Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Map

Everything on the map is correct, except AZ, which hasn't yet been called by NY Times or CNN. Nojus R (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted, but this unfortunately also undoes NV. Hopefully somebody fixes it. Admanny (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Who keeps changing it back? I thought protecting the page would stop edit warring. Nojus R (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're talking about arizona, just a few people who don't know we need full media consensus for it to appear here. Admanny (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Does "full media consensus" mean unanimity from all outlets? That's a pretty extreme standard that I don't think has been used before. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Also @Nojus R: The map has been fixed. Admanny (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nojus R: extended confirmed protecting the page only stops people removing or replacing which image is used here. It doesn't affect the image Commons:File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg. AFAICT, the image is not and has never been protected [1]. Even if the image was hosted on en.wikipedia, it would make no difference since I'm fairly sure WP:cascade protection is disabled for extended confirmed like it is for semi protection. The only thing is its protection would depend only on our policies. However I don't know if anyone has even asked for the image to be protected on commons. But frankly, I'm unconvinced the image needs protection. Yes there have been some premature changes but the number is small, something which should be handled via normal reversion and discussion. 07:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Georgia has already been called to President-elect Joe Biden can we color it blye KILLERXR (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

-Change Biden's 290 electoral votes to 306. Factshack (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done please see above discussion and feel free to contribute there Admanny (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Map issues

Another user and I are unable to make updates to the map for some reason, possibly a glitch. If this doesn't resolve itself by the time Georgia is ready to be updated, should we just switch to the original map and make the update there? Prcc27 (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Georgia is the last state to be called; there has been a full map already there before but was reverted a couple times if i recall correctly. Simply revert to one of those and call it done. Admanny (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Admanny: It won't even let me revert to that version.. Are you able to revert the map when the time comes? I'm unable to on my end.. Prcc27 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok my bad. I reverted it once before but the image got protection afterwards; we'll need to let someone else edit it unfortunately. Apologies Admanny (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Was it protected? I don't see any note saying that that is the case.. Prcc27 (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27 and Admanny: It is protected as noted in the history because of edit warring. Here is the protection log for the electoral map. The user who protected it is involved on this talk page if you would like to discuss it with them. From what I see, It looks like you will need to ask an administrator to make an edit when needed or to ask for the restriction to be lifted. However, I do not see the likelihood given that four editors made six separate edits in a two hour period with three different reverts. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Admanny (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for letting us know. It's a bummer that it was protected. But given the edit wars, I understand why it was done. Prcc27 (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is Georgia not coloured in?

SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

see above discussion Admanny (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Because Fox, NPR, and PBS have not called it yet. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• @AntiCompositeNumber: Why are you leaving out AP, USA today, WSJ, the guardian, and the LA Times? The consensus was to include those sources.. Prcc27 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• @AntiCompositeNumber: CNN also just called GA for Biden. I think it is safe to say that Georgia should be colored in. Fluffy89502 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No. The consensus is to wait until all major media outlets call it. Prcc27 (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27: From what I got, the map only needs a call for the same candidate by ABC News, CNN, Fox News, New York Times, NPR (AP), Politico, and Reuters. (An edit to the summary of that file also has added PBS, though I believe they are also the AP.) I believe we are waiting to see when Georgia is called by Fox News and NPR (AP), along with who they call it for. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus from the major news networks is that Georgia is called for Biden? CNN, MSNBC, ABC, AP, USA Toda, WSJ, The Guardian, LA Times...yeah its time.SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I request that you see my reply above for more info, but the map requires eight specific sources per consensus. Of those, three have not called Georgia for either candidate. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wording at "Trump's refusal to concede"

We currently have this wording:

"On Election Night, with vote counts still going on in many states, ["and Trump behind in the counting"], Trump claimed that he had won."

IIRC, it would be accurate to interject "and Trump behind in the counting", because they are important in that context. Is that correct? Do we have RS to justify adding those words? -- Valjean (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Trump was ahead in most states that were uncalled at that time, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, so it wouldn’t be accurate. Maybe instead we could say “and a number of states still uncalled”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.218.48 (talk • contribs)

On Election Night, Trump was ahead in the counting. Biden was first ahead in the counting of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona around the 5th or 6th. (Wisconsin and Michigan was late on the 4th or early on the 5th, I believe.) Either way, the only problem I see with the sentence is that Trump didn't claim that he won until about 3:30 in the morning on the 4th. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Harris firsts

I think Harris being the first black person, Asian person, and woman to be elected vice president is more significant that being the first black person, Asian person, and third woman to be nominated for vice president. It would be good if we could replace this info, and maybe move the current info to a new section about demographics or otherwise, along with other facts and trivia. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be noted in the lead, although I wonder if maybe it should wait until the electoral college votes on Dec. 14 and her election is made official. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Certifications of results are now trickling in

States have begun certifying their results. We can remove the "projected winner" language in these cases, and probably generally, as we are no longer at the stage where estimations are being made based on partial vote counts. BD2412 T 19:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This is probably not a RS, but it's interesting: How and when are election results finalized? (2020) As of November 13, 2020: Election result certification dates had passed in eight states. Election result certification dates had not passed in 42 states. -- Valjean (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the "projected" language should remain until the electoral college votes on Dec. 14. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020 (2)

Change georgia to blue Goldenreeper5756 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, but feel free to input in the above discussion. we have a consensus that all major sources must call a race before it can appear here, and currently we're missing a few. Admanny (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020 (3)

Alleged fraud, and pending result of election there will be a concession.... 2600:8800:2284:2800:7868:E997:B4ED:C7A5 (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear what changes you are requesting in the article. The lead already mentions "unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to delegitimize the election". What you are saying about a concession sounds predictive and counter to WP:CRYSTAL.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

reporting defeat before electoral college vote

This seems premature, why is this being done? Isn't there actually no defeat until the college votes in 30 days? WakandaQT (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• @WakandaQT: This is already being discussed here Prcc27 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

As noted numerous times above, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. Almost all reliable sources- which can do math just like anyone else- are reporting who they believe will win. If you disagree with the sources, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In respect to whether a source is classified as reliable or unreliable, should we take into account whether they reliably predicted the outcome of the preceding election? If they reliably predicted the outcome of the Russia investigation? Is there an organized process for assigning some kind of numerical ranking representing reliability, and have it change over time? WakandaQT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

More generally, WP:RSP chronicles the reliability of sources, including a few we are using for predictions. More specifically, we are using a number of sources that have a strong reputation for accurate reporting of results. To my knowledge these are: CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, ABC, PBS, Politico and USA Today. In order for a state to be coloured in, these organisations have to unanimously agree that a candidate has won that state. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, if you have a serious complaint on a specific source or sources, consider reviewing WP:RSPIMPROVE. Given the quality of the sources listed in this thread, I would recommend at a minimum to considered the issue for a number of days, checking other discussion at WP:RSPSOURCES to see how a source was marked as unreliable or blacklisted, gathering any supposed sources or articles that you believe proves that they are unreliable, and then reconsidering the issue for at least a week. Then, if you have decided to continue, to make a thread about a source as noted in the instructions at WP:RSPIMPROVE. To note, all of them are considered generally reliable based on discussions, outside of ABC, Fox News, and PBS; For ABC and PBS, there have not been any claims of being unreliable to my knowledge (thus, no discussion) and Fox News is explained at WP:FOXNEWS, with it being generally reliable in most topics. I hope that this helps you understand why these sources are considered reliable. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News

Question—why should Fox News even be a factor here if it's not even considered "generally reliable" per WP:FOXNEWS? There is "no consensus" with regard to its reliability on politics. To use something with no consensus on reliability for something as significant as presidential election results is perhaps unwise. I'm not saying they make up projections but I really don't think something with "no consensus" should be one of the 9 outlets that are being used to decide what gets coloured on the election map in this article. Heartfox (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News is strangely diverse in its bureaus. Fox News polling (the real stuff, not the Fox and Friends online stuff) is top notch. Their decision desk is also decent. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Decent" is good enough to be one of the 9 outlets used to determine the map here? Heartfox (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Their decision desk is top notch, of course Fox should be included. Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Top notch" is employing a cousin of a candidate in the 2000 election to call the race? I think it's insane they're being considered equivalent to any other of the 8 outlets. Whatever you say though... Heartfox (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I hate Fox News, but their decision desk is independent and very well respected. If your concern is a conservative lean, remember that they called AZ for Biden quite early and kept putting out statements reminding people that Trump did not win. It's well respected. Cpotisch (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt the legitimacy of their projections, I disagree with the consensus that Fox News's decision desk is respected enough to be included among the other 8 organizations, in which all are given equal weight when colouring a state on the map in this article. Equivalent to the NYT, AP, BBC? I mean come on... Heartfox (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it's more or less insane than referencing a situation from 20 years ago? Lazer-kitty (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

While I have issues with Fox News if the only evidence questioning the legitimacy of their decision desk is an issue that happened 20 years ago I don’t see an issue with using it as a source.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News is particularly important, since it went against their vested interests to project that Biden has won the election. Bible scholars call it the criterion of embarrassment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, and? My argument isn't about whether it can be unbiased, it's about why it is being considered one of the nine authoritative outlets for deciding what results get shown on this article's map, particularly when WP:FOXNEWS considers its reliability for politics as "no consensus", and, because all the outlets must be unanimous before a state is coloured, its projections are weighted the same as the Associated Press. This doesn't make sense. Heartfox (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, other outlets, like the New York Times and Washington Post, wrote articles attesting to the accuracy and nonpartisan nature of the Fox Decision Desk. While Fox News is biased, their decision desk isn't. I can find the sources for you if you want. Herbfur (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Their news has to be considered separately from their opinion talking heads. "Fox’s news and opinion sides often contribute to a split personality at the top-rated cable network."[2] "But the network has long maintained that its journalism operation is walled off from its conservative commentators."[3]—Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox election

Template:Infobox election calls for the usage of "ongoing" in election infoboxes. Therefore, I've restored it in this article's infobox, replacing the recent (non-consensus) change to the "college voted" parameter. See attempt was made at 2024 United States presidential election article. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would you do that..? Now the infobox says "electoral vote" instead of "projected electoral vote"! The "college_voted" parameter was specifically made for U.S. presidential elections so that we could note that the electoral vote totals are projections until the electors actually vote. Prcc27 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The word (Projected) is placed inside the infobox & which takes care of it, without using the college-voted bit, thus keeping with the Template. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused with why that's better. It's much more clean to have a Projected EV header than having useless parenthesis. Nojus R (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Could you please revert them and restore the old parameter so that the header will say "projected electoral votes"? Prcc27 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe someone else should per WP:1RR.. Prcc27 (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted back, with the understanding that "ongoing=no" parameter will be restored, after December 14. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Final note on Georgia

According to Associated press, they are highly unlikely to call the state of Georgia in favor of President-elect Biden, until the manual recount is complete. See:[4] So my fellow Wikipedians and readers, those who are scrambling to see GA blue on the map, will have to wait patiently. We expect GA to certify the result on 20 November. So, probably you have to wait another week or more for AP to declare the race. According to GA secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, we will have GA recount results within a week. So please be patient. Ppt2003 (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good moment to revisit the "use all news sources" guideline and move onto simply using a majority of news sources. Thoughts? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note CNN called Georgia for Biden at 14:10 UTC today. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495:I am really exasperated by seeing a lot of editors arguing on GA. I think someone from the upper echelon of Wikipedians should intervene in this subject.Ppt2003 (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: can you help sort this out? She’s on ArbCom. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Georgia was added to the map and infobox prematurely (again). Could someone please revert this..!? Prcc27 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the map, now someone just needs to fix the article. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added an RfC below, lets settle this argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: I would've suggested an RfC or some other structured discussion, but it looks like Knowledgekid87 already set one up. I'm certainly not going to swoop in and supervote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There actually is an RfC above among other discussions, but it is clear that there is support to have a new one because the Georgia situation is different than what was expected. Hopefully this is resolved one way or another on or by November 20th. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Mike Pompeo video states "There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration"

Hi, I just added the following video:

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo states "There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration." - video from US State Department

Which was removed. I was asked to provide reasoning for adding it. This is my reasoning: In the section that I added the video to, the line by Pompeo is quoted as text. Why not also have the actual video footage there to illustrate the text? In the video, we can hear the question asked which propmted Pompeos response, and see Pompeo shaking his head side to side (as if he doesn't believe the words he's saying himself) as he says "there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration". His body language says something different than his words -- video further illustrates the printed text when referencing a press conference. I'll also add that I'm not adding this to amplify disinformation, only to more clearly illustrate that such disinformation exists, and to more clearly show where it's coming from.

Victor Grigas (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hope ya'll realise, Pompeo was (watch the video) joking? MSM has a way of getting carried away with drama, for ratings. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep it out, for two reasons. One, it is overkill; quoting him is enough, we don't need the video. There are hundreds of more significant videos we could have included but didn't. Two, all the reporting of his comment described him as "smirking" or "grinning" when he said it. There is no reason to make a federal case out of what was almost certainly an inappropriate joke. Granted, it is true that "many a truth is spoken in jest", but I still think we should not exaggerate the importance of this offhand comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If most sources reported it as an intended joke, we should reflect it per WP:WEIGHT. However, the exisitng NPR cite does not give that impression.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep it out of this article, I think, because Wikipedia is not news. The significance of this video is unknown until events play out. If it was a bad joke, then it doesn't need to be here. If it was a comment made in earnest, it is disinformation and we have to be really careful not to spread disinformation. If we were to publish this video we would have to frame it appropriately to ensure that the reader did not come away with the wrong impressions. Thank you for suggesting this content. It is interested but I'm not sure we know how to deal with it yet. Jehochman ^Talk 16:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Mention it briefly in a "Misinformation" section, maybe?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 00:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha. I saw this on TV (Fox?) the day he said it. Really funny. Pkeets (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Central Issues Lead Paragraph

I know there's a lot happening on this page and this probably isn't near the top of the list right now, but I think the "Central issues of the election included..." paragraph in the lead is too long and overly detailed right now. IMO, the focus of the paragraph should be limited to COVID, the George Floyd protests and the Supreme Court, as those were clearly the three biggest political issues in the U.S. this year. Honestly I could see an argument that even the Supreme Court shouldn't be there considering the issue of Ginsberg's vacancy was settled by the time of the election. Thoughts? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that LGBT rights deserves a mention considering that Trump turned out to be the most transphobic president in U.S. history while Joe Biden will champion LGBT+ rights. In fact, a key underlying issue of Amy Barrett's hearing was her stance on LGBT rights. Barrett’s evasiveness alarms LGBTQ advocates--24.99.88.86 (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That stood out for me too. I trimmed it a bit, and shortened some sentences. I hate semi-colons. Bullet points in a lead? I think the Supreme Court thing should stay, as Trump was talking about defying the Constitution, and he would then have been stacking the court. After reading your thoughts, I'll tighten it up some more, but leave each concept. I love collaboration! cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If I were to take a crack at revising the paragraph it would be something like: "Central issues of the election included the public health and economic impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, protests in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd and others and the future of the Supreme Court following the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett." I definitely do not think the ACA should be mentioned, or if it is it should be a very brief mention. There were other presidential elections (namely 2012 and 2016) where the ACA was a way bigger and more relevant issue to the election. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that there are entire sections of the article devoted to the environment and health care, I'd say that the old paragraph is better at summarising the contents of the article, which is what leads are supposed to do. I support it being added back. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I take a similar position to Devonian Wombat... the relative importance of various issues in an election is a matter for scholarly debate among those people who can do original research, that is, not us. We should just try to include every issue that is plausible and only leave out completely outlandish issues; the old paragraph was good for this. Airbornemihir (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that including "every issue that is plausible" will lead to a large and unwieldy paragraph which doesn't accurately summarize the issues of the election, which is what I feel that the old paragraph is getting close to. Regarding those specific issues, you can argue that health care has been a major issue in every U.S. election for the past 15~20 years and I would argue that the ACA was a much bigger and more relevant issue in previous elections (2012 and 2016) instead of this one. I'm sure we can find relevant sources for anything under the sun, but when I think of the 2020 election, global warming and environmental issues definitely do not come to the forefront for me as issues which had a huge impact on the race or were heavily discussed. I signaled out the three issues of COVID, race riots and Supreme Court because I believe those were by far the three biggest political issues in the U.S. this year. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"The economy" is still very hot, but like "the environment" and "the government", the general public tends to assume they've heard it all before, understand the main problems well enough and can probably zone out for ten minutes while someone else rambles on about whatever, then get back to what matters most...simplicity! I, for one, Support your idea of a Big Three. Let the bank's article worry about homelessness and drought and gross honey yield! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord I see the point you've made twice about healthcare (including the ACA) being a bigger issue in 2012 and 2016, but using that as a basis for excluding healthcare would be original research. In theory you could find reliable sources to say healthcare was not a prominent issue, but I think those would be hard if not impossible to find, given that the issue was brought up in at least one of the two general election debates (I didn't watch either, only clips after the fact...). Also, while I referred to the general election debates, it's also a fact that healthcare was a big issue in the Democratic primary which is a component of this page. If we keep on excluding healthcare from the lead section, we're going to privilege some issues over others in a way that might even violate our neutral point of view policy. Let's get back to the original and make sure the lead section covers everything it needs to. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I just don't see how it is possible to write the paragraph without "privileging some issues over others." Unless I'm mistaken, that's what the point of summary is, which is what the lead is for. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to say this without unduly repeating myself, but the old paragraph had a good, neutral summary of the issues. It could be improved, just like everything else on Wikipedia, but there was no reason to remove it altogether. I'm concerned that as long as we're discussing this and holding off on restoring the old text, we're failing the neutral point of view test by leaving out healthcare in general (and the ACA in particular) as a central issue. Airbornemihir (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how the current paragraph violates WP:NPOV Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord I've been wondering how to respond to this - if I were to try to explain, I'd basically be repeating myself from my earlier comments. I suggest you give this a second look - hopefully the neutrality issue will become clearer - and in the meantime, refrain from reverting edits to this part of the article. Airbornemihir (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Airbornemihir I'm actually fine with the current sentence now, part of what I was wanting to do was cut it down/narrow it more and it looks like that's accomplished by the current sentence. I would just say I think we should cut the "which guarantees health insurance coverage to people with preexisting conditions." and instead just link to the Affordable Care Act article, since that information is in that article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Good idea; I just now made that change. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: link to the actual section: Talk:Jill_Biden#RfC:_First_lady-designate. ~EdGl talk 19:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2020 (2)

Under the map in the info box, please add the text back which denotes what gray means, since Georgia is still listed as not being called. Omeganike (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed I have added the text back. It is likely that in the next few hours/days enough media outlets will call Georgia so that it can be colored blue, but until that happens, the caption should explain what grey means. --Jayron32 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reducing the window to update vote totals

The current consensus has been to update the votes every six hours, reduced from 12, but now that there isn't a rush of votes like earlier, I think it would be appropriate to shorten the window to one update every three hours. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If there isn't a rush of votes and vote totals aren't really changing as much, wouldn't that give us less of an incentive to update periodically..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I would say drop the limit to 30 minutes. With how limited the results that are still outstanding, I feel like that will be enough time to allow updates when they happen while limiting a potential issue of two or more states reporting updates in a short period of time. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, things have calmed down with the reporting of votes to the point where six hours is just too long a wait. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really taking sides here, just asking to ask... Wouldn't shortening the reporting time open the article up to more edit warring? I'm not experienced in management of such an important topic, so just asking. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been more than a week since the election was called for Biden. We should expect the number of edits to die down over time, so I think that edit warring won't be a problem. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense to me. Thanks for answering. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

In the spirit of fairness, this information is incorrect and needs to be changed. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have not yet been elected. If I am incorrect, please provide unbiased documentation.

Thank you! Msnderstd (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Msnderstd Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and not necessarily what is official or legal. Most reliable sources say Biden won or will win. If you disagree, you will need to take that up with the sources. There is no such thing as unbiased documentation; everything and everyone has biases. Wikipedia presents the sources so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to bias. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Please also see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Msnderstd, the reliable sources refer to Biden as president elect and Harris as vice president elect. Here's one. Here's another. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Georgia projections

CNN, ABC, and NBC have all projected Georgia for Biden. Not sure about the other networks yet, but it may need to be shaded in soon. I'll add any others I see. Master of Time (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

NYT and CBS have as well. Master of Time (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox, Bloomberg, and possibly other networks have not called it yet. For now we should hold off on updating GA and NC. Prcc27 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I updated all and North Carolina as well. Admanny (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Admanny: Please revert yourself, there is not consensus for adding those states yet. Prcc27 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

i did like a few mins ago pls check before commenting Admanny (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wasn't even considering Bloomberg, but I'm mostly just waiting to see if Fox, AP, or Reuters make calls before long. Master of Time (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Major networks have project Arizona for Biden, North Carolina for Trump. GoodDay (talk)

You're missing a key word. we need all major networks. fox and ap hasn't. Admanny (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked, here are the networks that we are still waiting on to project Georgia and North Carolina for Biden and Trump respectfully: Fox, Bloomberg, NPR, PBS, WSJ, LA Times, USA TODAY, and the Guardian. And Admanny points out that the AP hasn't projected those states either. Prcc27 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg has called them. BD2412 T 19:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone re-added the total to the infobox. It needs to be reverted. Prcc27 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Mini Mike is not a RS.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Are we really going to wait until other media outlets update,I will not update the map,but please,it is obvious what is the outcome.Alhanuty (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes we are. I personally think that we should mark it as called, but WP guidelines say we have to wait. Cpotisch (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Can someone change the imagemap back to grey for GA and NC? I'm not sure how. Cpotisch (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

AP and Fox have called NC at least, i think its about time that be coloured in at least... GA can be debated.152.115.83.242 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. North Carolina should be called for Trump. Cpotisch (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Just checked and Fox News, NPR (AP), and PBS (Not sure when they were added), have all called North Carolina within the last twenty or so minutes. I believe that makes all of our sources having called North Carolina for one candidate, so I believe it can be updated. Three sources are still pending on Georgia, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs)

I have made the edit. Seems good enough now. Admanny (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

NC has been called by the AP for Trump. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

could somebody color north carolina on the map over at here, thanks Admanny (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Has USATODAY projected it yet though..? Prcc27 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, they're not one of the sources needed to make an edit; even so, they have: https://www.usatoday.com/elections/results/2020-11-03/ Admanny (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) USA Today is not a listed source on the Map's summary, so they are not a source that we have been using to check. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Admanny: Thank you for doing so. That just leaves Fox News, NPR, and (the newly added) PBS left to call Georgia. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the USA TODAY is one of our sources we use. I suggested it about a month ago, 1 user concurred, and no users expressed objections to using USA TODAY. Prcc27 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Most media outlets have called Georgia for Biden at this point. Not sure why it hasn't been colored blue yet. Dpm12 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• The consensus is to add Georgia when all media outlets call it. We are waiting on Fox, NPR, PBS, WSJ, the Guardian, the LA Times, and the AP to call Georgia. Prcc27 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

And of course USA TODAY as well. Prcc27 (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does it say "You cannot overwrite this file" on the map? Anyone else running into this problem? I want to be able to update Georgia when the time comes.. Prcc27 (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

First, yes I have the same problem, not sure why. Second, AP has stated they will probably not call Georgia until recount is done. (at least that's what fox said) Admanny (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the hold up on Georgia. For goodness sake, let's not over do it, folks. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• The "hold up" has already been explained several times. Prcc27 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am in favor of marking Georgia as blue, we have enough media WP:RS making the call. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed compromise: Let's just color Georgia a lighter shade of blue (some media outlets did this earlier on to indicate that Biden was leading but not yet projected to win), and drop a footnote explaining that most sources have called the state for Biden while others are awaiting the outcome of the planned recount. Everyone agrees that Biden is leading in the state, and as it stands, no media outlet is reporting that any other outcome is reasonably expected. I would be partial to Columbia blue. BD2412 T 02:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• A substantial majority of reliable sources have called Georgia. There is no rule on Wikipedia requiring unanimity. What we have is one editor, Prcc27 (talk · contribs) opposing this update. Let's get on with it shall we? Jehochman ^Talk 03:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Jehochman: Umm... no. We literally had an RfC where most of the users there said they wanted to update a state only when it is unanimously called by the media. Please stop misconstruing what that consensus is. Prcc27 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't particularly object to that course of action, if there is a consensus for it. BD2412 T 03:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Adding a light blue shade this late in the game doesn't really seem all that helpful. Readers will wonder why we didn't use light colors before. Plus, we are not a newspaper, so there really isn't any rush to shade Georgia. Prcc27 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Prcc27: consensus can change. A majority of users here, now want to update Georgia. We cannot ignore a majority of reliable sources because of something a small number of editors decided a few days or weeks ago. WP:V is stronger than any RFC. The situation is settled. We are not breaking WP:NOTNEWS. I agree light blue would be confusing. I have left the note that says Georgia has been called by a majority, but not all, news outlets. We are transparent for the reader to understand what's happening. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We have a long-standing consensus that ran through multiple elections where a list of reliable sources ALL must call a state for it to be listed here. I oppose, but I'll compromise that the number can remain 306 with a note stating not all news outlets has called Georgia. Admanny (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A less than 24 hour discussion does not overturn an RFC that has been the consensus for the past few days. Especially when there are at least 4 other users in this very section that have expressed that they do not want to update the map until all (or at the very least almost all) sources have made a projection. Consensus has not changed. Prcc27 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this, but there has been so many edits to the page that I've been trying to clear out that if it makes the readers happy, I'd leave it that way. Consensus has indeed not changed, if we gain traction again I might start changing it back to 290. Admanny (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, we need a clear and formal RfC process for proper input. Admanny (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Map has not been updated. It has a note that says exactly what the sources say. Georgia has been called my a majority, but not all, news outlets. Let's leave it just like this because the reader will come away with the clearest understanding this way. There's something a little different about Georgia because it's a different color. RFC's are not magic and do not trump policies like WP:V. A group of editors can't get together and decide to suspend a core policy via a discussion on a backwater talk page like this one. Jehochman ^Talk 03:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• No you need to get consensus before you change the article, especially when it has been reverted multiple times today. Did you even read all of WP:V? If so, you would have saw that the onus is on you to get consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: If I were you I would self-revert back to Biden 290 then start an RfC to change the prior consensus. Until then, Biden needs to stay at 290 and 24 states. Admanny (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Reminder to everyone that we have a prior consensus in place that calls for a FULL media consensus that a state has been called for a particular candidate. Until then, a NEW consensus must be formed to override the old one. Admanny (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edits myself. I'm against starting another RfC- technically, the original RfC hasn't even been closed yet. Prcc27 (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also against starting another RfC but if that's what would stop the editing repeatedly I am willing to do it. Admanny (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This page has 5,480 edits and 730 page watchers. Not exactly a "backwater talk page". I think Georgia should go to Biden but these issues have been argued about for weeks. Consensus is hard-won. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This is coming from an administrator FYI.^^^ We should keep it at 290 unless a new consensus is formed. Admanny (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Who cares? Your argument is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. I'm also an administrator. We're not special in this context. Please consider that WP:V requires that we give weight to the most prominent and numerous sources when the sources are not in alignment. Putting the vote count at 290 instead of 306 violates WP:UNDUE. Your RFC (please link next time you mention it) does not take precedence over policy. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Kinda funny how you also used appeal to authority by mentioning yourself as an administrator. Boomerang, right in the face! Anyway the consensus above was decided before the election, I would consider we stick with that til the end. Admanny (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• We do not need another RFC. Read WP:BURO. Let's put an asterisk after 306 and an asterisk in front of the statement that Georgia was called by a majority, but not all, news outlets. This conveys to the reader precisely what the current state of play is. Hewing as close as possible to the facts is usually a good way to resolve an editorial disagreement. Jehochman ^Talk 04:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this but if people will be happy with this then fine. If there is significant opposition I'll actively oppose as well. Admanny (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose that proposal as well. We only need one vote tally in the infobox. We don't need to clutter it unnecessarily. Last time I checked, nearly half of news sources haven't called Georgia yet. Prcc27 (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment How about this: we put ALL the states results into this (regardless of how many media/news outlets had called it) or not at all and wait for the Electoral College to meet (and revert the page to pre-election state). It doesn't matter how many news/media outlets called it or who called it, as long as it's from a verifiable source.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: There have been a number of discussion on coloring a state a specific color that I am going to gather a number of them: Election night prep, State results official, RfC: What sources should be used for calling states?, Why aren’t votes on the map?, Maine-2, Several outlets have called Nevada, Electoral College svg (You participated and suggested taking a discussion up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement over 'Stonewalling', Map and Electoral Vote Update (You participated a few times, at one saying Therefore, it goes in the article now.), Elected President, AP calls presidential race for Joe Biden, Updating the map, Should Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania really be shaded blue on the map?, Note: Arizona has been called. I am point out these because there has been a lot of discussion as to when to or when not to include information to prevent disruption. I do not believe you know how much the point has been debated by your comments. I do know that there have been a number of pointed comments, especially the ones left at Jumping the gun? above. Would you be willing to go over some of the concerns at these various sections and review them to understand how we got to this position? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to mention that the suggestion to color a state a lighter shade due to different sources not agreeing on the result is one that we have not done before as none of the four related articles have done so to my knowledge. (Those four being 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Amended, Nov. 17th) I made a note above that we have never colored a state a lighter shade. The reason was to imply that the idea is a novel suggestion for Wikipedia as we did not do it for prior elections, especially in 2016 when there were recounts in a number of states that Trump won. We could do so, but it would be an exception to what we normally do. There is also a sourcing issue as we would need to note that it is only a lead and not on the likelihood of a candidate winning as some sources do not shade a state light red or light blue at all and because there is the possibility of a lead changing, as with what happened with the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in this election. I do disagree with the statement, We are not bound by past consensus, as I feel that an edit that could be objectionable should be discussed on the talk page first. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the links. I agree that complicated coloring schemes are undesirable because that could confuse the reader. Rules are fine, but there are usually some exceptions for unanticipated situations. I completely understand that we don't want this state colors flip flopping repeatedly on election night during fast pace release of news. Today the situation has stalled. A majority have called Georgia, and a few appear to be waiting for the hand recount which will take about five days. When the sources diverge WP:V and WP:UNDUE require us to follow the majority. We can also report that a minority of sources have posted a different result. I think this situation should be discussed here and decided. My idea is to not color Georgia, but to update the electoral vote count and add a footnote explaining that 306 is from one list of sources, and 290 is from a second, smaller list of sources. I think this provides the greatest accuracy. Past consensus could not anticipate this situation, and moreover, consensus can change. We are not bound by past consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to mention that the suggestion to color a state a lighter shade due to different sources not agreeing on the result is one that we have not done before as none of the four related articles have done so to my knowledge. I think 'lighter shade' on the map implies that the counting is still ongoing and has not concluded or in some cases it implies a candidate 'leading' instead of 'winning'?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 22:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fireworks and celebrations in European cities

On November 7, the projected win of Biden and Harris triggered celebrations in multiple European cities including London, Paris, Munich and Edinburgh, with several celebrations featuring church bells or fireworks.

I've marked this as dubious. People do know that this is the weekend after Guy Fawkes Night, right? (and the source is Fox, and Fox's source is a bunch of tweets making the assertion based on seeing fireworks being used, which were shot because it's Guy Fawkes Night...?). Also, what is up with the insane amount of talk page banners here? Even Donald Trump has less. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Fireworks in Edinburgh and London could easily be for Guy Fawkes. But for whom the bells toll in Munich and Paris churches is a mystery. Possibly celebrating an even higher, but mundane and daily, power. Anyway, it's stuff like this that Reaction articles are built to accumulate. Even there though, dubious (also, the Fox guy mistook "ook" for "took"). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It could be Guy but If I remember that would need to of been the 5th of November? PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No idea, around here our Guy heroes rhyme with "gee". I apologize for mistaking Audrey Conklin for a Fox guy, though won't let the truth get in the way of a bad pun. Sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

After closer inspection, yeah, that "Fifth of November" rhyme does ring a bell. But weekends are more convenient. Article says the fireworks coincided with Diwali in 2010. That starts in three days this year, so could still be taken as Hindus lighting up for Harris. Stay discerning, people. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If this happened there should be more sources. If no other sources are found, I think this should be left out as a probable mistake.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I too would like to see more sources. Fox News and The Hill are the only vaguely RS i see reporting it. Both are not top tier sources though. If BBC or AFP report it, then yes it should stay. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say The Hill reporting on it is good enough for it to stay. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're reading the same story, Seipel attributes this to "people reported", not her own voice. And nobody mentions Paris. The guy mentioning Munich bells heard it from a friend, not his ears, third-hand hearsay (the friend didn't apparently say why they were ringing, buddy maybe assumed). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

True, it seems to be gossip. It's not reporters on the ground saying they witnessed celebrations. It's journalists reporting tweets by people who saw fireworks and heard bells and who appear to be presuming this was in response to the US election. Church bells (generally) don't get rung spontaneously. Who authorised this?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

First, someone on Twitter needs to ask Trask which church his supposed friend was near at the time of the incident, Wikipedia has 26 notable potential hotspots. Then one of us gets on the horn with the appropriate rector/vicar/prelate and asks what his bellringer was thinking. Or we agree that's too much work and delete this confusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sure I will have to do penance for this as it is original sin, but I have checked Trask's tweet, and several people have told him the bells were not ringing because of the US presidential election. Apparently in Munich they ring regularly.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well that just about settles it for me. It should certainly be removed. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a rousing and thoughtfelt victory speech based on a Metallica song and Jim Duggan promo, in which I properly thanked everyone personally (and justified leading Jack headlong into temptation) but was edit-conflicted. The horror! But yeah, good job, everyone. Forgive Jack eventually, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm French, and bells did not ring for Biden, but to call for the Vespers, as usual. Extreme-Leftist Libération newspaper debunk source, if needed : https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2020/11/08/non-les-cloches-des-eglises-de-paris-n-ont-pas-sonne-en-l-honneur-de-la-victoire-de-biden_1804962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.134.83.18 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm living some 15 km from the center of Berlin, Germany. Rest assured, the fire crackers that went off in my neighbourhood at 17:40 local time, were entirely unrelated with Guy Fawkes night. 77.11.183.226 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you confirm it was in response to the US election though? Otherwise it remains dubious.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:4C46:6CFA:F5EB:2FFC (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020 (4)

CNN claims Georgia for Biden. Can we add it? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

CNN projected Georgia for Biden, last night. Time to update the map. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: HurricaneTracker495, wait for AP to call it along with one other RS. The consensus IIRC is that we should wait for AP and a couple other RSs to call a state, I believe that discussion also occured on this talk page. (In case I am missing something, please feel free to correct me.) JavaHurricane 15:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: we can’t solely rely on AP. Because they also said that Nevada was called before we updated our map. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: Are you referring to #RfC:_What_sources_should_be_used_for_calling_states? or another?—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late reply, I've turned off notifications for pings due to vandals pinging me abusively) yeah that RfC, though given there is another RfC going on below about GA, the edit request is moot anyways pending the result of the former. JavaHurricane 06:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

There’s a recount going on in Georgia. We won’t call it until it is official. This is an encyclopedia based on facts, not personal political opinions2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:8112:34A:44C2:B7F1 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

Popular vote totals were changed to Associated Press (AP) numbers, so the source should be added. Source link: https://elections.ap.org/dailykos/results/2020-11-03/state/US (My guess is that the totals were taken from the Google results table, but I think this is the better source.) Rogl94 (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

One correction, the correct link is this one: https://elections.ap.org/dailykos/results/2020-11-03/state/US/race/P/raceid/0 Here the citation as copy and paste -> Rogl94 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Moot. The totals have been updated using another source (and probably will be several more times). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Date of election

Normally most US voters vote on "election day" in November, but this year almost 2/3 of them voted early,[5] so I find it misleading to say that the election was "held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020". I think that it's more appropriate to show a range of dates, like the articles on all US presidential elections before 1848. The first ballots were sent by mail on September 4, in North Carolina,[6] so I suggest mentioning "from September 4 to November 3, 2020" in the first sentence and "September 4 – November 3, 2020" in the infobox. Or at least something like "in the weeks up to November 3, 2020" in the first sentence. Any objections? Heitordp (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Election Day is still a thing, but we could perhaps word it more clearly to include a mention of early voting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Technically, that would mean that we should consider updating the articles for 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 because they also have early voting. (I know that Oregon passed their vote by mail proposal in 1996. Likely more articles prior to that.) I know that this is the first time that a majority/significant minority of voters used main-in ballots, but absentee ballots are not exclusive to this year. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I stepped back from my suggestion above, as adding a range of dates is probably undue. So I just added a note to the infobox and the word "nominally" before the date in the first sentence. For previous years, if there was significant early voting I think that it's appropriate to add a note to their infoboxes too. But in those cases, since most votes occurred on election day, I suggest leaving the first sentence as it is or adding the word "primarily" before the date. Heitordp (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

All polls closed on November 3, 2020. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Domestic interference in 2020 election

This subject needs its own section in this article, but I have already opened a thread at the Russian interference article talk page:

• Trump administration interference in the 2020 United States elections

Feel free to participate. -- Valjean (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)