RFC on including Russian influence into the election
I would like to begin by apologising for writing a closing statement that's so much longer than the RfC question. Because the close was so finely balanced and nuanced, I wanted to give my reasons in full.
This intriguing RFC concerns whether our article on the last US presidential election should mention the allegation that Russia attempted to influence the outcome; and if so, where, and using what language. This is potentially controversial, and to avoid some foreseeable problems in future, I think it's really important that I'm clear about the scope of the discussion. The RfC question is clearly and intelligently worded. It's about whether the allegation that Russia tried to influence the election should be mentioned in the lede and/or the main body of the article. In other words, nothing in this RFC could possibly authorise anyone to say, suggest or imply that Trump won because Russia helped him win.
There's majority support to include the disputed wording, but not so much support that it's a slam dunk, and on the numbers alone, I think this might fall just a little way short of consensus. But it's inexcusably lazy to rely on the numbers in closing an RFC. Closers are also required to evaluate the weight of the arguments against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
In my view the available closes are (1) no consensus or (2) to include the disputed wording. It would not be reasonable to say there was a consensus against including it. But on Wikipedia, "no consensus" means the status quo ante continues to apply, so "no consensus" would mean not including the disputed wording for the time being. After reading the debate once, I formed the conclusion that this was a "no consensus" on the numbers, but a bit of additional weight accruing to the "include" side as a result of the strength of the arguments could tip it over into "consensus to include".
The choice between these options has to come down to the way I weigh the arguments against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and having read the discussion very carefully, I've got to say that this is really close. The "include" camp cites WP:WEIGHT, which is a subsection of a core content policy (WP:NPOV). The relevant section says: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. The "include" side do clearly establish that the published, reliable sources give Russia's attempted intervention quite a lot of attention, so in this respect the "include" side accrues additional weight. (People who're inexperienced with Wikipedia may note that the "include" side also cite WP:DUE. This is actually a pointer to the same place as WP:WEIGHT -- they're alternative links to the same spot in the policy, so this is not a separate point.)
The "exclude" camp cites WP:SYNTH and WP:LEAD. WP:SYNTH is a reference to another of Wikipedia's core content policies (WP:NOR) and what it boils down to, is that on Wikipedia you can't combine reliable sources to make them point to a conclusion not contained in the sources themselves. As a closer, I don't agree that WP:SYNTH is violated here because the only claim that the "include" camp are trying to introduce is that Russia tried to influence the debate. That conclusion is attested in the sources. WP:LEAD, on the other hand, is a link to a guideline rather than a core content policy. The relevant part of WP:LEAD says: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I read this particularly carefully because it's cited as a reason to exclude the disputed claim, but to my eyes, the guideline actually appears to support including it. I feel that this would count as a further influence in favour of the "include" camp.
WP:INTEGRITY is also cited by the "exclude" camp. It's again a link to a guideline rather than a core content policy but as guidelines go, this one (WP:CITE) is of absolutely central importance. What the relevant section actually says is If a sentence or paragraph is footnoted with a source, adding new material to that sentence without a new source—or without making sure it is supported by the existing source—is highly misleading. When new text is inserted into a paragraph, make sure it is supported. I asked myself whether the disputed wording really does violate this and I can't see where it does.
As a result I give the "include" side a little more weight on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I think that just about edges it over into "include".
So I conclude that this RfC does authorise editors to add brief wording to the lede. This wording may indicate that US government bodies' position is that the Kremlin tried to influence the election. It may not in any circumstances say, suggest, or hint that Trump won the election because Russia helped him.
With my next edit, I will add the disputed paragraph to the article's lede. Editors are encouraged to improve the wording to make it clearer and more succinct, but please don't remove it entirely or use it as a platform for attacking Mr Trump.
This was an exceptionally difficult RfC to close because it was so finely balanced. Questions or comments are very welcome and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance. I hope this helps!—S MarshallT/C20:21, 3 March 2017 (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 following text has been suggested to be added to the article lede:
The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.[1] A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."[2] Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."[3]
Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support both as nom The article gives too little WP:Weight to what is one of the most important aspects of the election, which is possible interference by a foreign actor. An outside actor influencing or the belief among intelligence agencies that an outside actor is influencing an election would be given more weight in any election article where that is true. This should be no different. WP:WEIGHT demands greater weight be given and for this to be included.Casprings (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as it's impossible & will be impossible to determined if the hacks-in-question were decisive in Trump's victory. There's no way to prove that these hacks caused voters to turn to Trump/Pence & away from Clinton/Kaine. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The term "government" is ambiguous. There is a difference between statements by government officials and the government speaking in its official capacity. We would not say for example that it is the position of the U.S. government that Trump is unqualified for office, although the President said that. Also, only two of the three intelligence agencies had high confidence, one had medium confidence. TFD (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If you read the report, that is not true on the confidence. The NSA had moderate confidence on the motivation of the Russians. No agency had anything but high confidence that the Russians were behind the attach.Casprings (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. However, it still does not support the statement that intelligence had high confidence that the Russians intended to help Trump, since the NSA had only medium confidence. TFD (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
All agencies agreed that to the following "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments." The NSA only changed with the following: "We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence." See page ii.Casprings (talk)
Support in principle, though I could quibble with the wording. It doesn't actually say that Trump's victory was due to Russian interference, which of course we cannot say: but that the interference existed, and that we have to mention it per WP:DUE, seems undeniable. Vanamonde (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Support some manner of inclusion per WEIGHT. We should mention interference but be careful not to suggest it actually changed the outcome as there's not enough evidence or certainty for that yet. EvergreenFir(talk)08:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Support including the above sentence, as long as we accurately report the findings and do not say that the actions of Russia changed the outcome of the election. WP:Due is applicable here. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Support both - not clear on what the relevant oppose argument votes are. Clearly it's notable and one of the main phenomenon (whether true or not, whether influential or not) associated with the election. Whether the interference actually swayed any votes is completely beside the point. Everything in the proposed text is verifiable. The claims of non-verifiability are referencing some imaginary strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Support both - EvergreenFir and Vanamonde said it best. This is clearly of historical significance (it is indeed unprecedented) and deserves a mention in the lead and the body. As VM points out, whether the interference swung the election or not is irrelevant Neutralitytalk04:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - (1) Foul: The juxtaposed snippet at the end is clearly a WP:SYNTH editing rather than a connected quote, so it lacks WP:INTEGRITY to the source. (2) Not WP:LEAD worthy - this wasn't central or prominent to the campaign and voting process which is the article's topic, and is not predominant in the usual Google search. (3) Contrary to precedent: The similar 1996 Chinese 1996 United States campaign finance controversy is down in section 5.1 at United_States_presidential_election,_1996#Campaign_donations_controversy. (4) NPOV - a WP:NEUTRAL notice of an event is all that WP:LEAD indicates, this kind of positional phrasing detail would go somewhere in the body as it requires addition of other views on the topic, Trump or Putin for example, which will not fit. Overall the edit as proposed just does not suit. It's an unusual topic notable as sidelight about the election, similar to the 1996 Chinese efforts, but more as a small section in the body as it's not something that is prominently said or said to be a clear and major factor in the result. Markbassett (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, the last sentence is a direct pull from the intel assessment. See page ii. The arguments on WP:SYNTH and WP:INTEGRITY are without merit, IMHO.
Casprings - Gee, the editor asserts he doesn't see the problem. But that's why you're here at RFC, and I'll explain in a bit more detail. Look, the text as proposed is not showing that as an attribution, another nit to fix for WP:CITE. What the proposal is showing is a problem of second source second quote that is clearly a WP:SYNTH synthesis (combining of pieces) with some joinery editing rather than a connected single quote or completely quoted sentences. This raises unnecessary WP:INTEGRITY concerns. You should have either proposed a connected single quote from a single source or to have done a paraphrase from multiple cites, not a mix-up of styles. Doing a mix back and forth of your phrasing then one quote then your phrasing the another quote is an unnecessary digression and an impropriety to the RS. I'll suggest that a clean paraphrase would be preferable, or to use attribution to ODNI report on a quote from them and to use Washington Post attribution on any conclusion from them. But avoid using multiple cites as sources for selecting snippets of ODNI words when direct sources are available, the WP:SWYRT is just not needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Markbassett I disagree. To me, this uses the language the intel community used to hit at the two major points from multiple WP:RS. 1. They intervened. 2. They did so in support of Trump. The two quotes are mentioned multiple times but are used from the primary to be as WP:N as possiable. That being said, I am certainly open to changing it, if that is the consensus. However, whatever the wording, more weight belongs in the article.Casprings (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Casprings - well the writer isn't expected to see agree to what criticism is. So long as you understand I object to having a construction of quote 1 saying it's from pg 11 of NYTimes and then your interjection and then quote 2 saying from Washington Post then I think you've received the comment. Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – There is enough material in the article about this story, although that could be updated. The purported influence of any Russian hacking or propaganda campaign on election results is inconclusive. At best the lead could say "After the election, the US intelligence community and media ramped up allegations of a propaganda campaign from Russia against Hillary Clinton." — JFGtalk18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The RFC was one to provide guidance to add it to a number of articles and templates. While the consensus was that this needs to be dealt with one article (or template) at a time, this continues to be what dominates the coverage of this election in WP:RS. As such, I believe it requires more WP:Weight. If you disagree, so be it. However, as the coverage continues to be dominated by Russian interference, so does the argument for more WP:Weight in the article.Casprings (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Whether the outcome of the election was affected is unproven but immaterial. The important point is the conclusion of the relevant agencies that interference occurred. It places this election in a special position historically. It absolutely makes it appropriate for mention in the lead. It would be extraordinary for the lead not to mention it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Support per Vanamonde, EvergreenFir and Mkativerata, and others. Whether it had an actual effect on the election is not relevant: various intelligence agencies have concluded that interference occurred and agree on its intent (all in RS), and this bit of text doesn't speculate beyond that. Besides, even if there was no impact on the election at all, the fact that a foreign power attempted to intervene in this election is highly significant, and definitely deserving of mention in the lede. The link to Russian (a dab page) needs to be fixed to a more appropriate link, although whether that's Government of Russia or some other link I'm not sure about, and I suggest that the text "interfering in the 2016 United States elections" all be wikilinked and piped to 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support – I opposed at Donald Trump as undue. However, I think the interference by a foreign power in the 2016 US presidential election certainly should be a part of an article on the 2016 US presidential election, whatever the effect may or may not have been. Coverage has been high in RS. Investigators include the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Justice Department, FinCEN, and representatives of the director of national intelligence.[1] Even Putin has entered the fray. That seems quite weighty. Objective3000 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - User:Markbassett nails it in wikipedia policy, so to quote him as it is such a perfect interpretation - (1) Foul: The juxtaposed snippet at the end is clearly a WP:SYNTH editing rather than a connected quote, so it lacks WP:INTEGRITY to the source. (2) Not WP:LEAD worthy - this wasn't central or prominent to the campaign and voting process which is the article's topic, and is not predominant in the usual Google search. (3) Contrary to precedent: The similar 1996 Chinese 1996 United States campaign finance controversy is down in section 5.1 at United_States_presidential_election,_1996#Campaign_donations_controversy. (4) NPOV - a WP:NEUTRAL notice of an event is all that WP:LEAD indicates, this kind of positional phrasing detail would go somewhere in the body as it requires addition of other views on the topic, Trump or Putin for example, which will not fit. Overall the edit as proposed just does not suit. It's an unusual topic notable as sidelight about the election, similar to the 1996 Chinese efforts, but more as a small section in the body as it's not something that is prominently said or said to be a clear and major factor in the result. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
1 - yes, 2 - no. Russian intervention is far too important not to be included, and will continue to receive coverage in reliable sources for decades to come. But the proposed language is non-neutral in two distinct ways. First, it's an undue amount of detail for a lead section. Second, the word "accused" is non-neutral language because this was not just an accusation, it was a conclusion after an in-depth investigation by multiple agencies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Support both - The intervention has been the most notable part of coverage since election day and the statement is well-sourced. Mizike (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Support both, however inserted text should take note of some of the comments here and be modified accordingly, per DrFleischman, Ivanvector and others. "The United States government" should be more specific, "Obama administration" or somesuch. Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The lede is supposed to summarize the general gist of an article per WP:LEAD. I don't believe including this information would do that.. I'm neutral about including it in the article. Summoned by bot. Prcc27❄ (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion in lede, support inclusion in body of article. I think this is UNDUE for the lede, though, has adequate sourcing in RS to include in the body. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Support both per WEIGHT. This topic has received a lot of coverage (a lot of RS) and is influential. If we include the latest as coverage of this issue, the White House using congressional intelligence chairmen and unnamed intelligence officials to contact reporters about newspaper coverage of Russian contacts. then this story is ongoing, and has been for awhile now. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose paragraph for lede, support inclusion otherwise, and support a brief mention in the lede Until there is a firm determination of interference (we're still dealing with a lot of claims that are yet proven or disproven), putting that full para in the lede is undo, but its fine somewhere in in the article. But I do think the lede should have a brief mention of this, along with other criticism/problems about this election (marred by "fake news", electronic vote tampering, etc.) --MASEM (t) 02:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose paragraph for lede there were lots of things that potentially influenced the election, and there are plenty of other ones that are not in the lede that saw way more coverage even than this (grab by the pussy tape, clinton email controversy, FBI investigations of clinton, etc). InsertCleverPhraseHere09:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment the above proposed text says that Russia attempted to influence the U.S. election. This is supported by a number of reliable sources. Sources also support "Russian interference" in the election. It doesn't literally say "influenced" the election, or "potentially influenced" the election. Also, sorry to say, there is no evidence of vote tampering. I agree that "fake news" should also be considered. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
Any additional comments:
Regardless of any findings by the FBI, CIA & NI, there's no way to prove that enough voters were swayed to vote for Trump/Pence instead of Clinton/Kaine. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. But that matters little for the historical significance that an outside nation interfered in another nations elections. Whatever the effect, that is one of the most important facts of the election and needs to be represented with more WP:Weight.Casprings (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Objective3000 Your "I think important" doesn't suit. That just signifies WP:OR or WP:SOAPBOX -- it has to show WP:WEIGHT predominance in WP:RS coverage to pass WP muster. This just isn't at this time looking like a big percentage of election coverage by Google check, it's more of a recent item and just gotta wait for a WP:NOTNEWS need to see if it has any significance beyond a 7-day wonder. Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hardly soap. I've already said that I think this is undue on Donald Trump and have not yet !voted because of notnews. But, it is more relevant to this article, coverage has been high, Congress is talking about investigations, and there are now over 40 lawmakers skipping the inauguration apparently, primarily as fallout from this. Doesn't look like it's going away. Objective3000 (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Objective3000 - Yup, OK. Sounds like my thinking of it has WP:WEIGHT suitable for now as a subsection. If it persists and grows -- or if additional related events occur -- then I think the greater external WP:WEIGHT prominence will drive for something more. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2017 (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.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Danetalk21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused
ADOPT OPTION B
*Summary: Consensus exists to adopt the wording proposed as Option B
Reason Consensus has developed throughout the duration of the discussion that the wording of Option B is the most appropriate. Concern was expressed during the discussion that Option A falls foul of WP:UNDUE and, Per policies such as WP:NPOV, care must be taken to follow what is stated in reliable sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2017 (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.
Note 2: Past debates involving the proposed wording have occurred at both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and United_States_presidential_election,_2016. This RFC, being posted on both pages, is meant to provide consensus for both articles. On this issue, an admin user:coffee stated "As long as the RFC clearly informs editors that the results of the RFC will apply to both articles, I think this RFC is well within process. Transclusions don't necessarily happen like that, but it's certainly not going to effect the outcome of consensus to keep them" [6] However, the discussion is also ongoing here. Casprings (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This must be option "B". Yes, the agencies made such conclusion, and there are numerous publications about it. What's the problem? Telling "agencies" is more precise than the "government". Besides, what government? I am not sure that current government makes this accusation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Option A as determined by RfC above, with perhaps additional tweaks mentioning Russia was accused and sanctioned by the Obama administration. The paragraph is also too long imho. — JFGtalk06:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Option B Don't see the problem, it's clearer and RS'd. Also concur the 'Gov.t accused' is vague, which govt, who in that govt? Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC) ... ps also don't see the necessity of "United States government's intelligence agencies", this could be "United States intelligence agencies", also, if we use this, should we add the "moderate to high certainty" of the conclusion? Pincrete (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Both kinda - the A is about the government, the B is about the intelligence services. For intelligence services I think 'conclude' is solid. For the US government -- I'm thinking that should be included in altered form, more properly 'Obama Administration imposed sanctions' to differentiate it from the Trump administration and note it's not the full U.S. Government. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Option A amdneded to the former Obama administration. MSM saying there is evidence is different to there actually being evideice. There is also no saying they didn't aid Hillary Clinton, and that must be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Neither It's unclear what is meant by government. It could mean for example the Obama administration. And intelligence agencies don't make conclusions. And unless we are mind-readers, it is difficult to know what these people concluded as opposed to what they claimed. So we could say, "The United States government's intelligence agencies claimed the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." Or we could say that it was a conclusion of a report by the agencies. TFD (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Option B concluded, but would not object to a reformulation which captures both the IC's conclusion, and the government's formal accusation based on the IC's conclusion. Would strongly oppose "claimed," as this is not the common framing in reliable sources. Neutralitytalk21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Both options are, in their own contexts, accurate enough, but I would go with option B as it was the conclusion which prompted the accusation. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a variation of option A elsewhere (after B is used) in the article, or even a combination such as "U.S. Intel concluded that Russia interfered, prompting the Govn't to publicly accuse them." Pardon the unecyclopedic terseness, but I'm sure we can all see what I'm getting at there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Option B with two small changes. First, it should identify the intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence). Second, the Fox News opinion piece shouldn't be cited as a source. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Option A, or something similar. I think that The Four Deuces' point about being more precise is correct. We should specify that it was the Obama administration that made the claim. We can (and already do) say later in the lede that a number of US intelligence agencies have claimed Russian interference in the US elections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Option C, "United States government intelligence agencies have stated the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." This is most accurate, since we know what the agencies have publicly revealed, either to media, or sources. The internal conclusions of intelligence agencies are often complex, contradictory, and public statements may convey exactly the opposite of what agencies internally conclude (as I noted above [7]). If that isn't possible, I would support Option A, being more accurate than B. -Darouet (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Option A The title of the current source (Washington Post) for the claim in question is "U. S. government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections". We all know that governments and spy agencies lie. We don't know if they really believe that Russia "hacked the election". All we know is that they are accusing Russia of doing this. Jrheller1 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"Overwhelming majority of reliable sources" is false. As I stated, the first reference cited in the first paragraph actually uses the word "accuses". The other source cited by the first paragraph is a NYT article from January 6, 2017. This article starts out "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released on Friday a report that detailed what it called a Russian campaign to influence the election". Note the use of the words "what it called". So neither of the sources cited by the first paragraph are just taking what the "intelligence community" says at face value. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The cited WaPo source isn't a very good one for the semantics of this RfC. Yes, according to WaPo the Obama administration "accused" the Russians of interfering in October 2016. Then CIA "concluded" that the Russians interfered and the FBI and DNI agreed with that "assessment" in December 2016. A joint report was described as "conclusions" in January 2017. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Both secondary sources used for the first paragraph acknowledge that the primary sources (the Obama administration and the "intelligence community") are not necessarily reliable in what they are communicating to the public about this topic. Wikipedia must use mainly secondary sources rather than primary sources. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is proposing using primary sources here. I'm talking about what The Washington Post published in its own voice, just as you did. You pointed out that the Post used "accused," and I pointed out that the Post later used "concluded." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
We need to use recent sources because we no longer see any uncertainty in mainstream reporting. The "only an accusation" or "phony CIA scheme" narratives are FRINGE. SPECIFICOtalk
Both Specifico and DrFleischman seem to think that Wikipedia should report on statements by the Obama administration and James Clapper's office as if they are fact. My position is that Wikipedia needs to recognize the possibility of error or deception in public statements by a government or spy agency, which is exactly what the New York Times and Washington Post articles do. How could anyone forget the false accusations that Saddam possessed WMD or Clapper's lie that the NSA was not doing any mass surveillance? Jrheller1 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The most current information says Intelligence agencies "concluded". If you have RS that says there is the possibility of deception about Russian interference in the US election of 2016 by US intelligence agencies then please present it. I don't think this is exactly what the WaPo and New York Times articles do - that sounds like a misreading of these two publications. Also, bringing a 2002 intelligence report into the discussion is a strawman argument. And we don't base articles on what people believe or suppose. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Jrheller1, you seem to be cherry-picking sources to distort a comprehensive analysis of the sources. I already pointed out that The Washington Post transitioned from used "accused" to using "concluded." Your continued citation of the Post's use of "accused" as evidence that the agencies' views might be wrong (of course they might be) suggests bad faith, or at least a failure to listen. Please convince me that I'm mistaken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Option B as more factual, better supported, and more neutral language. I suggest a slight wording change: I think "have concluded" would be better than "concluded". Also, why are we using references? This is for the lede, isn't it - where we don't normally use references? --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
No, MelanieN is correct. We normally don't use citations in the lede, but we make an exception when the statement is controversial (either among editors here, or in the wider world). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Option A – although we should say that it was the Obama administration. Option A is consistent with the reliable sources and better sourced, at least for now. Weeks have passed and still nobody has bothered to answer my question for why cherry-picking of sources that seem to support option B is justified. Politrukki (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect - it wasn't "the Obama administration" only. First, the U.S. government's conclusion was based on the assessment of career intelligence officers, not political appointees. Second, the U.S. government has maintained and indeed strengthened its conclusion. Trump has conceded Russia's interference in the election; here (WaPo), and here (NYT: "Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election"). CIA Director Pompeo has officially backed the intelligence report on Russian hacking in testimony given to Senate Intelligence Committee. And FBI Director Comey has repeatedly reaffirmed the U.S. government's conclusions, including in Senate Judiciary Committee just days ago. Neutralitytalk21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Option B hesitantly, as I think the article needs to be WP:NOTNEWS and the community around the page needs to move towards summarizing the entire episode in WP:NPOV. This whole page has turned into a tit-for-tat of line-by-line direct quotes from sources. Per WP:IMPARTIAL: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." IMO, page needs a cooling off period and then a rewrite with focus on encyclopedia summary rather than continued conflict over quotes by a factionalized sets of page editors. - RYPJack (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Option A Accused. Is this a U.S. pedia or a global pedia? Leading with “The U.S. … concluded" lends unwarranted authority to the "U.S.” as determiner of ‘facts', and introduces a bias inappropriate to a global ‘encyclopedia’. Humanengr (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Option B. It's the one that's neutral to reporting in the bulk of reliable sources. Odd that I'm only finding this RFC now. Geogene (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Option B - While A is true, it grossly understates the reality of the situation and tends to cast doubt where almost none actually exists.- MrX10:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Option B - Both are true. B is what we see in most RS. If readers feel that the United States government's intelligence agencies are not trustworthy, they still have the right to not believe the conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Option B. All major RS are clear about this now. Whether one agrees with their conclusions or not, there is no doubt that the intelligence agencies are not in doubt. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Only readers of Breitbart, RT, Infowars, and other purveyors of "real" fake news (not the Trump kind) still have doubts. In fact, such editors should not be editing here. If they can't tell the difference between reliable sources and extreme propaganda bias and fake news, and therefore imbibe such garbage, their mindset renders their presence here a constant disruption. That's what we're constantly seeing on this page. If an editor won't change their mind and bring their thinking into line with what RS say, something's wrong with their thinking and/or sources of information. If they'd only imbibe RS, they would not have these problems and then cause problems here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment - would it be possible to include the option (C) The United States government's intelligence agencies have stated the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.[4][5][6] ? I think this communicates their statements (which we know) without attempting to infer what intelligence agencies, whose conclusions are by definition highly secret, have internally assessed (which we cannot know). Pinging Casprings. -Darouet (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that Darouet's proposal above is by far the most neutral way to word the issue. We don't have a crystal ball to know what the intelligence agencies internally assess, but we know what they publicly state. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment – source #4 is an opinion piece. It would be unwise to cite an opinion piece without proper attribution. Source #3, which is used in option A, sort of supports option B: it says "In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election". Politrukki (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the consensus clause, that is currently being clarified at ARCA on the ARBIA front, does not apply to this one article. El_C21:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment I would point out that some US intel agencies had not been so conclusive. It should be clear that this is the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be the case. There was some ambiguity very early on, but the U.S. Intelligence Committee statement covers the view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. And the FBI is on the same page. See Washington Post ("FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House"); USA Today ("FBI accepts CIA conclusion that Russians hacked to help Trump"). Neutralitytalk21:56, 7 May 2017 (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.
@Exemplo347: I'm concerned your close does not address the arguments presented in detail. Your wording could be applied (equally relevantly) to any of a dozen RfCs with options A and B. While the reasoning behind those words may be detailed it is important they be reflected in the closure. If anyone can advise me on the process and propriety of challenging such a closure I would appreciate a note on my talk page. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden: The reason may be succinct, but no additional detail is required. I have assessed the consensus of the discussion and explained my reasoning. Challenging a closure because you don't feel that my reason is wordy enough... well, that doesn't seem like a policy-based argument. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Wasted votes
I have calculated the proportion of Wasted votes at 80.20% or 109,949,984 votes that's all votes for any candidate other than Trump also excess votes for Trump (these count as wasted because they could have stayed home and the result have been the same) in every state he won and also all votes for Trump in Florida and Ohio as there were also excess electoral college votes. Theofficeprankster (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It doen't really count as original research in my POV. But, what is the point of that sort of metric? Why add it? I don't think it adds any value. Endercase (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect Total Votes
In the table of results the total vote overall and for individual cantidates is wrong. These totals have clearly been calculated in Excel using =SUM. They count not only Nebraska and Maine at large, but then include in their calculations the 5 congressional districts of these two states, effectivly counting these states twice. I put it in Excel myself and used =sum, and got the same total on here. When I manually deleted Maine and Nebraska's districts from the table, leaving the at-large votes, there were different numbers. This means everything including total votes, turnout, victory margin, votes for each cantidate and any references to this on Wikipedia (and potentially everywhere if the media use this total) are incorrect.
Wikipedia total: 137,098,601
Total of =sum in Excel: 137,098,601
Total of =sum in Excel after removing Maine and Nebraska's districts: 136,469,983
This appears to be a extremely major error that could affect dozens of pages so this needs to be fixed ASAP
Can you explain to me why this matters? You don't have too. Looks like lots of people have different numbers in a lot of places. [1] *I have not verified this users' data Endercase (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean the third Party candidates who received 1.% or more of the vote aren't even shown until after the nominations for the other two parties who received 0.% of the national vote (because they weren't even candidates in the final race). That has POV all over it. Endercase (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
RFC on including Russian influence into the election
This whole paragraph about Russia hacking in the lead of the Election 2016 article needs another review, IMO. The government provided zero evidence that Russia influenced anything in this election. The intelligence report even had a disclaimer on it that they could not guarantee anything at all within the report; the report said, "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." This means they have ZERO evidence to back up their claims. The house intelligence committee said there is zero evidence and the DOJ refused to present their evidence to the house committee. All the sources in the paragraph (shown below) are from newspapers (like the NYT and WP) that are anti-trump. How is this Wikipedia quality content? There should be sources from all political sides to make it fair. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.[4] A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."[5] Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."[6]
I'm calling them biased because they have an overt and acute anti-trump sentiment which makes them have a bias, in my opinion. I want to reopen the RfC because it fails to even mention that the homeland security report has no credible evidence from their stated disclaimer. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't belong there either. Right now, it belongs in an RFC close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard, which I've begun recently and to which everyone, including that IP editor, is welcome to contribute.—S MarshallT/C22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me, but his "point" that the NYTimes and WaPo are biased belongs at WP:RSN, if anywhere. Doesn't your AN entry call for uninvolved editors? Objective3000 (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the concern is more about my close than about particular sources. Yes, it calls for uninvolved editors, but involved ones can certainly have their say there as well. I'd like to try to be welcoming and supportive and show that we have a fair process for dealing with differences of opinion. And "point", in quotes, is a bit harsh. As a non-American who's recently had to read a bunch of US news sources about this topic, I'll quite happily stand up and call the New York Times and Washington Post biased. No American source isn't.—S MarshallT/C23:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources. We cannot argue the reliability of the NYTimes, WaPo, and other reliable sources in every instance of every article where they are used. There is a place for that: RSN. If you have a problem with “American sources” that’s where those concerns should be discussed. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Lede Russian influence wording
The United States government has accused.
This is easily read as implying continuity, "The United States government accuses", and begs the question "which US government. I suggest editing to:
But that's not what the source says. The source is dated to the previous government. Nominal continuity in policy is one thing, nominal continuity in accusation is much more tenuous. An affirmation of the accusation by the Trump government should be sourced, not implied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC) I think adding that source would fix this. It is already in the article? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The USA is still the USA and the current leadership was elected. There has been no coup d'etat. If the government wishes to change this, they can and we will reflect that change. Objective3000 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sounds weasely. Could mean the Architect of the Capitol Agency. In fact, The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a detailed report. That is the US Government making an accusation. Just because the leadership has changed, we don't pretend statements in all past reports of the gov't are null and void. Objective3000 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe "The Obama Administration sanctioned" seems also a better fit to the RS, and to it not being anything Congress or Supreme court put forward. Saying it that way removes the vagueness and also puts it in a way not later going to change to 'and then the US Government retracted'. Markbassett (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I was unfamiliar with the clarity of the source pointed out by Neutrality 22:09, 6 March 2017, which established continuity. I still think the word "has" can be dropped. The simple past tense of "The United States government accused ..." I think fits better. The source for Trump administration continuity of the accusation should be included, but in the section in the body, at United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Russian_involvement. Overall, I think the lede paragraph is overly detailed, too long, and the section United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Russian_involvement comparatively is too brief. My inclination would be to reduce the lede paragraph to: "The United States government and US intelligence community accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections, acting with a preference for President-elect Trump", and to move everything else to the body, expanding on each point. The current 471 words of lede is too long. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity
I also suggest editing this statement:
Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."[6]
Edit it to : Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.[6] However, The GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity report had a disclaimer, which stated: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."[1][2]
Okay, but there should be something added that points out that this report isn't credible by it's own admission. There are plenty of news sources that have discussed this point. It's only fair to point this out. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
In a joint analysis report published on December 29, 2016, several United States intelligence agencies assessed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of denigrating Hillary Clinton and supporting Donald Trump. On the same day, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washington and expanded sanctions to cover Russian individuals linked to the Russian secret services.
Disagree. 1. It wasn't several agencies. The conclusion represent a finding by the entire IC. The finding of IC have not been restricted and therefore those findings still stand. Full stop.Casprings (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In a joint analysis report published on December 29, 2016, several United States intelligence agencies assessed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of denigrating Hillary Clinton and supporting Donald Trump. On the same day, t The Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washingtonresponded with diplomat expulsions and expanded sanctions to cover Russian individuals linked to the Russian secret services.
Please provide a rationale for the change. Also, is there consensus for this change (or do you contend it is uncontentious)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Remove all references to Russian hacking
The vault 7 leak files reveal that the CIA developed tools that can hack a system and make it look like a foreign nation did it. Their entire dayabase of tools were leaked to private individuals. Anybody including the CIA or FBI could of made this hack appear from Russia in a politically motivated move. All the evidence is now extremely questionable. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This is OR and a Russian intel talking point. The CIA was keeping a "wikipedia" basically on hacking tools, which was made public. I would have expected them to have that. However, the timing of the leak from Wikileaks further highlights the connection between them and Russian intelligence. Some context:
That said, there is no reason why the information should be removed. It only focuses on the findings of the intelligence community. Moreover, putting any sort of qualifications into the article are questionable, given the questionable timing of the release.Casprings (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The reasoning of U.S. intelligence is that the Russians made it appear it was not from them hy using outdated malware in the public domain. That's how they know the Russians did it. TFD (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we make the page protection icon into the small padlock that appears in the corner instead, as to not interrupt the reading experience of a high traffic article? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Currently, we are using the results posted on David Leip's Election Atlas, which are useful until the official results come in. Could the page be edited so the official results are shown? --yeah_93 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a larger FEC election report that comes out in the summer that has much more thorough state by state breakdowns and has turnout metrics, I would wait to adjust until that data is released. I would be interested to know what Leip is including that the FEC is not.--Travis McGeehan (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
But the report is the only official vote tally on the national level right now, so it's better to include it.--yeah_93 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Recently I added a citation of James Clapper's statement on Meet the Press declaring that the FBI, CIA and NSA had found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and SPECIFICOreverted this as UNDUE and SYNTH. Well, Clapper is certainly a respectable figure and he supervised the ODNI report about Russian interference. If he says that the three agencies didn't find evidence of collusion, who are we to dispute him? If he is not DUE, then who is? And there is no SYNTH, we are just paraphrasing his own words, check the transcript. — JFGtalk04:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
No comment for two weeks to justify the revert, and a sentence was now added about Comey's FBI inquiry. Adding back Clapper's statement for balance. — JFGtalk09:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The comment was my edit summary, which you've done nothing to refute. It's also NOTNEWS and PRIMARY -- one of the worst edits in the American Politics area. I suggest you undo yourself and if anybody stops by to agree with your position, who knows? perhaps there will be reason to consider adding an appropriately worded version of this one day. SPECIFICOtalk11:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Post-election protests
The third paragraph of this section contains somewhat opinionated language: examples include asserting that "rude remarks" were made about Trump by protesters and directly quoting Giuliani regarding the protests. Can we try to fix this by adopting more neutral terminology? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
So we can include a video documenting minutes of anti-Trump rhetoric but heaven forbid we let Giuliani's single-sentenced quote into the article. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Exact turnout rate
Based on the total number of votes cast: 136,669,237 [10]
and the total number of people eligible to vote: 227,019,486 [11]
the voter turnout rate can be calculated to be 60.2%. --Proud User (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Proud User. On Wikipedia, all US Presidential Elections page Voter Turnout data uses "Percentage of Voting Age Population casting a vote for President" as the standard, based on Census Data for the population totals. The primary source of truth is the FEC (they use the aforementioned methodology) - we're waiting for their final report which should come out in a few months. --Happysomeone (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia is not using voting-eligible population (see: http://www.electproject.org/2016g)? In that case voter turnout is 59.2%. This is what a country is defining as a pool of voters through legal means a country has. Wikipedia should not be redefining meaning of who can vote at elections using some global standard. Each country defines their own version of democracy. Moreover, if this is how it is done for all elections then it should be written in info box. Moreover, we should probably provide also legal version of turnout so that readers can choose which one to use. Mitar (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Gender vs. Sex
I propose the replacement of the repeated of the word "gender" with the word "sex" in the Demographic headings. "Gender" in the use in this article (and many others in Wikipedia) is informal, imprecise, and probably inaccurate. Prior to the 1990's, 'gender' formally referred only to grammatical pronouns, and not to actual people, other than in colloquial (i.e., incorrect but understood) use (please review any old dictionary pre-1990). A political movement has promoted the use of the word 'gender' (as a Wikipedia's own article on it explains) in place of the word 'sex', but only to supplant it with a different meaning, not to have it mean 'sex' in its current sense. Whatever that ultimate intended meaning may be, there is no agreed upon definition of what 'gender' actually means that is different from 'sex', other than its long-standing application to pronouns, or some new references to a 'cultural' definition where it is unclear how a 'cultural' male or female is different from a biological one. Either way, 'gender' is inappropriate here. Demographics today referring to male and female are still accounted for by sex, and not some other measure. To use 'gender' here, while an increasingly common misuse of the word (check out the NGRAM on the use of 'gender' from 1800 to 2016), is to imply that something other than sex determined the demographics, and that is false. If Wikipedia is to be a dispassionate reporter of what is, and not what some would like the truth to be, it should use 'sex' when referring to male and female, until the use of the term 'gender' is more appropriate for clear, objective, viewpoint-neutral purposes. I opted not to make any changes on my own until others have had a chance to consider this.
MEastman (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Um, last I checked pollsters don't measures biological sex. The linguistic issue you're referring to is the sex and gender distinction which got its foothold from works by Money, West & Zimmerman, and others like Butler. The linguistic change is recognized by major organizations like the WHO, AMA, APA, etc. Not sure why we'd change it when the reader can easily understand what is meant and the language is not fringe. EvergreenFir(talk)04:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In sum, I think there is some good evidence that the Comey letter is what tilted the election to Trump. Seems like an important fact to include.Casprings (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Much as I respect Silver’s analyses; it’s one guy’s opinion. I think you’d need a widespread consensus before adding such to an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The election was so close that had any of a number of events not occured, it might have affected the outcome. Not campaigning in the Rust Belt, choosing a corporate Democrat as her running mate, the DNC and Podesta email leaks, Clinton's unpopularity, the Russians, fakenews. Similarly, had Trump lost, we would be examining a similar list. We could also mention prior events that led to Comey finding these emails when he did: using private servers, Wiener texting underage girls, Clinton and Abedin not telling the FBI about about these emails, etc.
There are a number of articles where this issue should be addressed, and I'm not sure how to start. The issue is the widespread idea, reported in numerous RS, that the pre-election polls during the 2016 campaign were inaccurate, when in fact they weren't. The polls predicted that Clinton would get the most votes and win. Well, they were right, at least in part; she did get the most votes, but no polls could have predicted that this was one of those rare occasions where a popular vote win wouldn't translate into an electoral college win.
This article addresses the issue:
"Others say Trump’s negative [popularity] poll numbers are no more reliable than the pre-election media polls last November that were supposedly far off the mark.
"That’s a canard. The NBC/Wall Street Journal, CBS/New York Times and ABC/Washington Post final polls all showed Hillary Clinton winning by four percentage points. The Bloomberg poll, which I directed, had her winning by slightly less than three points. While losing in the Electoral College, she won the national popular vote by 2.1 percentage points, within all the polls’ margin of sampling error."[1]
We should make an effort to fix/counter the mistaken impression, left by numerous RS, that the polls were wrong. They were not, and this source can be used to puncture that balloon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The polls were wrong, though. Have you seen any of the state polls? The average in Wisconsin was more than 7 points off the mark. The last two polls in Minnesota averaged to C+9 when the result was C+1.5. Ohio was off by 4.6, Michigan by 3.7, Iowa by 6.5, NC by 2.7, PA by 2.6, ME2 by 10. In numerous cases this error was more than enough to change the result of the state or district. The national polls were roughly correct because they underestimated Clinton's margins in states like California and overestimated them in swing states.Rhydic (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, some individual state polls were inaccurate, but the national polls were basically right. Clinton did get more votes. I think that's the point of the Bloomberg source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. It asserts a likelihood (not a certainty) that the result from a sample is close to the number one would get if the whole population had been queried." While it explains why individual polls were wrong, it does not explain why all the polls were wrong (except Rassmussen). The cause of the inaccuracy was not sampling error but error in methodology. As the passage says, sampling error disappears when the entire population is surveyed. But a survey of the entire population would still have resulted in Clinton winning by 4%. Why? Because the pollsters incorrectly identified the population by overstating the number of Clinton supporters who would vote and underestimating Trump's. TFD (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Russian interference section
The current section title is "Russian interference concerns". I propose changing "concerns" to "allegations", since "concerns" seems to be subtly endorsing claims about Russian interference which are currently controversial. Thoughts? Augurar (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Mathematics in Results by State
As mentioned in the article this section should be updated. As an European citizen I do not completely understand how American democracy works. I would at least exspect that the counted votes in an election are accurate. The sum of votes is not correct: In the list for US total wikipedia gives the count 136,669,237, but when I add the single states with Excel (Maine and Nebraska in mind) I come to 136,359,313. There are differences of some 100.000 votes for the candidates. Mysterious! And I can not find better figures in other sources. Strange. Armin D. A. (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Armin, if you transpose the "Results by State" section into an Excel spreadsheet, you need to remove the extra rows for the separate districts in Maine and Nebraska (because there's another row for each state in there that combines the districts into a state total). If you do that, then column "W" will total 136,669,237. 162.119.240.103 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Well its too late to discuss these elections any more. But trying to find my mistake, I found it: I had dropped double dates from Maine and Nebraska correctly, but missed some figures by transposing American format Excel to Eurpean format Excel - my mistake. Thanks anyway. --Armin D. A. (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I may be already autoconfirmed, Because of a red link image, i'll replace the red link image with the image from Donald Trump's page because the red link in question is Donald Trump's image. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I have replaced it with the picture that had been in place all along the campaign season; that's better than an anachronistic picture taken in 2017. — JFGtalk20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please consider adding extra "–" to indicate "no result available" to the rows missing them? A global replace of "||||" with "||–||" might do the trick.
This would help me and other data scrapers to extract data more quickly and easily.
An example is shown below in the "=== Results by state ===" section:
old:
| align=left|[[United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016|Alabama]] || WTA ||729,547||34.36%||–||1,318,255||62.08%||9||44,467||2.09%||–||9,391||0.44%||–||||||–|| 21,712 ||1.02%||–||588,708||27.72%||2,123,372||AL||Official<ref>{{cite web|title=State of Alabama: Canvass of Results|url=http://www.alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/2016/general/2016-Official-General-Election-Results-Certified-2016-11-29.pdf|date=November 29, 2016|accessdate=December 1, 2016}}</ref>
new:
| align=left|[[United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016|Alabama]] || WTA ||729,547||34.36%||–||1,318,255||62.08%||9||44,467||2.09%||–||9,391||0.44%||–||–||–||–|| 21,712 ||1.02%||–||588,708||27.72%||2,123,372||AL||Official<ref>{{cite web|title=State of Alabama: Canvass of Results|url=http://www.alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/2016/general/2016-Official-General-Election-Results-Certified-2016-11-29.pdf|date=November 29, 2016|accessdate=December 1, 2016}}</ref>
Below is a list of rows in the results by state section that would benefit from the "||||" to "||–||" replacement, as a normal row should have 25 elements:
# row: 3 row header: Alabama data elements: 23
# row: 4 row header: Alaska data elements: 23
# row: 11 row header: District of Columbia data elements: 23
# row: 12 row header: Florida data elements: 23
# row: 14 row header: Hawaii data elements: 23
# row: 17 row header: Indiana data elements: 23
# row: 23 row header: Maine, 1st data elements: 24
# row: 24 row header: Maine, 2nd data elements: 24
# row: 29 row header: Mississippi data elements: 23
# row: 32 row header: Nebraska (at-lg) data elements: 23
# row: 33 row header: Nebraska, 1st data elements: 23
# row: 34 row header: Nebraska, 2nd data elements: 23
# row: 35 row header: Nebraska, 3rd data elements: 23
# row: 36 row header: Nevada data elements: 21
# row: 38 row header: New Jersey data elements: 23
# row: 41 row header: North Carolina data elements: 23
# row: 42 row header: North Dakota data elements: 23
# row: 44 row header: Oklahoma data elements: 21
# row: 45 row header: Oregon data elements: 23
# row: 49 row header: South Dakota data elements: 21
# row: 55 row header: Washington data elements: 23
Done I've made the change to the Results by state section as this is a not-particularly-unreasonable request. Izno (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Not the "oldest [President] at inauguration"
Ronald Reagan was 73 at his second inauguration. Should be edited to reflect Trump was the oldest at FIRST inauguration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.240.232 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely object and have removed. It's a distortion of the Politico report and false equivalency, to start. The Politico article specifically says that there is no equivalency to Russian's interference ("There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine"). At most, Ukraine "appear[ed to strain diplomatic protocol." The author of the piece has specifically taken issue with efforts to muddy the waters: "Politico reporter debunks right-wing attempts to use his article for Ukrainian collusion narrative").
It's also dramatically undue weight, based on a single Politico article from January, with no evidence that anything came of it. And "Lifezette" is not a reliable source. Neutralitytalk21:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)'
Okay, I will work on it. I'll look for more acceptable reliable sources to support edits then. How many citations are needed to break thru the undue weight, based on a single Politico article from January? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The number of sources is less important than their depth, their significance, etc. Here, I can see no plausible way that this would be due weight on this broad article. Note that the Russian interference in the elections — which has dominated Trump's president and led to a very rare special counsel appointment — has just three paragraphs in this article.
Article content and citations have been revised... please change nothing in article to 6.6 Ukrainian involvement, following 6.5 Russian Involvement. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a note. I request that I be pinged if there is any RfC or other dispute resolution (not ordinary discussion) regarding how we address the Comey letter's role in the 2016 election. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"...60.2 percent of the voting-eligible population, cast a ballot in November’s elections, according to data compiled by the U.S. Elections Project. That compares with 58.6 percent of eligible voters who turned out in 2012, but it’s below the 62.2 percent who turned out to help elect Obama for the first time in 2008."
Wikipedia says 54.7%, 54.9%, 58.2% instead of 60.2%, 58.6%, 62.2%. Why is there a difference?
Today I restored the campaign-time consensus portrait of Donald Trump,[12] but Jean-Jacques Georges reverted.[13] During the campaign and until a few weeks after the election, there was a stable consensus to use the 2015 picture of Trump. This consensus is documented in the talk page headers, for portraits of Trump, Clinton and Johnson. We shouldn't replace this campaign picture by an anachronistic presidency picture taken in 2017. Comments welcome. — JFGtalk14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I don't feel there is a "consensus" about this portrait or that there has ever been one : on the contrary. People were just tired of the discussions and wanted to wait for the official portrait. As we all know, the official portrait can not, for now, be on commons because of that copyright debacle (as a reminder, before it had to be deleted, this page used Trump's official portrait which was no less "anachronistic" than the current one and nobody seemed to have issues with it). The fact that we cannot use the official portrait for now is not a reason to put back an inadequate picture. We have this picture on commons, which was also taken before the election, and many other pictures where he at least does not make a "grumpy" face.
Now what we had with the 2015 photo was a page with Clinton smiling and Trump looking like a goof (and/or a comic book villain) : the effect was simply a "good guy vs bad guy" image. IMHO we should at least try to have a page that look a bit neutral, whether we like Trump or not (and I don't like him at all). The portrait is not that "anachronistic" (not less than the 2015 image which was taken well before the actual election), it is Trump's current "stable" portrait as long as his official photo does not become public domain, he faces the camera and he has a relatively neutral expression. I don't want to participate further in that discussion, nor do I want to start a war. I just think we should have a neutral image, and the version before JFG's edit was just fine. That's all. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Badass presidents don't smile.
Jean-Jacques, I understand where you're coming from and it can feel frustrating. However, all these debates about Trump's supposed "goofiness" are water under the bridge now. Fact is, there was a widely-seen campaign picture which was "the face of Trump" for about a year on wikipedia. Our articles about the 2016 campaign must preserve this and we should not re-litigate whether that picture was better or worse than others. PS: As demonstrated by FDR: badass presidents don't smile. — JFGtalk14:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't care about him smiling or not (he doesn't on his "badass" official portrait which, IMHO, makes him look even worse), I just think we should have a neutral iconography in which he would look at least a little bit dignified. Water under the bridge or not, the "Grumpy and goofy Trump vs smiling Hillary" is more detrimental to Wikipedia's credibility than to Trump's image. It just makes us look like a bunch of Clinton supporters. Not that I have issues with anyone being anti-Trump, but it's just not very "NPOV". Now I don't want to argue indefinitely on that matter, which I will happily leave to other users : I just deplore that we should go back to the previous situation because the Trump administration can't handle image licenses correctly. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That was a deplorable way to handle picture licensing, indeed! For the rest, let's wait for input from other editors. I shall note that several commenters had noted that the 2015 campaign picture actually gave him a rather positive, attentive and serious image, whereas Clinton's smile looked artificial and aggressive. I suppose æsthetics are in the politics of the beholder. — JFGtalk21:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Probably, yes. Still, I think that the "grumpy" picture (especially when juxtaposed with Clinton's "happy" picture) did not only make Trump look stupid : IMHO - and more importantly - it made us look stupid, as it gave the impression that we were striving to make him look like the villain of the piece. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Seeing no further comments after two weeks, I restored the campaign-time portrait, per prior consensus documented in talk page header. — JFGtalk15:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:Jean-Jacques Georges that the picture does make us look stupid, I would prefer changing the picture of Clinton as well as the one of Trump to make it look neutral. Also, it should be worth pointing out that there is no consistency as to which photos are used on presidential election articles, for example, although the 1988 election article uses a pre-presidency portrait of Bush Sr, the photo of his son as used in the 2000 election article is in fact dated January 2001, and is the same image as used in Texas gubernatorial election, 1998 (Texas gubernatorial election, 1994 uses a different picture also dated 2001). and the same image of Bill Clinton (dated 1993) are used on both the 1992 and 1996 election articles, therefore, the above argument that the image is anachronistic is weak and completely misses the point. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever any consensus about the campaign-time picture : back then, it was just kept precisely because there was no consensus about which picture we should use~here (and probably because many wikipedians don't like Trump - I don't blame anyone for that, actually). IMHO we whould go back to the current Trump "portrait" portrait. We coould also change the Clinton portrait like CHAMPION suggests. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
There was a very clear and hotly-debated consensus. This picture "won" against dozens of others that were submitted repeatedly all along the campaign season. Same debates happened with the Clinton picture, athough with less acrimony. The concluding consensus – reached on 12 December 2016 with the close of the last RfC on the issue – was properly documented at the top of this page, in a section that is now collapsed but should still be valid unless we can prove by RfC that consensus has changed. I'm open to starting a new RfC over anachronism, but in the meantime the campaign-season picture must stay. — JFGtalk06:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The picture only "won" because everybody was exhausted by weeks - if not months - of debate. That was a distaster IMHO, as Wikipedia seemed to scream "He's the bad guy, don't vote for him !". So much for NPOV (even though I may not disagree on a personal level)... As we all know, alas, it did not work. Back then, it made us look stupid, now it looks like we're keeping it out of spite. I don't see any valid reason why the campaign-season picture should stay : some time has passed, we now have better images and, as Champion demonstrated above, the "anachronism" argument is weak. If other users think that Clinton's "grin" poses a problem, we may also change her photo to one were she has a more neutral expression. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion or mine on the picture don't matter. (For the record, I don't particularly like it either.) My point is that in addition to the anachronism, we need a new widely-advertised RfC is we want to overturn a prior widely-advertised RfC which was closed by an uninvolved experienced editor according to process. — JFGtalk10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks! As I do not think upholding prior consensus is a "problem", and having spent enough energy on those debates, I'll leave it to others to take action if they wish to. — JFGtalk17:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request
In the lede, the article quotes Trump as tweeting:
"The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?"
This tweet contains a grammatical error. A corrected version would be
"The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax; when will this taxpayer-funded charade end?"
No mention of Clinton's health issues, but links to an entire article on Trump's Billy Bush tape?
For a bit of quick evidence of relevance, the most viewed videos on Trump's Bush tape on Youtube have 2.2 million and 3 million views (from an independent uploader and Late Night with Seth Meyers), while the videos analyzing Hillary's health by independent uploader Dr. Ted Noel and Paul Joseph Watson have 4.6 and 5.9 million views collectively. TWICE as many. Which isn't even counting the footage of her being unconscious and carried at the 9/11 Memorial, which received multiple explanations from her campaign including the heat and pneumonia. Nonetheless, the words "health," "collapse," "faint," and "pneumonia," appear NOWHERE in this article. Not once. There's no mention of it then explanation of why it wasn't an issue. It *conceals* it, as though it *never even happened*. And I repeat, by objective numbers, this received *twice* the actual views from the public that Trump's Access Hollywood tape did. This is not currently an honest account of the issues surrounding the 2016 Election. At the very least, include both or neither. 173.2.64.195 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
YouTube views are not meaningful. YouTube videos made by independent uploaders to state their views are not reliable sources WP:RS. Also, Snopes has rated this false [14]. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton collapsing in an unconscious state on video is a documented, factual event. It was discussed on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and many other mainstream media outlets as well, commented on specifically by Bill Clinton, caused Hillary Clinton to miss several days worth of campaign events, AND Clinton's campaign released supplementary medical records and held a special PR appearance specifically to address it. None of this is a matter of a "Youtube video made by an independent uploader." Those views simply verify through objective numbers that this was a visible issue to over 10 million people. Whether Snopes determined it to be Parkinson's or not, there is no mention of the collapse (unprecedented in American election history) and whatever the explanations may have been. To conceal this is to simply not honestly represent the issues that shaped this campaign. 173.2.64.195 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No one is “concealing” anything. It’s in another article. Also, I saw nothing about losing consciousness. And, YT views are meaningless. Objective3000 (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there are multiple articles (including of course Gangnam Style and Pewdiepie) that reference Youtube views as objective evidence of notability, and Youtube virality was wholly responsible for Grubergate (which is covered here on Wikipedia but to this day has 1/4th as many views as just one of the ones on Hillary's condition) and the fallout of the "Innocence of Muslims" video. But beyond that, you were given multiple examples from the mainstream media (Fox, CNN, MSNBC and more), former Presidents, the candidates campaigns, missed dates, PR appearances, the release of supplementary medical records and more that indicate just how relevant this event was to the campaign and how much it effected. Furthermore, you claimed that the information is in another article so it's not concealed. Donald Trump's Billy Bush tape is referenced on BOTH his personal campaign article here AND in this article. Clinton's collapse is referenced on her personal campaign article but completely absent here. Despite all the notability and relevance it had to the campaign by every measure. It belongs here also and so far you haven't provided a single decent reason why it shouldn't. 173.2.64.195 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
If you Google "buy youtube views", you will see four ads for buying views. Interestingly, these ads are purchased from Google and Google owns YouTube. You should avoid using words like “collapsed” and “unconscious” unless you can provide reliable sources for such words. I haven’t seen any. This is a WP:BLP, and negative exaggeration is a no-no on such articles. Objective3000 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Generally we do not comment on suspected health conditions on BLP articles. While it did receive wide spread coverage, since there was not a verifiable way to know what was going on it was left out. PackMecEng (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this exact issue is mentioned with its own section, in the article for Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign, 2016. Which is far more biography-centered than a general article on the 2016 Election. 173.2.64.195 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The data in the table is averaged from a collection of reliable sources, which includes CNN. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Creative synthesis through cherry picking
This is not an objective, neutral statement of mere facts:
Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of people who voted in the Trump states was over 75 million, whereas the number in Clinton states and DC was around 50.5 million.
Why are we now comparing number of states won? Why Is the total number of voters in aggregate a meaningful statistic? Why exactly aren't we interested in how many left handed voters voted for Trump? Who won the most states beginning with N or ending with an O? There's an infinite number of yardsticks you can invent out of whole cloth and use to make a point. It's not neutral. It's not a routine calculation. It's cherry picking and synthesis.
If the 30 vs 20 state metric is of any significance, then surely you can cite a quality source who says so, and tells us why this statistic is meaningful. Why do we analyze elections based on the 75 million who voted in the states of one candidate and the 50 million in the states won by the other? What does that mean? Tell us the name of the reputable analyst who said it, and tell us why they think it matters. If you can attribute this analysis to several different experts across a spectrum of media and points of view, then it carries significant weight. If you can't find anyone excpet highly partisan hacks in a small niche of the political punditocracy, that too speaks for itself. Cite it. Use in-text attribution.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
"California does not count"
Let me say that I think it gets beyond the scope of an encyclopedia to get too deep into the pissing contest and woulda-coulda-shoulda excuses over election results. We should do our best to only discuss serious, reputable and grounded analysis of election results by statistical and political expert researchers. Off-the-cuff sophistry and rhetorical games played by pundits and partisans should mostly be ignored. If we wish to give any attention to the Trump camp's use of California to minimize Clinton winning the popular vote, combined with the unfounded Trump claim that this margin is attributable to voter fraud (which he then goes on to blame on Mexicans, because Trump), then we need to take a broader approach. Snopes.com has a good overview, and they trace the origins of the "take California out of the total" rhetoric. This is rough, but here is a draft of what we might include in this article:
Conservative and Republican leaning media have argued that Clinton's popular vote lead is due only to her large lead in California. Snopes.com said this began with "a conservative clickbait web site", The Federalist, on December 12, 2016, and was quickly picked up at Investors Business Daily[1] and Townhall,[2] spreading the argument "If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million." Snopes said that this line of logic could be applied arbitrarily: removing New York and Massachusetts would have the same result as removing California, or to say that Trump's win "came entirely from Texas", since without it Trump would not have one. Snopes said picking and choosing one state or another to remove from the vote count "wouldn't undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can't sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn't also have significant support from multiple other states."[3] Californians and others have taken offense at the appearance of conservative dismissal of the state on various occasions, as when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ignited controversy and coined a catchphrase when he said in 2015, "California does not count" with regard to the public acceptance of same-sex marriage.[4][5][6]
California's population is larger than the total of the 22 smallest states -- nearly half the states. Of course it has a huge impact. Now, if this was about Wyoming, maybe that would be interesting. But, this factoid has just been used as grist for election conspiracists. Objective3000 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm with you. It's like saying it would have been different if we didn't count the game-winning field goal, or if we pretend the fourth quarter doesn't exist. It's even more bizarre that it's the winning candidate making excuses. It's also not a productive approach. You don't get any predictive power out of it. If a candidate's win is attributable to their support among voters over 65, then you can use estimates of how many of them will participate in the next election to forecast the outcome, or to plan strategies to appeal to voters. But you can't forecast anything about the next election by pretending Texas doesn't exist or California doesn't exist. Next election, all the states will still be there, and will still count. So it's moot.
I have no problem leaving out the fact that California assisted Clinton to receive the most popular votes because in the end the popular vote is irrelevant. The only vote that matters is the Electoral College vote and that vote she lost soundly. Also, she did not "win" the popular vote because there is nothing to "win". That is just more post-election tears by the side that lost the election. What happened was that Trump won the Electoral College vote and Clinton lost the Electoral College vote. But if you are going to have a discussion of California providing the margin of popular vote margin then you can never use Snopes.com as a Relable source. They are a partisan website that like to call itself "fact checker" and all of the so-called "factchecker" website are biased to some degree or another and Snopes is not different. Now that is my opinion and if The Federalist is going to drug the through the mud as "a conservative clickbait web site" then Snopes needs to seen as "a liberal clickbait website" that is neither more accurate or less accurate as The Federalist.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
BTW, the whole thing California thing is fully and completely relevant to this article for one reason alone. It is the first time since 1888 that someone won the popular vote for an amount less than the margin of one state's votes. It is mentionable for that reason alone. Great factoid. I know mentioning it might hurt some feelings of editors that want to impose their POV on the article but facts are facts and that fact applies to this election and this is the article to mention it in. It is similar but not as important as Clinton being the first woman nominee of a major party.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Objective3000 Absolutely, you are wrong. It is ALWAYS useful to condemn POV pushing. I'm sorry you are offended that I condemned POV pushing. Your support of POV pushing is not useful or helpful.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Factoid? It's trivia. Numerology. Just because it's the first time something happened or the only time or whatever does not make it meaningful. There are an infinite number of statistical oddities you can tease out of any large dataset like a US election. They don't represent changes in attitudes, social norms, voter desires. The first black or female or Mormon candidate, is a reflection of things happening in society. This California thing did not happen for any special reason. From the time when there were only 13 states, elections have been heavily influenced by the fact that there are very large states and very small states. This statistical anomaly is only one of many examples of what happens when states are of very different populations.
Re: Snopes. If you search the history at the WP:RS/N, Snopes has been challenged again and again and again. Re-fighting that battle is a waste of time. At some point you have to accept consensus. More broadly, if you think of the NYT, WP, CNN, (and Snopes of that matter) as part of the "liberal MSM", then you might as well as accept the fact that Wikipedia is overtly a member of the same liberal MSM club. Wikipedia's policies and numerous statements by Jimmy Wales have affirmed that in general, the sources in this category are Wikipedia's gold standard. Not infallible, but still they're what this website respects. So if your attitude is to discount the "MSM", then you might as well give up on Wikipedia. There's virtually no chance at all of peeling Wikipedia away from what are thought of as pillars of reliably here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
While Snopes is a reliable source, in this case they are expressing an opinion on the election and it fails weight. (People don't read Snopes for political analysis.) Clinton's victory in California where there were few viable Republican candidates would undoubtedly been lower in a nation-wide vote for president, and would have been lower in Massachusetts and New York too. But Trump's margin in Texas would have been the same because it was one of the states the Democrats targeted. And of course both campaigns would have acted differently. Trump probably would have won the popular vote. In any case you need a pretty good source to argue the point, like journal articles by political scientists. TFD (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
On September 7, 2017, New Hampshire state House speaker Shawn Jasper announced that data showed that 6,540 people voted using out-of-state licenses. Of those, only 15% had received state licenses by August 2017. Of the remaining 5,526, only 3.3% had registered a motor vehicle in New Hampshire. In addition to the close vote for president, Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan defeated incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte by 1,017 votes. In Feburary 2017, President Trump had told a gathering of senators at the White House that fraudulent out-of-state voting had cost him and Ayotte the election in New Hampshire.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
When your only source is the Washington Times, you can't help but write a totally one-sided and sensationalist bit of propaganda. Over at The Union Leader there is some actual journalism that quotes others who dispute The Washington Times's Trump-parroting interpretation of the data. The worst howler from Scarborough at the WT is the incorrect claim that Jasper issued "findings" of any kind. Though Democrats said they question Jasper's motives, he stopped short of the kind of wild accusations that the Trump made, and that the Scarborough is pushing. See The Associated Press. Scarborough wrote that "the liberal media dismissed his allegations", and tries to bolster the claims tossing around the names of the Department of State and Department of Safety, while failing to mention that the heads of those to agencies did not think there was evidence of voter fraud or reason to investigate a crime.
It is entirely plausible that there are more than 6,000 out of state students residing in NH who voted with an out of state license, most of whom subsequently never registered a car (because they don't have a car, because they're students, obs) or failed to comply with the NH requirement to get a NH license within 60 days, because students are lazy. And probably haven't bothered to learn the finer points of New Hampshire driver's license bureaucracy (since they don't have car anyway), or if they do know, they don't care. For those unfamiliar with how this works in the USA, nobody goes and hangs out at the DMV unless they have no choice. It's considered one of the worst ways to waste hours of your time and do battle with stubborn bureaucrats. No college student would do this (even if they had the time) unless they really had to. No state is going to waste police resources trying to track down out of state residents who didn't update their license, so the rule is obviously not enforced. Quote: "It is likely that some unknown number of these individuals moved out of New Hampshire, it is possible that few may have never driven in New Hampshire or have ceased driving, however it is expected that an unknown number of the remainder continue to live and drive in New Hampshire," wrote Safety Commissioner John Barthelmes and Secretary of State Bill Gardner.[19]
The paranoid Trump/Pence/Scarbourgh interpretation that 6,000 illegal voters descended on New Hampshire is not impossible, but there are far simpler explanations that fit the facts and Jasper has failed to convince anyone outside the Washington Times that any voter fraud actually took place. What this amounts to is the same voter fraud allegations that Trump has been making all along and no law enforcement or Secretaries of State/Elections offices have found these allegations credible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't have to do OR. The Washington post has already debunked this. Given that, I think that even mentioning it on 4 different pages is UNDUE. It doesn't belong on this page, for instance. Homunq (࿓) 00:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not debunking the data, that's the WP saying 5,000 suspect cases are not yet determined, in strongly negative form. And whether it belongs is a matter of WP:WEIGHT of prominence, nothing to do with true or not. Markbassett (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It's debunking the claims. There is no evidence of wrong doing here. It’s just another invented claim of voter fraud. And the editor that keeps adding it to multiple pages is using the pejorative SJWs in edit summaries, as well as Amazon/WaPo. Objective3000 (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Election results by state table
The columns in the election results by state table should be reordered to put Donald Trump first since he won. Previous elections put the winner first, even in the 2000 election when Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. 70.94.36.72 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
These tables are normally arranged from largest number of votes to smallest. Otherwise you have a dual-standard: winner first, followed by all the other candidates arranged by vote total. The table in the 2000 election article is the one that needs to be fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. I don't think the placing of candidates would confuse readers into thinking that Clinton won the election. TFD (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Intelligence communities.
According to the article, "On January 6, 2017, the United States government's intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."
This is not correct. Only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies signed off on the intel report (CIA, FBI, NSA, DNI) alleging Russia interfered (in some way), not all of them as implied in the article. The New York Times and the AP have both released corrections.
Number of states won by Trump and Clinton, and number of voters in them
Yesterday I added "Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of people who voted in the Trump states was over 75 million, whereas the number in Clinton states and DC was around 50.5 million."
This was deleted by User:Dennis Bratland who commented that it was unsourced and irrelevant. I claim that we don't need a source for a fact that can be verified simply by counting or adding. I redid the edit, saying that it is relevant because it shows that the electoral college gave a result in which most voters (in fact 60% of them) live in states that were won by Trump. Dennis then reverted again, with the comment, "this is absoultuely origional research and POV pushing. You must use in-text attribution and a citation to a recognized expert."
Needless to say, I don't agree. I'm not pushing a point of view. I did not vote for Trump. (I did vote.) It's silly to call a simple counting of states "original research". Adding up 21 numbers and 30 other numbers is also not original research. I think my edit presents two interesting facts, and I don't see why we should deprive people (like me) who came to this article to know these numbers. I didn't find what I wanted, so I did the addtion and the counting, and added it.
Firstly it is indeed irrelevant how many people actually voted in respectively “Trump states” or “Clinton states”, because it doesn’t say anything about how they voted. And secondly it is possibly somewhat misleading because it might give the impression (or it could be so construed) that Trump actual had 75 million votes compared to Clinton’s 50 million, whereas the popular vote result was quite the opposite. Thirdly, in your statement you yourself are admitting that your edit is in fact original research… fourtly: counting and adding is a dangerous game when relying on only the major candidates: there were many other candidates as well, and their results are not always correctly depicted. Given these four points, I think the edit was undone validly. -- fdewaele, 8 September 2017, 11:29 CET.
I agree that counting and adding is a dangerous game. Please review the claims of turnout in the article. Most of the claims are not supported by a reliable source. They are just the counting and adding of some editors of Wikipedia. I added the turnout number from Professor Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, who is the leading expert on U.S. election turnout. I added that information to give the reader a real source for turnout other than what is in the article right now, the counting, adding and subtracting of some rank amateur Wikipedia editors.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
You need to show that this observation has already been made in order to establish weight. Note that electoral votes approximate the population of states, so we do not need anything more than saying Trump won more electoral votes. TFD (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Fdewaele, the electoral college system was devised in such a way that the winner would have the support of the majority of states, but weighted more or less by their population. In other words, it's not how many states that counts, but how many electors, which is based on population. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in that way. So it's an interesting and relevant fact that, indeed, 60% of the voters were in states that voted for the winner, as the Founding Fathers would have it. It also just so happens that exactly 60% of the states voted for the winner (30 out of 50). I don't see why you folks make such a big deal out of adding a simple, easily verified, fact. Are you even against saying that 60% of the states voted for Trump? That also involves what you would call "original research", namely counting the states! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
If no reliable sources have mentioned this fact, in such a widely covered election, then it is probably a safe bet that it is not relevant to the article. Yes, there are sometimes cases where WP:BLUE applies, and we include "obvious" facts that aren't explicitly mentioned anywhere else, but I don't think this is such a case. — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. If this not one reputable expert -- not one -- ever thought of this mere "counting the states" until one day the thought popped into the head of a Wikipedia editor, then merely counting the states -- in this particular way -- is very much a new and original idea. Or it's an old and well-known idea that has been rejected. The more reasons you give for it's importance, relevance, significant, the more it begs the question why it isn't stated by political scientists, or at least partisan pundits. The need for a citation isn't because we need a citation to prove the math is wright. We need a citation to show that it is considered a meaningful fact which deserves to be highlighted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The image showing the swing between 2012 and 2016 should be changed, the image shows Utah moving towards the Democrats with a blue arrow, the arrow should be changed to a grey arrow, as the state moved towards McMullin not Clinton.
I've been talking about this issue for some time. Images like this one are not objective data. They are analysis of the underlying data that expresses the point of view of the author. That violates the WP:NOR policy. We should stick to graphics with a lot less pizazz, that give an unvarnished view of the data with no filters, such as seeing a three way election as only a two-way race between D and R. That might be a defensible way of looking at the election data, but "way of looking at it" is another term for "point of view". Analysis like this should be attributed in-text to expert sources. If we can't find a single reliable source who created this type of analysis of the swing of the states, with the same choices of which data to suppress in the name of simplicity, then it is original research, which doesn't belong in an article. If a source exists who did such an analysis, then we simply need to name them and attribute the point of view to that expert. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump past occupation too vague in top section
Here's the quote from the page I'm referring to:
"In a surprise victory, the Republican ticket of businessman Donald Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence defeated the Democratic ticket of former First Lady, U.S. Senator of New York and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Senator from Virginia Tim Kaine"
I was just thinking that the in the top section, perhaps it should be more specific of Trump's past occupations. It lists 3 occupations for Clinton (FLOTUS, Senator, Secretary of State), which are all notable, but only one for Trump (Businessman). I feel like referring to Trump as businessman is like referring to Clinton simply as a politician: both candidates' descriptions could be condensed that way, but it seems a bit vague. I'd suggest replacing businessman with real estate developer and either reality television producer or reality television star, since these are the two jobs considered notable enough to put in the infobox on the Donald Trump page. Perhaps "businessman" was chosen because he's had a variety of different business endeavors and the two suggestions I brought up could both be considered business, but his stint on The Apprentice and in real estate seem to me to stand out as more notable than the rest.
Rather reduce Clinton's occupations to her latest and most senior position, i.e. "Former Secretary of State". For Trump, we could say "real estate magnate" to be more accurate than just "businessman". — JFGtalk09:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Or you could say "reality tv personality" -- what's your source that he has recently been described as a "real estate magnate"? BTW I see no consensus for removing Clinton's other roles from the lede. "Per talk" is more like "per one person's view 5 minutes ago on talk." SPECIFICOtalk13:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Some additional facts/tidbits
Some facts that are perhaps, or perhaps not, worth including
This was the first election since 1944 that a New Yorker appeared on the Democratic ticket.
This was the first election since 1948 that a New York was the Republican presidential nominee (and the first since 1996 that a New Yorker appeared on the Republican ticket at all).
This was the first election since 1992 that someone from Indiana appeared on a major party ticket.
This was the first election since 1840 where someone from Virginia appeared on a major party ticket.
For quite a while I have been tagging factoids, firsts, and superlatives of this type as original research if the only sources are the raw election data. It’s a violation of the undue weight sections of the neutrality policy for an editor to choose these observations on their own. It’s also a case of misusing primary sources; analysis should come from a secondary source. If we can’t cite a good source for each of these conclusions, then it isn’t significant or meaningful enough to include in any article. But your notes here are a good starting point for analysis section. We just need citations for experts or analysts who say this or that factoid matters and then we can use it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
BTW, is Geraldine Ferraro not a New Yorker? Do you mean the top of the ticket? I think the way we have to torture the definition of these superlative categories is one reason why they are not taken seriously by respected political scientists. It is an overfitting error. You find yourself saying "first left handed New Yorker (born and raised New York City proper) born on a Thursday who likes broccoli to be nominated by... etc". It's much like WP:POPCULTURE. A name getting dropped on a TV show isn't usually good reason to include it in an article, as the essay says: "passing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You would need to show that reliable sources find this important. That candidates were the first African American, Catholic, woman, deep southerner since Reconstruction etc. is frequently mentioned but only because these were considered disqualifications. That in the last forty-five elections one of the 50 states (Virginia) has provided two candidates is not statistically unusual. TFD (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I am reverting images of both Trump and Clinton to those used in this version almost a year ago. We always use relevant pictures from the time in question, not the most recent. — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
As documented at the top of this talk page, there was long-standing consensus for this article to keep pictures of candidates that were chosen at campaign time (again, by painstaking consensus). Accordingly, I have reverted to Amakuru's version. Images will never please everybody. — JFGtalk22:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
No, that contradicts every election page prior to this. The photos from their campaign would be garbage and of incredibly low quality compared to the high res, official ones we do have. The consensus is incredibly outdated as it was over a year ago where no official portrait of Trump existed and people thought having one of Clinton and not Trump would look bad. Why do people want to keep replacing actual portraits for trash, I will never understand this website. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@70.44.154.16: Please remember to be WP:CIVIL when participating in discussions, as per WP:CCC, we should propose changes to existing consensus through discussion, and making uncivil comments will not get the discussion anywhere. As much as I don't like the photos and agree that the consensus is well out of date, I also respect civility and avoid personal attacks. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The pictures are fine. They're not particularly low quality, and most importantly they date from the time of the event in question, and were agreed as mentioned in the prior consensus. Constantly updating Trump's picture to whatever the latest one is will mean he looks nothing like his 2016 self by the time 2026 comes along or whatever. — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The Trump photo we now have is from 2015 an entire year prior to the general election. We constantly updated his photo because we never had an official portrait, we always use official portraits for Presidents and now that we actually have one why would we not be using it. The portrait isn't from 2026 its only 11 months after the election, he doesn't look completely different now then he did last year. Clinton is another story I suppose, since her latest portrait is from 2009, I guess you can keep her photo the way it is but Trump's photo should be changed to the official. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Given the ongoing edit-warring, I have reverted to the longstanding election-time pictures, which are supported by a well-documented consensus. I encourage edit-warring editors such as Richelieu94 to come to the talk page and try to obtain a new consensus before replacing them again. Yes, consensus can change, but nobody has demonstrated that it has actually changed yet. — JFGtalk18:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The picture of Donald Trump that is on the page now depicts him frowning and in an unfavorable light. The picture of him and Secretary Clinton are not equal. One portrays him in a negative light frowning while the other portrays Clinton smiling. Wikipedia should not even have the appearance of being biased, and it is guaranteed that I am not the only one that feels this way. Also, every other US recent presidential election has the official presidential photograph of the winner, so why is the precedent being changed so that some liberal editors can portray a bad photograph of Trump? Either depict a frowning photograph of Clinton next to the frowning photograph of Trump or portray both as smiling instead of only using a negative photograph of President Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillsberrydoo7 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, apparently there is not a consensus like JFG would like to believe. Out of the six users who commented, four want the pictures changes to the official portrait. Also, in the following two sections, another four users commented believing that the old photos are inaccurate. That means that ten out of the fourteen users who commented want the pictures changed to the official ones. Pillsberrydoo7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Bias has been argued both ways in the numerous debates about pictures of candidates: some people find Trump frowning, some others find him attentive; some people find Clinton creepy, some others find her friendly. Choosing a picture based on political preferences of editors, or even on their taste, will never result in consensus. The fact is that the election-time pictures for both candidates were the result of picking a "least offensive" picture on both sides, and that those choices have been stable for a full year and a half. I understand why some editors would want to switch to official portraits, but I still personally see this as anachronistic. In any case, editors wishing to overturn the earlier consensus would need to open a well-advertised RfC. A few local comments, including several IP passers-by, do not demonstrate a change of community consensus strongly enough. — JFGtalk22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I definitely agree that we should change Trump's picture. The current one makes Wikipedia look ridiculously biased. Now that we can use Trump's official portrait, it should put it in the infobox. Using Clinton's official portrait might also be a good idea as 1) she hasn't really changed 2) she definitely looks better. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Clinton's official portrait dates from 2009, seven years before the election. That's just ridiculous. And Trump isn't frowning, it's more like a slight eyebrow raised knowing smile look. As JFG says, this issue was discussed to death at the time, and with a lot more participation, and these were the two decided upon. I don't know whether they were the best available or not, I wasn't involved in the discussion, but if they are to be replaced it must be with contemporary pictures, and the process must respect the previous lengthy debate. — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Why should we "respect" forever a debate which took place before we had a suitable official portrait ? The situation has changed, and we must take that into account. If we need another RFC, well, let's make one. We can afford that, since the current picture just makes Wikipedia look silly.
As for Clinton, I don't have a definitive opinion but, as I said above, she hasn't changed. Also, there's nothing inherently "ridiculous" in using a 2009 photo. For the 1944 election we're using a 1948 picture for Dewey, for the 1968 one we're using a 1965 picture for Humphrey, in the page about the 1916 election Wilson's picture was taken in 1919 and Hughes' in 1908, and this page uses a 1993 photo for Clinton, a 1989 photo for Bush and a 1986 photo for Perot. IMHO none of these articles are ridiculous, while the 2016 is. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the bias? Maybe she's a smiler and he's a scowler ? The whale article doesn't show one that looks like a kangaroo. SPECIFICOtalk22:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment – No one is ever going to be happy with the pictures we choose. Personally, I think we need a photo of Trump sometime between June 2015 and November 8, 2017 and the same for Hillary. There will be arguments that Trump has a creepy smile so we need to find a neutral photo – not frowning, but not smiling – and possibly the same for Hillary. For the United States presidential election, 2008 article, they used the transition portrait for Obama and McCain's official Senate portrait. We should be doing the same for Trump (except not the transition portrait because it's copyrighted). Hillary's 2009 SOS portrait is too outdated and does not reflect the criminal her well. CorkyBuzz by the Hornet's Nest02:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
How Long Should We Wait for the FEC's Federal Election 2016 Report RE: Voter Turnout?
Hi everyone. The FEC published a "Federal Election 2012" report in July 2013 with the "official" turnout rate: Using the official tally of votes counted for highest office, divided by the total number of voting-age population in the United States. Back in March 2017, the FEC published the "Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results" with the tally of votes counted for highest office, 136,669,237, (which is used as numerator in the calculation to determine turnout rate) but didn't tabulate the turnout. In May 2017, the US Census Bureau published their estimate of what was used as the denominator in calculating the 2012 turnout: "U.S. Census Bureau Voting Age Population (Current Population Survey for November 2016)": 245,502,000.
My question is, if we already know the numerator & denominator for the turnout, why can't we publish 136,669,237÷245,502,000= 55.669297? (in other words, a turnout rate of 55.7%?) Thanks.Happysomeone (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need to have a lengthy discussion over this? Everyone complained about Trump's photo during the primaries. Now that there is an official photo, use it. The unofficial "official" photo was used with no problems until it got taken down, so why do we need to debate this? Common sense people! Sheesh! TL565 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
— JFG talk 15:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane talk 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the notice. — JFG talk 22:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Done no opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done Large template is standard practice for fully protected pages. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
TFD Well said! - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 02:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
