about what they might expect. ... This is why they say they're doing this, and this is what they are promoting it for. It's working.") I think you may be pursuing a rather ill-fated strategy. This article has had a bit more than 6,000 pageviews in the last month; it's probably been seen by no more than 600-700 people on the planet Earth. Of those, based on our knowledge of human content consumption patterns, about 75% will only have read the lead. Whatever urgency you feel, please relax in the knowledge that no edits to this article will have a real-world impact. If you approach it with that mindset I think you'll have a more enjoyable experience on WP. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
if you look at my record over the past few years, you will notice that I've done tens of thousands of edits on hundreds, if not thousands of subjects. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Arglebargle79: I'll ask you once to not revert my edits to this talk page. WaltCip-(talk) 16:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@WaltCip: When did I do that? I'm 90% sure I didn't do it, but if I inadvertently did so I apologize.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No, we don't need a "narrative", and we certainly don't need one that has any resemblance to a libellous rant. @Arglebargle79, just the fact you posted that here makes me question your judgement on what would be a neutral POV re: Trump. I agree with Onetwothree that an entire named section with photo (with photo!) of Murphy is way over the top. I think it's synth to even have her mentioned by name in an article about attempts to overturn the election; she delayed producing a transition document. That is not the same as attempting to overturn an election. Unless some reliable source is directly including her delay in with attempts to overturn the election, it's synth in this article. —valereee (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Arglebargle79 broke ping —valereee (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2021
She was asked.to do so by the President, who had hoped Rudy and company would so so quickly in the courts. It was an opening salvo, so to speak. BTW. I didn't put it back. Someone else did.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Arglebargle79, according to whom was she asked to do so by Trump? I believe she has stated that wasn't true. I've removed the section again and have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_including_this_person_in_this_article_potentially_libel?, as I think it may be libellous to even include her in an article about attempts to overturn the election. —valereee (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
When there is evidence of a crime, the perpetrators almost always try to hide it. Trump isn't particularly good at this, however. [23] Look, I don't know if you're friends with her or related, and even if she has no idea who you are, I kind of sympathize in a way, but SHE was the one who ruined her life, not me, not you. There is going to be a scarlet letter on her chest for the rest of her life. I've never met, or even heard of her before last November. I'm sure she's a lovely human being if one meets her. But she did what she did. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Now you're calling her an actual criminal, and your evidence is a tweet from Trump, a known liar who will throw anyone under the bus if he thinks it'll make him look good. Nope, I don't know the woman and as far as I know have never met anyone who's met her, but thanks for that show of good faith lol. All of us should be concerned that we avoid libelling any living human being. —valereee (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
"I don't know if you're friends with her" Merely adding "I don't know if" before "you're friends with her" is probably insufficient to free this statement from being what our WP:CIVIL standards consider an ill-considered accusation of impropriety. To be honest, the only thing that's probably keeping you from being blocked after the numerous CIVIL and BLP issues demonstrated in this thread is that they're so bizarre that you probably have a good case to argue that they're all hyperbole. (Which still may be disruptive but would have to be handled differently.) Chetsford (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC); edited 00:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for edit

Please change:

It was speculated[by whom?] that oversight of the congressionally mandated report would be assigned to David Legates, a deputy assistant secretary at NOAA who claims that global warming is harmless.

to:

Several media outlets reported that David Legates, a deputy assistant secretary at NOAA who claims that global warming is harmless, would be appointed to oversee the congressionally mandated report in place of Kuperberg, based on information obtained from "people close to the Administration", including Myron Ebell, the head of President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team and director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

There is an attribution needed tag ('by whom?'*) in the Post-election firings section, "It was *speculated that oversight . . . would be assigned to David Legates".

Reporting by the NYT said

"According to two people close to the administration, he is expected to be replaced by David Legates, a deputy assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who previously worked closely with climate change denial groups."[1]

As well, the Independent reported, but without attributing: "David Legates has been suggested as the next person to take over the role."[2]

Also Science website said " ... planning has been underway ... to appoint . . . David Legates, ... to replace Kuperberg, said Myron Ebell, the head of President Trump’s EPA transition team and director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[3]

References

  1. ^ Flavelle, Christopher; Friedman, Lisa; Davenport, Coral (9 November 2020). "Trump Administration Removes Scientist in Charge of Assessing Climate Change". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  2. ^ "Trump removes top scientist who leads sweeping report on climate change in US". The Independent. 10 November 2020. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  3. ^ Waldmann, Scott (10 November 2020). "Trump to put climate change denier in charge of key U.S. report". ScienceMag.org. Retrieved 4 January 2021.

Would this be enough to remove the "by whom" tag? If so, please edit, perhaps to something like:

"Several media outlets reported that David Legates had been suggested to succeed Kuperberg, based on views obtained from "people close to the Administration", including Myron Ebell", or otherwise, as someone with editing access thinks it best.180.216.180.68 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Change has been made and provided references have been added as citations after "several media outlets reported" to clarify the source of the claim. ThirdDolphin (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference this diff: [24] ThirdDolphin (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Transfer most of info from Trump-Raffensperger scandal and Electoral College count to their main articles?

Since the Trump-Raffensperger scandal and the Electoral College count have their own newly created articles, should we transfer most of the information from there to here? Then in this article we can shorten them to blurbs.

I created the Electoral College count article page and transferred most of the info from this article to the EC count article. The article passed the draftspace phase into the mainspace, so the article's link now goes to the main page and is on the template for the 2020 US presidential election series Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The "Electoral College count" article was returned to draftspace as not ready, although I see it's been moved back. I don't think we should peel off any of this information just yet. It is not really helpful to atomize the content too much, and I would keep most of it consolidated here. In fact, I don't think there's any real showing that the Electoral College count needs its own article. It seems all the relevant material could be covered in this article without much trouble. Neutralitytalk 22:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I share some of your concerns of not atomizing too much, though I respectfully disagree that the Electoral College count shouldn't have its own article. The info under the heading is mostly about certain members' intentions to object to results and subsequent reactions, and this is not even including the actual event itself (during/after). Smaller headings in other Wikpedia pages have received their own articles, for readable prose and other issues listed in WP:Article size. And since this is going to be an all-day event with objections to 6 states, we will have to put tables of the votes and the aftermath, which would be too much for one heading alone. The amount of information already covered for the count as well as much more still to come I feel warrants a separate and more comprehensive page of the count. Appreciate your input :) Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Definitely support moving content to those articles. There is enough to make entire articles about those issues, which go beyond the scope of this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that content should be moved into separate articles with this one as perhaps a unifying one as they grow and events develop. The Trump Raffensberger call has certainly reached the point in my opinion. I haven't really followed the development of an electoral college article as much, though I think you might want to wait until seeing what happens tomorrow to make any huge changes. ThirdDolphin (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In light of today's events I think it is fairly obvious that the electoral college vote is justified in having its own article.

Merger discussion

Consensus is to merge. I have moved content to this article, and further modifications to remove overlap is welcome. Reywas92Talk 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

It is proposed that Stop the Steal be merged into this article. This was previously discussed above before this page was moved to its current title. Given the recent move, I think it is even more apparent that the content at Stop the Steal should be included as a section and/or in existing sections of this page. Stop the Steal is simply the conspiracy theory that there was widespread election fraud, which is the pretense for what this article covers. Stop the Steal is a relatively short article and contains some direct overlap of content with this page. I see no reason for a separate article here and instead see it as a WP:CONTENTFORK. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

New references: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/us-capitol-lockdown/index.html https://www.bbc.com/news/live/election-us-2020-55558355 173.61.86.189 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Where would you want these references added to the article? Please place requests in the form of "Please change X to Y". Terasail[✉] 21:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021 (2)

Change "One woman was shot by law enforcement in the Capitol building" to "One woman was shot and killed[1] by law enforcement in the Capitol building". 2603:7080:1507:917C:E1D3:6AA5:645B:8DE2 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Terasail[✉] 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-protests/woman-dead-capitol

"2020—2021 United States coup d'état attempt"?

When/where was this consensus reached? soibangla (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales and Soibangla: None. This is a clear coup, and I am being WP:BOLD. I don't care if there was no consensus reached. There will be a discussion now.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a decision made by a lone editor. GorillaWarfare, please would you take a look? soibangla (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: I admire your boldness, but you're going to need consensus for that very controversial page move. WP:RM explains how to go about it, if you need the link. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I am very familiar with WP:RM and deliberately am using WP:IAR. I know that this will be controversial, which is exactly why I proceeded in this manner. If not for the gravity of the situation, I would not have done this. I also expected this to be reverted immediately. I look forward to the discussion.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: Unless I'm misunderstanding you, by I look forward to the discussion it sounds like you might be expecting me to begin the discussion. Normally such a discussion is begun by the person who believes the page ought to be moved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: You were misunderstanding me. I was looking forward to the discussion that would result from my proposed move (see below).--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, great, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the events of today end up being called, it will be covered in a separate article. I don't at this moment feel all topics covered in this article can currently be characterized as a "coup". Let's all pump the brakes and follow regular consensus process rather than trying to keep up with emotional current events. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You may be interested in 2021 United States Capitol protests‎ (which, unsurprisingly, has a lot of discussion about potential renames on the talk page). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There was no coup attempt, but if you insist I suggest the section be titled "Coup Without A Gun." Topcat777 (talk) 16:34, 8 Janurareee 2021 (UTC)

Coup'd Etat Attempt...

CNN has called it a "desperate coup attempt" in Jan. 6, should it be officially named so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.5.54.197 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur it's time to start talking about calling it an actual coup attempt. The last few days have seen the coup word in widespread mainstream RSes. Feoffer (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what this is. There's legal challenges, and then there's storming the Capitol. --WaltCip-(talk) 20:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep, this is what I have been saying. Shots fired in the House of Representatives. Capitol breaches. Sitting members of Congress have just described this as a coup attempt. I believe it is beyond time. Fully supportive of this. District9123 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Also concur. If this happened in any country in Africa or Asia, the Wikipedia article would have already it labelled as a coup attempt.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This is absolutely an attempted coup. Any attempt to illegally overthrow the elected government is a coup and that's exactly what is happening. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes - well past due imo - may be worth repeating my thinking some time ago, in 25 November 2020, and which may be even more relevant today, as folliows:

Copied from Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 24#Request for stand-alone article titled “2020 American coup d’etat attempt”

  • Comment - WOW - most "opposes" above seem to be wishful thinking (and/or unrealistic thinking) re the current very non-traditional WH administration - and seem to be presenting an attempted coup (or attempted "legislative coup" or "self-coup" or "power grab" or "refusal to give up power" or "democratic backsliding") as a moot (or irrevelant) point ...) - seems an attempted coup ("testing-the-waters", so-to-speak), based on numerous WP:RS references ..., that's seemingly failed (so far), is still an attempted coup (or the like) that may still be ongoing (and/or underway) in the WH - and, at least, may need special noting in Wikipedia - via of its own article - after all - there has been - to date => no actual concession from top WH leaders; an unexplained shuffling of top leadership at agencies, including the Pentagon; no official acknowledgement of the newly elected administration from top leaders of the opposing party; numerous WH tweets broadcasting an alternative narrative to millions - and there's a lot of days to go before January 20th, 2021 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
ADD => FWIW - This apparent attempt (so far) all seems remarkedly consistent (imo) with my own published (somewhat prescient?) NYTimes Comments some years ago, in 2013.[1] - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (April 26, 2013). "Comment - USA: More Valuable Than Money?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2015. Retrieved November 29, 2020.
Hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree that the term coup d'etat is now the most accurate to use. George W. Bush just called it an 'insurrection' and compared the events to what occurs in a 'banana republic.' AugusteBlanqui (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree as well - an official move request is probably warranted. Jokullmusic 00:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: This article does not focus on the January 6 protest/storming of the Capitol (which can be found at 2021 United States Capitol protests) but rather the series of attempts by Donald Trump to challenge and overturn election results. None of the above arguments were directed at the subject of this article, so if you're talking about the Capitol storming, head to that article's talk page and not this one. TheNavigatrr (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a coup — A coup d'état "is the removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means;" that's not a sitting president trying to maintain power. Nor is it a self-coup, "in which a nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances," since the national legislature is still functioning. Let's back off from the hyperbole. Lereman (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me like your own comment supports calling this a selfcoup, since Trump is incited rioters to attack the US Capitol to interrupt the tabulation of the Electoral College votes. I concur with the above commenters in refering to this as a selfcoup. Actions in this vein taken after President-elect Biden's Inauguration certainly would count as a full coup imo. ThirdDolphin (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Did Trump (through incitation, of course) dissolve Congress or render it powerless? I don't think so. At most, he made them take a recess (though I think that was the action some of his supporters gone rogue). If he had attempted to use the recess to assume extraordinary powers, then I could support calling this a self-coup attempt. I haven't heard that he did before Congress reconvened. Did he? —Lereman (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think he certainly attempted to do that, yes. He didn't succeed, hence it being only an "attempted" selfcoup. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Good to know; I had only heard that he sent the National Guard to quell the riots, which I think is an ordinary power. What extraordinary powers did he attempt to assume during the recess? Also, can you tell me your source for this? —Lereman (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no need to be sarcastic just because I disagree with you over whether or not this is a coup attempt. Let's keep things cordial, please. I think him attempting to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the next President to remain in power indefinitely is sufficiently "extraordinary" to qualify. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Gosh, I'm sorry to have made you think I was being sarcastic. I wasn't. I'm sorry my words came across that way. ¶ I don't think a candidate's attempt to win an election through unusual but constitutional means in order to hold power for one four-year term can count as an attempt to assume extraordinary powers. Rita Hart's attempts to defeat her now-seated opponent in IA-2 are similarly unusual but equally constitutional. Neither is a grab for extraordinary powers. Both are just unusual-but-still-by-the-rules grabs for ordinary powers. So this is not evidence of an attempted self-coup. I'll stick with my statement that this is neither a coup nor a self-coup. —Lereman (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Lereman, it was Pence, not Trump, who sent the National Guard. Meanwhile, Trump got blocked by Twitter and Facebook.
Also, it makes no difference whether Trump has attempted a coup/self-coup/bloodless coup. What matters to us is that RS have described these events as an attempted coup/self-coup/bloodless coup. That's what we document. -- Valjean (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The White House Press Sec'y disagrees with you: "At President @realDonaldTrump's direction, the National Guard is on the way along with other federal protective services. We reiterate President Trump's call against violence and to remain peaceful." As for RS, I agree with you. I think we're seeing a lot of opinion in the reporting on this breaking news, and we shouldn't bow to the headlines. We should try to think of how historians will categorize this and use their existing categories as guides. That's why I'm holding with the established definitions. —Lereman (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_1&oldid=1203132907"