This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
I think we should have a separate map for state certified election results. The current map shows the opinions of various media outlets. These outlets have disagreed with each other, and some media outlets have changed their opinions over time, giving the impression that the election results are uncertain and arbitrary. If we now place state certified election results on this same map, it will give the American public the impression that state certified results are uncertain and arbitrary. The Trump campaign has been actively de-legitimizing the validity of this election, and this Wikipedia election map is helping to de-legitimize the results by placing state certified results on the same footing as media opinions. Here is my first draft (very rough) attempt at what I have in mind. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:State_certified_2020_election.svg#mw-jump-to-license Unitfreak ( talk) 16:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The media reports on what will happen, it doesn’t determine what happens itself. It is standard practice, and has been for centuries now, that the outcome of elections can be acknowledged even before they’ve been officially certified when they are already clear. This has been done for every election in US history.
“It is standard practice, and has been for centuries now, that the outcome of elections can be acknowledged even before they’ve been officially certified”. Really? If the editors and contributors of Wikipedia are interested in business as usual, then by all means give yourself a pat on the back and pass the Kool-Aid. However, for those more responsible members of the community, who are interested in doing your civic duty, can I recommend watching this video clip from former President Obama. Maybe it is time to think seriously about the role Wikipedia is playing in promoting a conspiracy culture. Maybe it is time to report “actual” election results, rather than reporting the opinions of media outlets. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-us-2020-54910344?__twitter_impression=true Unitfreak ( talk) 19:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
“Gas lighting is where someone witnessed something and the other person tells them that it didn't happen or act like the opposite happened.” - Exactly! In this case, state certified election results for a dozen states has “happened”, and yet the editors and contributors to this article continue to report media opinions as if the state certified results hadn’t happened. The net effect is to confuse the public and make it appear that the media opinions reported in the article are somehow on a par with state certified election results. As I wrote above: “the Wikipedia article on this election is showing an election map where media opinions are conflated with actual state certified results, making it impossible for the reader to know where opinion ends and reality begins.” I do agree with you that “gas lighting” likely implies that the person doing the gas lighting is intentionally trying to deceive people, whereas in this case I suspect the contributors and editors of Wikipedia are doing this unwittingly. Unitfreak ( talk) 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Unitfreak ( talk) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Unitfreak ( talk) 03:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unitfreak ( talk) 00:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
“It says exactly what is being used” - Well, it does now. Let me put it this way: prior to 24 November 2020, the article was using state certified data, but the article was not identifying the data as “state certified”. Kwamikagami was the one who fixed that problem. I think we can all agree that Kwamikagami was the one who correctly identified the state certified data. Go look at the history yourself if you disagree. Unitfreak ( talk) 13:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC) “No one is deceiving anyone knowingly or unknowingly.” - That really is an incredible claim. How can you be certain that everyone who reads this article will come away with an accurate understanding of all of the information in the article? You can not! Human communication is imperfect. All languages, including English, are imperfect. Clear communication is as much an art as it is a science. Prior to 24 November 2020, this article was ambiguous about the significance of state certified election results in determining USA election outcomes. A reader could easily come away from this article with the false impression that the election was decided by media projections. Fortunately, Kwamikagami took the time to carefully review the article and identified a place where state certified data was being used but not correctly labeled. I, for one, am appreciative of thoughtful and careful editors like Kwamikagami who will identify and fix problems, rather than just argue about them. Unitfreak ( talk) 14:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
“You are talking about the table of results down the page, which DOES have certified results. You are conflating the two“. - You are correct that I have been unclear in my explanation. When I first looked through this article back in early November, I felt that the entire article was unclear about the role that state certification plays in determining election outcomes. Even worse, the article gives the false impression that elections are determined by media consensus shortly after the vote is taken. As a possible remedy, I suggested changing one specific map in the article to indicate which states had certified results, and which states were still counting votes. I had viewed my suggestion as one possible solution to the problem, but looking back through the discussion, I see now that from your point of view, you probably thought that my concern was exclusively about that one specific map. At any rate, I do believe that Kwamikagami’s edit was a big step away from gaslighting. As I wrote above: “It is important for the readers to know that the election is determined by state certified election results, not by media opinions”. Unitfreak ( talk) 05:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC) In my honest opinion, anyone who considers the Washington Post "reliable" should be in a straightjacket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I am in favor of closing discussion. I agree with you that this article is having little impact, in any way, on Americans. I suspect very few Americans are reading this article, and the ones who do are not taking it seriously. I see this as a missed opportunity. Unitfreak ( talk) 13:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the text in the controversies section from future tense to past tense, "On November 21, the Trump campaign requested a machine recount, which will cost taxpayers $200,000 but will not address concerns about absentee ballot signatures." Change "will cost" to "costed" and "will not address" to "did not address." CarsonSnorts ( talk) 19:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Zoozaz1: Please explain your revert, especially the "recent rfc". It would be unacceptable if even the Wikipedia is becoming a platform of censorship favoring only one faction. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 04:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The pundits and talk show programs related to Fox were explicitly excluded from this RFC". The Fox source I cited is the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe interviewed by the "Sunday Morning Futures" program hostess Maria Bartiromo. The quotes are John Ratcliffe's remarks, not Fox's own commentary. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 05:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Matt, there are multiple issues with what you added:
If you take your complaints to the talk page there, beware how you do it. Assume they know much more about this subject than you do, so ask, rather than tell. If you, especially because you have been warned, continue down this road, you risk getting blocked for disruption and pushing conspiracy theories and disinformation from unreliable sources. -- Valjean ( talk) 06:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging that there had been widespread voter fraud, and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing statesand
The Trump campaign and its allies continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election. It's not leadworthy to individually quote every Trump administration figure stating "we tots won tho." Yes, of course Trump, his allies, and the Trump administration all say these things, that's what the entire paragraph is about; the broad summary, from a 10,000-foot lead perspective, is that they say these things but reliable sources are unanimous in stating that there's no evidence for their claims. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I would like to figure out if the timeline article should be split, so I started a discussion at Talk:Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election#Should the page be split? — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 01:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first paragraph should be amended for it is a disputed election, the widespread election fraud leaves the final outcome of who becomes president in the hands of the judiciary via pending litigation, the state legislators right to decertify, U.S. Congress on Jan. 6 as per the U.S. Constitution, and President's plenary power to declare emergency powers/martial law. 62.219.236.102 ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A coup de' tat is "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." The Biden Administration is not the current "government", so how could Trump be stealing the government from himself. This needs to be changed ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 06:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC))
we'll see who is in what seats and whether there is a Biden administration." I agree with him. In my view, this whole thing is not over and whether there is a Biden administration remains undetermined. For making the sentence of my previous comment complete, I just added "the" and "team". -- Matt Smith ( talk) 02:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress, [1] still continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by filing dozens of legal challenges in several states, most of which were dropped or dismissed by various courts, [2] [3] spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud, pressuring Republican state electors and legislators, and refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition, all in what was described as an attempted coup. [4]
Many commentators described Trump's actions as an attempted coup d'état or self-coup. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
If I may, this discussion seems mainly driven by the fact that some users' misunderstanding of the word 'coup'. Obviously a coup can be carried out by somebody already in power, and it can be bloodless. So the arguments against "coup" based on Trump being president, or not having resorted to violence, are as null and void as Trump's lawsuits. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I support removing the "coup" language. All of the avenues Trump pursued were legal recourses he was entitled to. They were based on nonsense and had no evidence but they were still the legal avenue for challenging the results in a court of law. That's not a coup by any stretch of the imagination. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk)
I am having a hard time understanding what "Don't get bogged down in what is "true" about this" is supposed to mean? We have a duty to the truth, that can be verified. People all across the world look at this and its extremely dangerous to put opinions as truth. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 07:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC))
In my opinion, a more neutral solution could be making it clear that the said "coup" is the mainstream media's opinion and terminology. That's less controversial than simply asserting that it is a coup. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Matt Smith, no editor is expected to be neutral in real life or on talk pages. People like that are extremely rare, boring as hell, quite ignorant, and, if they go so far as to claim they are "neutral", have no insight into themselves. It is only when editing an article that editors must put on their "neutral" hat. We have a certain amount of leeway in discussions before WP:FORUM gets invoked, unless the personal POV are fringe views from unreliable sources. That path can quickly become a violation of our prohibition against advocacy of fringe POV, which are automatically "at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy."
Discussions that have their background in what RS say are allowed, and editors don't have to reference every comment with a citation. That is only a requirement for article content, but not for talk page discussions, BUT, if an editor is asked for a source for their comment, they should supply it, as the burden of proof is on the person making an unusual claim. If the person asking is requesting a source for a claim that is not unusual (for RS), such as a "the sky is blue" type of comment, then they are revealing their ignorance of what most other editors know is an idea or POV found in mainstream RS. We often encounter that phenomenon with newbies and editors whose media diet is from unreliable sources. We often bear over with them for a short time, but if they refuse to listen and accept what RS say (yes, Wikipedia does expect that editors have a positive learning curve), then their continued dialogue becomes tedious and IDHT tendentious. Such editors often get topic banned, or even blocked. The lesson is to see Wikipedia and its talk pages as a classroom where we can learn from others and realign (an often painful process) our POV so they align with what RS say.
Obviously "some editors bias towards a specific political party" (your words). So what? Don't go further down that road as it borders on a personal attack: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." While it's okay to recognize that editors have left- and right- opinions, that should not be used as a personal attack. That cuts both ways. We have plenty of very opinionated editors who hold strong political views. Big deal. Fortunately many of them can lay that aside when they edit, and they can still be very valued editors. -- Valjean ( talk) 19:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
When balancing my totals against Wiki's totals, I discovered a discrepancy on Indiana.
The "Final" totals on the Indiana Elections Division of the SoS located here: https://enr.indianavoters.in.gov/site/index.html
The Indiana Certificate of ascertainment (referenced in your table) is located here: https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment-indiana.pdf
As you can see the vote totals are not the same. I'm not sure which takes precedence but just informing you of the difference. Probably the Certificate, but you may also want to link to the SoS-Elections page since it too is listed as "final." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6E1:79E0:F00D:725A:24C4:19B3 ( talk) 13:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Near the end of the "Subsequent Events" section, a sentence refers to "ligitation" led by the Trump campaign. Of course, this is supposed to be "litigation." Could someone with editing privileges please make this minor correction? 97.127.33.227 ( talk) 00:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
In this video, Trump's lawyers claim that in Pennsylvania, there was a dump of 600,000 votes that went 99.5% for Biden.
I have not seen this claim addressed, confirmed, or debunked by the mainstream media. I don't know why reliable sources have ignored this. At the minimum, they should at least report on the claim. And at best, they should either debunk it or confirm it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGGlnHe3Rgc
Reliable source fan ( talk) 16:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
BaseplateRBLS the sources you consider"reliable" are lying to you, or at best they are giving you only the details of stories that you want to hear for your own confirmation bias. EPicmAx4 ( talk) 17:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What's up with note "n" of the article (which is used in the state-wise results table)? I think it should have "Many" as the first word instead of "May" unless I'm misunderstanding it. 45.251.33.129 ( talk) 13:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The infobox is destroyed. FredModulars ( talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
On the top of the infobox it says the turnout is preliminary. What does that mean? SweetMilkTea13 ( talk) 22:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
According to Electoral College validates Biden’s victory on YouTube he got 302 electors. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Aréat: In many countries voter turnout is calculated based on registered voters and they are practically the same as eligible voters, but in the United States a significant number of people eligible to vote don't register. US sources vary greatly in the denominator they use to calculate voter turnout: some states use only registered voters; the Census uses the US citizen population of voting age; the FEC uses the entire US population of voting age; and unofficial sources (such as the US Elections Project currently cited in the article) attempt a more accurate estimate by also excluding US citizens ineligible to vote due to a criminal conviction and including US citizens residing abroad. The sources also differ in their numerator: the states tend to use all votes including invalid votes; the Census asks people if they voted (which is quite inaccurate); the FEC uses only valid votes; the US Elections Project does two estimates, using all votes and using votes for the office with the highest votes (not necessarily for president).
I agree that it doesn't make sense to use the entire voting-age population in the denominator because it includes a lot of people who can't vote (mostly non-US citizens), but Wikipedia articles on previous elections tend to cite the turnout from the FEC because it's a US government source, and the FEC calculates the turnout that way. In the article for this year, I added an estimate based on voting-age population for a proper comparison with numbers shown for previous years.
In my opinion the US Elections Project does the most accurate estimate (although I still find their estimate of US citizens abroad excessive) and it's the most appropriate for a comparison with other countries, but it's not a US government source. If you think that it should be used instead of the FEC, I suggest also changing the articles on previous US elections. Heitordp ( talk) 11:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I think all the predictions on each state result page should be updated to November 3, 2020 under the “as of” column that is already there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.76 ( talk) 13:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
In the introduction, it says in which some have described as an attempted coup. Shouldn't it be coup d'etat or no? SweetMilkTea13 ( talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Now that the Electoral College electors have convened and cast their votes, and there are no further pending lawsuits (from the Trump campaign that we know of), should Q1 on the FAQ be removed or amended? -- WaltCip-( talk) 17:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the word coup, which links here, should instead link here, where the incident in question is a listed example. 2A02:C7F:CC28:E900:B135:F226:27F1:E7D4 ( talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the summary, I think it's time to add that this was the first election since 1960 where Ohio voted for the losing candidate ( https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/electoral-college-pledges-ohios-votes-trump-columbus/6511002002/], [1]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:48BC:EA26:DB13:6E4D ( talk) 04:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)