Edit filter log

[ 0 => '{{Skip to talk}}', 1 => '{{Talk header|search=yes}}', 2 => '{{American English}}', 3 => '{{article history', 4 => ' |currentstatus=FGAN', 5 => ' |action1=AFD |action1date = 2 March 2006 |action1result = delete |action1link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 ', 6 => ' |action2=AFD |action2date = 30 October 2015 |action2result = keep |action2link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020 |action2oldid=688299150', 7 => ' |action3=GAN |action3date = 1 November 2015 |action3result = fail |action3link = Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2020/GA1 |action3oldid=688560797', 8 => ' |action4=AFD |action4date = 1 March 2017 |action4result= keep |action4link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020 (2nd nomination) |action4oldid=768018073', 9 => ' |dykdate = 22 November 2015 |dykentry=... that potential candidates in the '''[[United States presidential election, 2020|United States presidential election of 2020]]''' include [[Tom Cotton]], [[Hillary Clinton]], and [[Kanye West]]?', 10 => '}}', 11 => '{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|1=', 12 => '{{WikiProject Donald Trump |class=b|importance=High}}', 13 => '{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums |class=future |importance=High}}', 14 => '{{WikiProject Joe Biden|importance=Top}}', 15 => '{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=Top}}', 16 => '{{WikiProject United States |class=future |importance=Mid |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=High |USPE=yes |USPE-importance=mid}}', 17 => '}}', 18 => '{{not a vote}}', 19 => '{{American politics AE}}', 20 => '', 21 => '{{consensus|Consensuses reached for the 2012 and 2016 elections apply for the 2020 election as well, unless these consensuses are reversed. Regarding the infobox: A [[Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 11#Order of the list of candidates in the infobox|consensus]] has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox. Currently, third parties are only to be included in the infobox prior to the election if they are polling, on average, over 5% per this consensus: [[Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Rfc on inclusion for the infobox|Rfc on inclusion for the infobox]].', 22 => '}}', 23 => '{{consensus|'''Consensus on infobox inclusion criteria for state subpages:'''<br>', 24 => 'A [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] has been reached to include candidates in the infoboxes of state subpages who are polling at an average of at least 5% in a state or are the nominees of parties whose candidates received 5% in a state in the last election: [[Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Individual state pages]]. This consensus is an extension of the RfC that developed the same criteria for inclusion in the national infobox: [[Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Rfc on inclusion for the infobox]].}}', 25 => '{{consensus|'''Consensus on the order of candidates in the infobox:'''', 26 => '*Parties that got at least one electoral vote in the 2016 election will be the first to appear in the infobox and will be ordered by how many electoral votes they got in 2016. Since the Republican Party got 306 electoral votes and the Democratic Party got 232, the Republican Party will be the first to appear in the infobox and the Democratic Party will be the second.', 27 => '*Some political parties that may in the future be qualified to appear in the infobox did not get any electoral votes in 2016. They will be ordered by the total amount of electoral votes in the states that have ballot access. Write-in access counts too.', 28 => '**If two or more parties have access to the same amount of electoral votes, they will be sorted by how many popular votes they got in 2016. If one of the parties did not participate in the 2016 election, they will be be ordered after the parties (with the access to the same amount of electoral votes) that did. If two or more parties both have access to the same amount of electoral votes and did not participate in the 2016 election, they will be sorted alphabetically by the candidates' names.', 29 => '}}', 30 => '{{consensus|'''Consensus on the criteria for a potential candidate to be included in the article:'''', 31 => '* The "Publicly expressed interest" section requires only one source from the last six months where the individual is quoted as being interested in running in 2020. Social media posts do not count as public expressions of interest.', 32 => '* The "Potential candidates" section requires at least two sources speculating that an individual may run or where an individual talks about the 2020 election from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). The sources must not be a list of several potential candidates nor a persuasive article about why a candidate ''should'' run.', 33 => '* The "Declined candidates" section requires at least two sources from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). One source must be speculative in the same vein as the "Potential candidates" section, while the second must be a quoted denial from the individual in question.', 34 => '}}', 35 => '{{consensus|'''The following images have been discussed:'''{{multiple images ', 36 => '| image1= Joe Biden 2013.jpg | caption1='''Joe Biden ''([[Talk:2020 United_States presidential election/Archive 8#Bidens Photo|consensus link]])'''''<br/>{{Done|Consensus}}', 37 => '| align=center | width1=150 | total_width=150 | height1=206}} }}', 38 => '{{consensus|'''Consensus on when to update the popular vote:'''', 39 => '* The popular vote tally and percentage should be updated twelve hours after polls close, and then every six hours thereafter.', 40 => '}}', 41 => '{{Annual Readership}}', 42 => '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/U_of_Maryland/Writing_Genres_as_Social_Action_(Fall_2020) | assignments = [[User:Lshane23|Lshane23]] | reviewers = [[User:SumayyahGhori|SumayyahGhori]], [[User:Mberk11|Mberk11]], [[User:Crazy326459|Crazy326459]], [[User:Wiki811pedia|Wiki811pedia]], [[User:Mvmarsha|Mvmarsha]] | start_date = 2020-09-01 | end_date = 2020-12-11 }}', 43 => '{{Press', 44 => ' | author = [[Noam Cohen]]', 45 => ' | title = Wikipedia's Plan to Resist Election Day Misinformation', 46 => ' | org = ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]''', 47 => ' | url = https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-plan-to-resist-election-day-misinformation/', 48 => ' | date = October 26, 2020', 49 => '', 50 => ' | author2 = Sara Morrison', 51 => ' | title2 = How Wikipedia is preparing for Election Day', 52 => ' | org2 = ''[[Vox (website)|Vox]]''', 53 => ' | url2 = https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/11/2/21541880/wikipedia-presidential-election-misinformation-social-media', 54 => ' | date2 = November 2, 2020', 55 => '}}', 56 => '{{User:MiszaBot/config', 57 => '|archiveheader = {{aan}}', 58 => '|maxarchivesize = 100K', 59 => '|counter = 15', 60 => '|minthreadsleft = 4', 61 => '|algo = old(7d)', 62 => '|archive =Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive %(counter)d', 63 => '}}', 64 => '{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=7}}', 65 => '{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn', 66 => '|target=/Archive index', 67 => '|mask=/Archive <#>', 68 => '|leading_zeros=0', 69 => '|indexhere=yes}}', 70 => '', 71 => '== Election night prep ==', 72 => 'Election night is less than 1 month away!!! I just replaced the "ongoing" parameter with a parameter that will allow us to say "projected electoral votes" instead of "electoral votes" up until the vote count becomes more official. We need to make a few things clear before the big night (not sure if we should make this into an RFC):', 73 => '# How many reliable news organizations must project a state before we add its electoral vote totals to the infobox and the map? I will note that in 2016, it seemed like it only took 1 news organization projection for us to update the map and infobox. This meant that Wikipedia indicated that Donald Trump won the election before most (all?) the major news organizations did. Do we want to continue this to give readers up-to-date information, or do we want to be on the safe side just in case an outlier news organization gets a projection wrong?', 74 => '# Do we need to spell out which news organizations qualify as [[WP:RS|reliable]] and should be used for our projections, or should work that out on election day as projections come in?', 75 => '# When should we add the popular vote tally to the infobox article? If we add it right when votes start coming in, how often would we update the tally? And which source would we use for the popular vote tally while it's in flux? Popular vote tallies will differ across different news organizations up until we get a better idea of what the official tally will be. ', 76 => '# Are we going to use the dark gray color that we used for the primary election maps on the map in this article? The dark gray color was used to indicate that all the polls were closed in a state, but that no projection had been made for the state. This color was not used in 2016 if I remember right, but I liked having it in the primary election articles, so I would like to see it used in this one.[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/83/20200304031846%21Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C_2020.svg] [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 01:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)', 77 => '', 78 => ':::Excellent questions. My responses: (1) <s>Two</s> Three reliable news organizations. (2) Yes. My initial list of reliable news organizations (for this purpose): AP, Reuters, CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, NPR, PBS, New York Times. I don't know if the Wall Street Journal routinely calls states on their website, but if so, add WSJ to the list. Maybe count AP as "two" for this purpose, as long as we know which news organizations rely on AP before they call a state, in which case we would not count them ''and ''AP. (3) Do not post until 12 hours after the last polling places close and add an easy-to-see asterisk with an easy-to-find note explaining the preliminary nature of the number. Then every 12 hours. (4) I concur. Grey seems to be a universal "don't know" color, and it's better than white, which I interpret as "the state is so incompetent no one knows if any results will be posted in 2020". <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">[[User:Markworthen|Mark D Worthen PsyD]] [[User talk:Markworthen|(talk)]] [he/his/him]</span> 22:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)', 79 => '::::I concur with Mark Worthen, but I do have some things to add, namely, should Politico be added to the list of reliable sources?, and I think the gap between updating the popular vote after the first 12 hours should be shortened somewhat, perhaps every six hours, because after the first 12 hours things will probably have calmed down a bit. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 02:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)', 80 => ':::::I agree with Mark Worthen as well with the Devonian Wombat alterations of Politico and 12>6 hours. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)', 81 => '::::::How could I forget ''Politico''!? And yes, 6 hours seems quite reasonable. :) <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">[[User:Markworthen|Mark D Worthen PsyD]] [[User talk:Markworthen|(talk)]] [he/his/him]</span> 00:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)', 82 => ':::::::We have to be careful about calling it for two reasons: one it will almost certainly not be clear who wins on election night because many key states are accepting mail-in ballots for a few days after November 3rd. Also, it is also somewhat likely there will be a big fight about the winner-I don't want to get out my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CBALL&redirect=no crystal ball]-but we should just make sure not to get involved on a side of the political debate by calling it before it is official. [[User:Hollywood43ar|Hollywood43ar]] ([[User talk:Hollywood43ar|talk]]) 12:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)', 83 => '::::::::We should document any reliable sources who do call it, however. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 18:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)', 84 => '{{od}} It's very possible that we could have 4 or more news organization calling the race, but we wouldn't be able to "call" the race on the map and infobox if we follow the 3 or more projections criteria strictly. For example, if candidate A only needs either Pennsylvania ''or'' Wisconsin in order to win, and those are the only two states that have yet to be called- we could see say CNN and Fox news projecting that candidate A won PA, and thus the election, while Politico and NPR might project that he won WI, and thus the election. In this scenario, 4 news organizations have called the race, yet Wikipedia's map and infobox would not reflect this. On the flip side, we still might end up calling the race before the media does, just like we did in 2016. If candidate B needs ''both'' Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in order to win, and those are the only two states that have yet to be called- we could see say CNN, NPR, and CBS projecting that candidate A won PA but WI is still too close to call, but on the other hand NBC, BBC, Politico, and Fox News might project that he won WI, but PA is too close to call. In this scenario, both PA and WI would be added to the map and infobox, and candidate B would be "projected" as the winner by Wikipedia, even though no media organization would have projected a winner for the election as a whole. Honestly, I have no problem calling the race before the media does, if we call the race before any media organization does, we could add a footnote explaining that no media organization has called the election, even though our map might reflect that a candidate has in fact won. By the way, should we also include sources like Bloomberg, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the Guardian? Bloomberg definitely seems reliable enough for inclusion, and some of the other sources I mentioned may be reliable enough as well. Possible wording for a popular vote asterisk: "these popular vote tallies are preliminary results, and are updated every 6 hours". Also, once this discussion has more or less concluded- we should make sure that this consensus is followed out uniformly for all 2020 U.S. election articles. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 22:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)', 85 => ':I would think calling the election before any major news source does based on states being called would be a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]]. I think adding all of the other sources you named would be good, though. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 02:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)', 86 => '::I think per [[WP:CALC]], it should be fine. If 3 reliable sources call PA and 3 other reliable sources call WI, it wouldn't make sense to exclude those states from the map and infobox tally, just to avoid not being the first to call the race. I don't see any other viable alternative. But of course, we would need to make very clear that no major news organization has called the race. We could do this with a footnote that makes this clear. In fact, we could even hold off on bolding the electoral votes total, which we usually do once a candidate hits 270+ votes, until after at least 1 (or possibly more) news organization(s) have called the race for a candidate. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 04:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)', 87 => '::On the flip side, if 3 reliable sources have called the race, but we haven't called it yet (per one of the possible scenarios above), we should add a footnote noting that 3+ major news organizations have called the race. And maybe we could even bold the electoral votes total of the projected president-elect even if our infobox doesn't yet have them at 270+ votes. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 05:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)', 88 => ':::I see your point about no viable alternatives, although I don't think this is a case of [[CALC]]. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 22:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)', 89 => '::::I do think that [[WP:CALC]] and [[WP:IAR]] would allow us to overlook the [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns. But the other alternative, is to use only 1 source's projections when updating the map and infobox. Since many reliable sources rely on the Associated Press anyways, we could update the map & infobox based solely on AP projections. This would also make our jobs a lot easier, since it could be a huge mess trying to figure out which news organizations have and have not made projections for such and such state. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 00:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)', 90 => ':::::While I like this proposal over the prior, what do we do if multiple news orgs report different winners? [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 07:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)', 91 => '::::::I think we should add a new color (probably black) to the map and infobox for states with conflicting results. We would also want to leave the conflicting state(s') electoral votes out of the infobox and maybe note that the electoral vote tally reflects the AP's projections minus the conflicting state(s). If the AP and many other organizations project a state/the race for one candidate, but there is only 1 outlier projecting it for the other candidate- I think we could possibly avoid using the black color, have the infobox and map reflect the AP's projection, and maybe add a footnote noting that there is an outlier with the opposite projection. However, if the AP is the organization that is the outlier, this could be an issue. Since the AP seems to be the most prominent (even though they sometimes make wrong projections) and many organizations' projections seem to be directly or heavily influenced by the AP- we would probably want to have those states colored black regardless, and add a footnote about the conflicting results. Another issue we need to deal with is recounts. If a state is projected for a candidate by the AP, but it ends up going to a recount- do we want to have the state colored in for that candidate, even if the AP doesn't retract their projection? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 08:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)', 92 => ':::::::This is really specific. If this happens we can figure it out then when all the other things we discussed here have a clear consensus. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)', 93 => '::::::::A lot of the scenarios we discussed are quite specific. But the main thing we need to sort out is if we are going to use 3+ reliable sources for projections or if we are just going to use the Associated Press. Markworthen noted that many news organizations rely on the AP, you seem to think that using only the AP mitigates [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns, and I support it because using a bunch of sources could be a confusing mess. Given that nobody has expressed opposition to moving forward with a map/infobox sourced by the AP, I think we can assume that consensus leans towards doing this. But maybe we could ping the users to ask them specifically about what they think, just to be sure. But honestly, I think the consensus is headed towards an AP only infobox/map. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)', 94 => ':::::::::No its not, you are the only person advocating an AP-only infobox. I for one am opposed to it. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 19:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)', 95 => '{{Od}} I'm also the only person that has tried to address Przemysl15's [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns. [[WP:DEM|Wikipedia is not a democracy]], so you can't ignore [[WP:SYNTH]], just because you have the !votes. Until you demonstrate that combining sources doesn't violate Wikipedia policy, you can not move forward with combining sources to reach a conclusion that no reliable source has reached themselves. If we are going to move forward with a 3+ sources infobox, someone needs to demonstrate how [[WP:CALC]] applies. While I may be the only one "advocating" for an AP only map/infobox (whatever that means), another user has expressed they prefer it over an infobox that might violate [[WP:SYNTH]]. So yes, as of now, the consensus leans towards an AP only infobox/map. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)', 96 => 'We haven't heard from {{ping|Markworthen}} and {{ping|Hollywood43ar}} in a while, so I'm pinging them, because I want to hear what they think about the [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)', 97 => ':I would be careful about making assumptions about what I prefer. My understanding of the consensus, as evidenced by the first three replies from [[User:Markworthen|Mark D Worthen]], [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]], and myself, and supplemented further down in the thread, is for three reliable news orgs, acceptable orgs being the ones specified by [[User:Markworthen|Mark D Worthen]], with the addition of Politico and the few you named as well, for updating popular vote tally 12 hours after polls close, then every 6 hours after, and for the use of grey for states with closed polls but no projection. You challenged this initial consensus by stating that using a 3 org system for projections could end up with us calling the race before any org does, or vice versa not calling it when several orgs are calling it. You stated for the former, you were ok with this. I did not share the sentiment that that calling the race before a major org was ok, as doing so would be a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]]. You stated that it was fine under [[WP:CALC]], and the alternative would be to exclude the states causing a premature calling of the race on our part. I did not think it was a case of [[WP:CALC]], but conceded I did not have a better alternative than the poor solution of removing the state predictions to align with the media predictions. You then provided an alternative to the removal of states by suggesting an AP only map and infobox. I stated that this proposal was better than the previous proposal, a statement I intended to use to refer to the prospect of removing state predictions to align our national prediction status with major media orgs, but one you took to mean I preferred your AP only solution to the 3 org solution. However, I did state that using only AP could mean we could be using APs projection and claiming one candidate won when most other major news sources were contesting the election and reporting different winners. You took this to mean I was referring to states, which admittedly is a further issue with using only AP as a source, but not what I was referring to, inventing some sort of black color solution to denote a mixed result and trying to add footnotes and a whole bunch of other stuff about who the outlier org was and recounts and retractions which I felt all were really specific, as was the case we began with: Wikipedia calling or not calling the race when major orgs have not or have called the race, respectively. I felt, and still feel, that the possible [[WP:SYNTH]] violation occurs in such specific cases that we should work on hammering out the rest of the consensus: i.e.: if sources like Bloomberg, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the Guardian are acceptable sources, and under what conditions we should call the race, as opposed to this discussion on an AP or 3 org solution, which, contrary to your assessment, I believe clearly and obviously should be the 3 org variant, as does every other person on the thread other than yourself. Admittedly, however, I could have been clearer about this. Then, if on election day we do end up in this scenario where we venture into a possible [[WP:SYNTH]] violation, we could determine consensus then and there, when we have already built clear consensus on when and how we should be calling the election, which we could apply to the specific scenario that is causing issues at that time. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)', 98 => ':: Wouldn't it be [[WP:SYNTH]] regardless of whether we are the first to call the race or not? What if CNN says candidate A has 268 votes, the AP says he has 265 votes, Fox says he has 266 votes, etc. but our infobox says he has 256, even though that is a number that we came up with ourselves and no reliable source has his tally at 256? Does [[WP:CALC]] allow us to come up with an electoral vote number not supported by *any* major news organization? If so, are you saying that [[WP:CALC]] only doesn't apply once there is a disagreement between us and the source(s) about whether the race is called yet or not? That is an inconsistent view and I don't think we get to pick and choose when [[WP:SYNTH]] does or doesn't apply. I respect everyone's opinion here, and I too previously indicated that I supported a 3+ source infobox/map. However, I am also trying to respect your [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns, and am doing my best to address them. Unfortunately, I don't think we will get anywhere if it's only the two of us trying to interpret what that policy means by ourselves. Since you and I are the only ones having a conversation about [[WP:SYNTH]], I genuinely think our best move forward would be to go to the no original research noticeboard to get another opinion on the [[WP:SYNTH]] issue. Once we know in what ways [[WP:SYNTH]] and/or [[WP:CALC]] does and doesn't apply, it will be easier for us to move forward with a discussion. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 10:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)', 99 => '::{{Reply|Przemysl15}} Thank you for the ping. :) I appreciate your pithy summary of the dialogue thus far. Even though your summary is a long paragraph, this discussion has been complicated, and you summarized it concisely. My suggestion is that to follow the [[KISS principle]] as much as possible. Otherwise, on election night, editors will be more likely to ignore the consensus we achieve here b/c it is too opaque and takes too long to decipher. <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">[[User:Markworthen|Mark D Worthen PsyD]] [[User talk:Markworthen|(talk)]] [he/his/him]</span> 13:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)', 100 => '::{{Reply|Prcc27}} Requesting feedback and suggestions from other knowledgeable Wikipedians in general, and specifically about the WP:SYNTH and WP:CALC considerations, seems wise. <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">[[User:Markworthen|Mark D Worthen PsyD]] [[User talk:Markworthen|(talk)]] [he/his/him]</span> 13:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)', 101 => ':::Hi everyone, I posted on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#2020_United_States_presidential_election_WP%3ASYNTH%2FWP%3ACALC No original research noticeboard]. Please feel free to join the discussion! [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 21:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)', 102 => '::It's all very simple. Two networks for the easy ones. Kentucky for example will be called almost immediately, same with DC or Delaware. This is going to take a week or so, if there aren't any lawsuits stopping everything. So let's get the chart on the page by at least the first. We should know if there's a "Red Mirage" on election night. We're going to have to wait until the fifth to get any good numbers unless it's a Biden Blowout. Get rid of the prediction section on Haloween. We don't need it after that, as those interested are going to more immediate sources. We also need a section on lawsuits. Three of them were already ruled on by the Supreme court. There will be more. More on that below...![[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 00:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 103 => '::*Combining sources is likely a [[WP:SYNTH]] violation per discussions above and below. Many major news organizations rely on the AP for projections anyways, so we should just use the AP as our source for the infobox and map. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 02:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 104 => '=== Post noticeboard discussion ===', 105 => 'Even though I posted in the No original research [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#2020_United_States_presidential_election_WP%3ASYNTH%2FWP%3ACALC noticeboard] about whether the current consensus violates [[WP:SYNTH]], earlier today I proposed some footnote wording just in case we do move forward with the 3+ sources proposal. But since so far, a user has indicated that yes, combining 3+ sources to make your own electoral vote tally is a [[WP:SYNTH]] violation, I'm going to move my footnotes proposal to my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prcc27/sandbox&oldid=983235555 sandbox] for now. But even though I'm moving this proposal, please feel free to comment on what you think about the proposed footnotes. Given that the 3+ sources proposal may in fact be a [[WP:SYNTH]] violation (although we should certainly wait to see if other users chime in at the noticeboard), the alternative would be an AP only infobox. But the user that commented on that noticeboard said that per [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:CRYSTAL]], that we should wait until after the election's outcome becomes official before adding the results to the article. So that is another option as well. As I said at the noticeboard, I don't think those policies necessarily apply. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 01:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)', 106 => ':Sorry I forgot to turn on notifications for this page and I just saw your ping {{ping|Prcc27}}. I am concerned about [[WP:SYNTH]] but I think I am probably more concerned about [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. I think that we shouldn't cloud everything with confusing calls from multiple different news sources. I think we should wait until the election is official either after the electors vote or congress verifies the results. To declare a winner on the page. [[User:Hollywood43ar|Hollywood43ar]] ([[User talk:Hollywood43ar|talk]]) 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)', 107 => '::As far as I am concerned, three sources is still by far the superior option. We should be hamstringing ourselves to a single source on election night, all that will do is cause confusion and a constant need for reverts. Also, [[WP:NOTNEWS]] is completely irrelevant as far as this goes, it is mainly a notability guideline, not a content guideline, and is specifically says we are allowed to update information about current events. Just refusing to do anything and keeping clearly outdated information because of some weak concerns over [[WP:SYNTH]] would be as clear a [[WP:NOTBURO]] violation as one can get. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 21:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)', 108 => ':::I agree [[WP:NOTNEWS]] doesn't apply. It doesn't make sense to wait 1 or 2 months before updating the article, when the obvious (a projected winner) might be stated as soon as election night. However, you still haven't explained why we should ignore [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[WP:IGNORE]] says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." But I don't think it's been demonstrated how exactly a 3+ sourced infobox would be a significant improvement from a single sourced infobox. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that a 3+ sourced infobox would be less confusing. Trying to keep track of which sources have and haven't called a state will be pretty confusing. Since it was suggested that the AP count as 2 sources, and that sources reliant on the AP for projections shouldn't double count, this will likely create confusion with many users. For example, someone might mistakenly think that if the AP, NYT, and NPR all project a state, that it allows them to add that state to the map and infobox. Since NYT and I believe NPR rely on the AP, that would not be the case. I actually think there would be more reverts under the 3+ proposal. An AP infobox is straightforward- either the AP has projected a state or it hasn't. By the way, what even is the rationale for using 3+ sources? Is it to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't call the race before a major media organization does? If so, I already explained how this proposal does not guarantee that we will not be the first to "call" the race. AFAIK, only a single sourced infobox would make it absolutely impossible for us to be the first to "call" the race. Is the reasoning that a 3+ sourced infobox is more accurate? It's important to note that major media organizations are careful about projections, so it's pretty uncommon (although not unheard of) for a projection to be wrong. And of course, a 3+ infobox could still have an error, e.g. there was a 2018 house race that was called by most (all?) of the major news organization for a Republican, that ended up actually being won by the Democrat in that district. But given that we are up front with the readers that these are only projections, I don't think it would be that big of a deal if we call a state or the race for the wrong candidate. Regardless of the perceived benefits of a 3+ sourced infobox, there have been no strong arguments for why we should [[WP:IAR|ignore]] [[WP:SYNTH]]. Keep in mind, that a user at the noticeboard said a 3+ infobox would "definitely" violate WP:SYNTH. We should only violate Wikipedia policy as a last resort and/or when there are no viable alternatives for a functioning infobox. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 02:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 109 => '::::I don't understand why you take that one user's opinion of [[WP:SYNTH]] and apply it, but disregard their opinion of [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. Furthermore, one user's opinion anywhere shouldn't be taken as consensus, especially when that user has views on the application of NOTNEWS and CB that go against consensus here. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 08:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 110 => '::::Additionally, my understanding of consensus opinion here so far is that if there is a SYNTH violation, which a significant part of the discussion does not believe there is, it is very minor and/or only occurs in incredibly specific scenarios. You are the only person who uses phrases like "there have been no strong arguments for why we should ignore WP:SYNTH". Everyone else refers to it as things like "possible SYNTH violations" or "weak SYNTH concerns" etc, with the exception of the singular person on the noticeboard who has no prior experience in this area of WP to my knowledge. To be quite honest, I regret ever mentioning SYNTH because it turned a 10 comment thread with each entry being a sentence or two into a 30 comment thread, not including several new sub threads with a noticeboard post, full of long wordy paragraphs over a tangentially and marginally related subject that completely derailed the thread. AS previously stated, you are the only person in favor of an AP only infobox, and furthermore the only person who finds a 3+ sourced infobox more confusing or otherwise worse than an AP only infobox. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 08:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 111 => '::::*Only one person from this talk page thinks [[WP:NOTNEWS]] means we have to wait until December or January to update the infobox and map, whereas another user here and I have demonstrated that it doesn't apply. So that's why the person at the noticeboard's WP:NOTNEWS concerns are being "disregarded". On the other hand, most of the people at this talk page, including you, have conceded that at the very least, there are some [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns, albeit "weak" concerns, but concerns nonetheless. IDK where you get that I'm the only one at this talk page significantly concerned about it, given that Hollywood43ar expressed concern as well and never said they were "weakly" concerned. For what it's worth, I do think a 3+ infobox does in fact violate WP:NOTNEWS, whereas an AP only infobox does not necessarily violate it. WP:NOTNEWS says "Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source." The 3+ sources infobox proposal is the exact definition of first hand reporting since the electoral vote tally will be calculated from Wikipedia users and would not necessarily match any of the major media organizations' electoral vote tally. Furthermore, it might lead us to be the first to report that a candidate has won the election, even if no major media organization has reported this. That is an even worse violation of WP:NOTNEWS, and that's how this WP:SYNTH discussion got started. On Wikinews, maybe you could combine 3+ sources to say that a candidate has 36 electoral votes, even if no major media organization matches that tally, but on Wikipedia, we are not a newspaper, so it is not our jobs to do our own reporting, which is what the 3+ sources infobox would entail. If we do move forward with the 3+ infobox proposal, I did propose something at my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prcc27/sandbox&oldid=983235555 sandbox] that might help mitigate a premature call for a candidate (see scenario #4). I would like feedback on this scenario and the other scenarios as well. Even though my sandbox proposals would be moot if the 3+ infobox proposal doesn't go through, I still would like input, just in case we do use a 3+ sources infobox. But as far as I'm concerned, the 3+ sourced infobox has [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns that still need to be addressed, and the [[WP:NOTNEWS]] concerns are even stronger for a 3+ sourced infobox than they are for a 1 sourced infobox. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 19:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 112 => ':::::He said that while he was concerned about SYNTH his main concern was NOTNEWS, so while they did not say their concern was weak, they did say it was secondary to a concern that you apparently demonstrated as inapplicable. While I should let that user argue for themselves, I don't understand why you disregard their main concern, but use their secondary concern as evidence that there is significant overall concern. All references to SYNTH other than mine, hollywood's, and your own references, are to the SYNTH concerns of those 3 aforementioned people. As stated previously, my concerns over SYNTH were never significant and now are insignificant entirely, and your habit of taking things other people say and arguing in place of them has continued with hollywood, and they should defend statements they make, not you. So in short, no, hollywood has not stated they have significant concerns over SYNTH (and the two of us should stop acting as interpreters for their statements), and the only thing anyone has conceded that there is one person with strong SYNTH concerns on the talk page and two people who at one point had at least weak SYNTH concerns, which is where I got that you're only one at this talk page with significant SYNTH concerns.[[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 07:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)', 113 => ':::::*No, they did not say that. They said that they "think" that they are "probably" more concerned about WP:NOTNEWS. But that doesn't mean that their WP:SYNTH concerns are "weak"- it only means that their WP:NOTNEWS concerns might be stronger than their WP:SYNTH concerns. Their comment where they said "I think that we shouldn't cloud everything with confusing calls from multiple different news sources" seems to be a direct argument that a 3+ sourced infobox probably violates WP:SYNTH, and should not be used. But of course, I agree we should let them speak for themselves, because only they know for sure what argument they were trying to convey. Until then, I just don't think that it is accurate for you to assume that their WP:SYNTH concerns are "weak". Also, I did not "disregard" their WP:NOTNEWS concerns. I just don't think they have fully demonstrated how it applies (although a 3+ sourced infobox does seem to violate WP:NOTNEWS per what I said above). The first sentence of WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." I don't quite understand how they read that, and interrupted it as meaning that we should wait until the results are official before adding them to the article. But that doesn't mean their concerns are being "disregarded", it just means that they should elaborate more on how it applies. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 10:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)', 114 => ':::::::I think we could avoid NOTNEWS by saying that "source X called the race for candidate Y at time Z" in the article instead of just taking their calls and citing them. And I especially disagree with the combining of sources because than we could end up calling the race before anyone else has and that would definitely be considered a NOTNEWS violation because we are creating our own story that we wouldn't be able to cite and no one else could verify. As for SYNTH, combing sources in this manner is specifically what SNYTH was designed to protect against. However, I don't have any strong concerns about NOTNEWS or SYNTH concerns about any of the other solutions proposed, my original comment was directed at the combining of sources although I apologize that that wasn't made clear in the way I wrote it. [[User:Hollywood43ar|Hollywood43ar]] ([[User talk:Hollywood43ar|talk]]) 12:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)', 115 => '::::::::To the above user, I agree that we should not issue a projection for a winner before another source does. While a 3+ source infobox could end up giving a candidate 270 via aggregation, I think the chance of that happening is small enough that we should simply add a note to some effect stating that no winner has been declared, but all states have 3+ sources projecting the winner we project. I think this is a better solution than tossing out the 3+ source infobox for a version based on less concrete sourcing over this small discrepancy that may occur. Would like your, and others in the above thread, thoughts on this. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)', 116 => ':::::::::I think that <s>would be ok.</s> is the best solution currently suggested. [[User:Hollywood43ar|Hollywood43ar]] ([[User talk:Hollywood43ar|talk]]) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)', 117 => ':::::::::*Does that mean you support a 3+ sourced infobox over an infobox based solely on AP projections, or would you prefer an AP infobox over a 3+ sourced infobox? Please note, that my SYNTH concerns do not stop at the unlikely event that we would be the first to call the race. Combining a bunch of sources to create an electoral vote tally that is not reflected by any major media organization is still very likely to occur regardless, and I'm not sure [[WP:CALC]] allows us to do this. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 19:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)', 118 => '::::::::::I would prefer the 3+ sources infobox as long as we aren't combining sources to come up with a new result. If it is just a list of sources and their predictions I am fine with that.[[User:Hollywood43ar|Hollywood43ar]] ([[User talk:Hollywood43ar|talk]]) 12:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)', 119 => '::::::::::*Could you please clarify what you mean by "new result"? "New result" meaning that we project a candidate as the president-elect even though no major media organization has done so, or does "new result" also include an electoral vote tally not backed by any of the major media organizations? If the 3+ sources infobox rule was in effect during the 2016 presidential election, at 8 P.M. Eastern our infobox would have had Clinton at 68 electoral votes, and Trump at 57 electoral votes. However, out of all the 8 P.M. projections that I found- none of them directly matched what our infobox would have said. ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, FOX, and AP did not have both Clinton at 68 and Trump at 57 at 8 P.M. So basically, this would be a [[WP:SYNTH]]/[[WP:NOTNEWS]] violation, and this same violation is likely to occur this year, if we move forward with a 3+ sourced infobox. How would you feel if we had a table in the article that listed all of the major networks and their projections? The infobox could be AP only, but with a footnote telling readers to also check out the table that shows what the other major media networks have projected. I probably wouldn't have enough time to create such a table myself, but I would not oppose any of the other users creating a table like that. That way, the readers themselves can make their own determination about which states should and shouldn't count as being "called" or not. But as for the infobox/map, I just don't see how a 3+ source infobox would work without us coming up with electoral vote tallies not supported by the media per what I said above. That's why an AP only infobox is our best option. [https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/politics/unprecedented/network-projections/][https://blog.ap.org/behind-the-news/calling-the-presidential-race-state-by-state%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B] [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)', 120 => ':::::::::::An alternative to making a whole table with major media projections would be to have the AP as our main source for the infobox, but also have a footnote about what the other major media organizations have as their electoral vote tally e.g. "CNN has Trump at 48 electoral votes, ABC has him at 37 electoral votes, NBC has him at 66 electoral votes", etc. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)', 121 => '{{od}} '''Compromise proposal:''' use the 3+ sources infobox proposal for adding states to the map, but have the infobox tally reflect the AP's projected electoral vote count with a footnote explaining why the infobox tally doesn't directly reflect what's on the map. Example of possible footnote- "this electoral vote tally is based on the AP's projections. However, states are added to the map using a different criteria: a state is called once at least 3 major news organizations or the AP & at least 1 major news organization that does not rely on the AP, projects that that state was won by the candidate. Using the map's criteria, Trump's projected electoral vote tally would be 229, and Biden's projected electoral vote tally would be 218." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prcc27/sandbox&oldid=984034459 Here] is an example of what the infobox could look like. This compromise proposal would help mitigate [[WP:SYNTH]] & [[WP:NOTNEWS]] concerns. The map would probably still violate Wikipedia policy, but since the map is on Commons- it might be okay.. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 21:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)', 122 => 'Since Hollywood43ar mentioned listing a bunch of sources' tallies, we could also add other news organizations' tallies to the footnote that I proposed. But I think it's best not to have a verbose footnote. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)', 123 => ':Does the silence in this discussion mean that you guys are fine with my compromise proposal, and that I can proceed with implementing it on election day? Or does it mean that this discussion is dying out and nobody is following it anymore..? Having an electoral vote tally that doesn't match any reliable news source is unacceptable. Hollywood43ar seems to agree that we shouldn't be coming up with a "new result". My compromise proposal wouldn't do away with the 3+ source electoral vote tally entirely and it wouldn't prevent a 3+ sourced map- it would just put that 3+ tally in the footnote. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 19:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)', 124 => ':Since nobody said they oppose the compromise proposal, on election day, I intend on moving forward with it. However, I tweaked the proposal once more, so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prcc27/sandbox&oldid=984736168 this] is what the infobox would look like. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)', 125 => '::Lack of comment for 24 hours does not mean that everyone agrees with your compromise proposal. As stated previously, I support the consensus {{tq| for three reliable news orgs, acceptable orgs being the ones specified by Mark D Worthen, with the addition of Politico and the few you named as well, for updating popular vote tally 12 hours after polls close, then every 6 hours after, and for the use of grey for states with closed polls but no projection}}. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 08:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)', 126 => ':::Actually, it has been 5 days since I proposed a joint AP/3+ sourced infobox, not 24 hours. But I have tweaked the infobox once since that original proposal. Our readers deserve to be able to verify the infobox's tally per [[WP:VERIFY]]. The "consensus" you are citing does not allow users to be able to click on a link to a source to verify that the tally is backed by a reliable source. Putting the AP tally up there (even if in addition to the 3+ source tally) allows users to do this. Also, please keep in mind that this is not a vote- it is a discussion. If you disagree with a proposal, it is helpful to give a reason for your disagreement. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 18:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)', 127 => '::::You're right I apologize, more than 1 day had gone by. The reason I personally stopped responding is because I have nothing more to say. I have decided: as stated above I support the consensus {{tq| for three reliable news orgs, acceptable orgs being the ones specified by Mark D Worthen, with the addition of Politico and the few you named as well, for updating popular vote tally 12 hours after polls close, then every 6 hours after, and for the use of grey for states with closed polls but no projection}}. I disagree with your proposal because the previous consensus proposal is simple, effective, functional, useful, and a whole host of other positive attributes. I stopped responding because it was clear to me your proposals were all unneeded because an effective solution has been devised I agree with, and the only reason I responded here is to prevent conflict on election day. I see no reason to over complicate an info box, much less throw constant proposals at the discussion dart board to see if one sticks and then declaring victory once people become exhausted with what was approximately your 10th suggestion for a new or altered solution to a problem that was effectively figured out by the 5th comment. Furthermore, when challenged, you call on not a vote, even though of all people making assertions based on some sort of understandable logic, you are the sole editor opposed to the general consensus of a 3+ info box stated above, your interpretation of tangentially related comments by other editors notwithstanding. I see no reason to continue a finished discussion. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)', 128 => '::::*When a user makes a proposal, and another user concurs and builds on that proposal, and it goes unchallenged- it is easy for one to assume that a new consensus has formed, albeit weak consensus. The fact that so many people are tuned out off this discussion makes it harder to form a strong consensus. And I wouldn't oppose pinging all the users that have commented in this discussion thus far. Nevertheless, at the very least, you have to have a footnote that says something like "a state's electoral vote tally is added to the infobox once at least 3 major news organizations or the AP & at least 1 major news organization that does not rely on the AP, projects that that state was won by the candidate." Not explaining to the readers, as well as other Wikipedia users, what the criteria for the infobox is makes us look unreliable. Anyways, on election night, if our infobox's tally does not match '''any''' of the electoral vote tallies of the major media organizations, I very well may make a [[WP:BOLD]] edit implementing my proposal. However, I would be deterred from being BOLD, if I heard opposition to my or Hollywood43ar's proposal, from more than just 1 user. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 22:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)', 129 => ':::::After much thought, I've decided that a BOLD edit probably wouldn't be the best move. However, I do intend on flagging the infobox as having a possible [[WP:SYNTH]] violation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prcc27/sandbox&oldid=985321062 This] is what the infobox would look like with the synth flag. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 08:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)', 130 => ':::::There have been more comments made at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#2020_United_States_presidential_election_WP%3ASYNTH%2FWP%3ACALC noticeboard]. Based on the concerns raised at that noticeboard, I don't think there is currently any consensus on how to move forward with the map and infobox. Until we can come to some sort of consensus and/or compromise, I think that we will have to hold off on updating the infobox and map. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)', 131 => '::::::On the contrary, as previously stated, you are just about the only, if not the only, editor here who believes there is not a consensus for a 3+ sourced info box. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 05:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 132 => '::::::*{{reply|Przemysl15}} Did you check the noticeboard lately..? Over the past few hours, several more users have chimed in there. Consensus is measured by both the discussions here and at the noticeboard. Right now, the consensus is mainly split between a 3+ infobox & not updating the infobox on election night at all (but with only a couple users supporting an AP only infobox). Virtually nobody at the noticeboard supports a 3+ sourced infobox. Most of the users there think we should wait until the results are finalized per [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. But 1 user there agreed with me that we should use an AP only infobox. Even if you exclude Hollywood43ar's SYNTH concerns- there are at least 2 other users that explicitly agreed with me that a 3+ infobox would violate that Wikipedia policy. The burden of consensus is on those trying to change the article, so if we can't get a strong consensus on a criteria for the infobox, we would have to default to the status quo which is leaving the infobox as it is now. I strongly suggest we ping the other users that have commented at this talk page to see what they think about the concerns expressed at the noticeboard. That way, we will know whether or not they agree with the concerns expressed there. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 07:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 133 => ':::::::Also, I added a hidden note to the infobox that says "there is currently no consensus on how to add a projected electoral vote tally to the infobox. Please do not update until a consensus is formed at the talk" and a user thanked me for that edit. So no, I am not the only person on this talk page that thinks that there is no consensus for updating the infobox come election night. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 07:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 134 => '::::::::To my understanding, consensus here on this talk page is that an acceptable infobox shall be updated when a state or the race is called by {{tq|three reliable news orgs, acceptable orgs being the ones specified by Mark D Worthen, with the addition of Politico and the few you [Prcc27] named as well, for updating popular vote tally 12 hours after polls close, then every 6 hours after, and for the use of grey for states with closed polls but no projection}}. Is this correct? Additionally, does anyone here oppose that consensus? {{ping|Devonian Wombat}} {{ping|Markworthen}} {{ping|Devonian Wombat}} {{ping|Hollywood43ar}} [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 08:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 135 => '::::::::*You are correct that most of the users at this talk page expressed support for a 3+ sourced infobox, and up until yesterday, consensus did seem to lean in that direction. But I'm pretty sure that any discussion conducted at a noticeboard is also included when assessing consensus. A couple of the users at the noticeboard have [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns with regards to the 3+ sourced infobox, 1 user there supports my idea to have an infobox based only on the AP's projections. But most of the users there are against updating the infobox on election day altogether due to [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. I don't think it would be right to ignore their concerns, so I would say that consensus is probably split if we include the users at the noticeboard in our overall assessment of consensus. {{ping|Arglebargle79}} was also briefly part of this discussion. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 09:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 136 => ':::::::::*Can we just implement the 3 source criteria and stop endlessly procrastinating? I personally am in favour of just completely ignoring the noticeboard comments. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 10:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 137 => '{{OD}}We don't edit Wikipedia based on personal preference. I think it's unthinkable to completely disregard the comments of other Wikipedia users, simply because you disagree with them. [[WP:SYNTH]], [[WP:VERIFY]], and [[WP:NOTNEWS]] are all Wikipedia policies that should be followed to the best of our abilities. Until those concerns are addressed, I don't think we should move forward with updating the infobox, especially a 3+ sourced synth infobox. The noticeboard discussion should be included in our assessment of consensus. Consensus is split. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 10:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 138 => ':[[WP:PNB|Noticeboards]] are for {{tq|for specific problems that editors encounter in writing and maintaining Wikipedia articles. Posting a message to a noticeboard can also be an appropriate early step in resolving disputes on Wikipedia. Noticeboards are best used for simple and urgent matters}}. While I understand that you may have thought was a specific problem in writing this article and that you wanted to resolve your dispute, there is not problem in writing or maintaining the article, as consensus on this page for that issue had been determined by the time you went on the noticeboard, and thus your dispute is manufactured. While I understand you are coming from a place of good faith and likely do legitimately have those concerns you stated, you are right it is {{tq|unthinkable to completely disregard the comments of other Wikipedia users simply because you disagree with them}}, so I find it incredibly frustrating that you would completely disregard all the editors here, ignore a consensus on this page, and even go as far as opening a dispute resolution valve where it was unneeded, just to have a swarm of editors agree with you because only one side of the argument is presented. The editors there don't even agree with your point and want to shut down the article entirely on election day, which flies in the face of every notion of precedent that exists in this space of Wikipedia. While I am not saying that the editors on the noticeboard are anything but well respected editors with a long and positive history of constructive contribution, they clearly have not read this talk page they are supposedly resolving a dispute for, and by this you have created an echo chamber, unwillingly but all the same an echo chamber. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 16:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 139 => ':*Yeah, no. That's not what happened at all.. At the time, you and I were the only ones discussing the [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns. I thought it was a problem for only two people to be discussing the issue, so I suggested opening up a discussion on the noticeboard. Once another user said they agreed with my suggestion to open up a discussion at the noticeboard, that's when I brought my concerns there. So going to a noticeboard was not a unilateral decision, even though you seem to be suggesting that it was. I did not disregard the users at this talk page- I suggested going to a noticeboard, then waited for users to chime in before moving forward. Furthermore, I did not open the discussion there just so users would agree with me, like you are suggesting. In fact, in general, they don't even agree with me, and I'm okay with that. Sometimes, consensus is not on my side, and I accept that. But what they are proposing is the status quo of what's currently on our article. And unlike the 3+ sourced proposal, it does not violate Wikipedia policy to wait to update the infobox. By the way, I'm not sure Wikipedia operates on "precedent", and remember, [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. You can't vote to disregard a Wikipedia policy just because it suits your personal preference. You two (with the possible addition of Arglebargle79) are the only users that seem to support a 3+ sourced infobox full stop without any reservations. Hollywood43ar prefers a 3+ sourced infobox, but seems to want a list of sources on the infobox and has some [[WP:SYNTH]] and possibly [[WP:NOTNEWS]] concerns. I think Markworthen is the one that proposed the 3+ sources criteria, but he also wanted us to go to the noticeboard to get advice from users that are more familiar with [[WP:SYNTH]], and since then, two users at that noticeboard have explicitly said that the 3+ sourced infobox violates that Wikipedia policy. Arglebargle79 seems to concur with a 3+ sourced infobox idea, but would rather use a 2+ sourced criteria for certain states..? The consensus here was already shakey before the developments at the noticeboard that took place yesterday. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 18:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 140 => '::The only reason you and I were the only ones discussing the [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns, to my understanding, is because everyone else had felt that the consensus had been decided and moved on and want to continue moving on, as evidenced by Wombats wish to simply implement the 3 source criteria and end the procrastination. However, I am speaking for other users so I will let them chime in instead of talking for them using the pings I slated earlier and stop running this thread into the ground. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 19:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 141 => '::*That's my whole point. You and Wombat seem to be the only users strongly in favor of a 3+ only sourced infobox! One user preferred it but had reservations, another user supported going to the noticeboard to hash out the [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns, and another user wants to use a similar 2+ only criteria in certain cases. Please note that I am not the only user that is against moving forward with updating the infobox on election night. Tartan357 thanked me for my edit that you two have since reverted. I will not ping them here though per [[WP:CANVASS]]. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 142 => '::::The [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns are valid regarding using 3 sources' result predictions that may be collectively biasing toward one party/candidate or another. This is where [[WP:NOTNEWS]] comes into play. Synthesised content should not be intentionally generated just to satisfy some media frenzy about the event. We know we will get the election results eventually throughout the proper channels, there is no rush to have all the data available here on en.wikipedia on day 1. Unlike international news organisations wikipedia is not beholden to its readers/viewers for any advertising revenue. There is no pressure placed upon editors to have conclusions reported immediately out of some notion of being the 'first' organisation to report such a winning party/candidate in a given district or state. The media outlets generally do this out of a notion of competing with other such outlets to say they were 'right' about the victor first, but this is done at the risk of being incorrect about the result in the short term. We must wait for accurate reporting to reflect that specific data. If it takes more than 24 for hours for that data to come through, so be it. If it takes more than 1 week, so be it. Readers will naturally seek out predictions from media outlets if they feel the need to and the final data has not yet been sourced here. This is without issue. If a problem will occur with a flood of new editors/editors without proper accounts adding in this inaccurate data for themselves that is precisely what the protect article button is for. It can stay up for as long as is needed for the flood of heavily biased contributors to subside. - [[User:Wiz9999|Wiz9999]] ([[User talk:Wiz9999|talk]]) 21:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 143 => '::::*Where do you stand on an infobox that only has AP projections? The AP has long standing historical significance, and many major media outlets rely on them. Plus, this would take care of the [[WP:SYNTH]] and possibly even some [[WP: NOTNEWS]] concerns. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 21:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 144 => '::::::I would say there are some definate [[WP:NPOV]] concerns for relying on a single source for all data projections. However my objection to such a proposal is definitely less than that of the [[WP:SYNTH]] issues. I think the decision on using a single RS with relatively minimal bias is something that ultimately should be general consensus here before being implemented. As [[WP:NOTNEWS]] would most definatly favour having no assignment made whatsoever to the infobox until the sources can agree. Eventually all the RSs and media outlets will coalesce around a single candidate as the overall winner. When this occurs, and it can be shown in the sources without challenge or controversy, then yes, it may be reported here and in the infobox that one candidate overall is indicated as victor. This may not yet be directly indicated in the data for individual states and districts, but as long as the sources are in agreement it should not be controversial to include in the article. - [[User:Wiz9999|Wiz9999]] ([[User talk:Wiz9999|talk]]) 22:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 145 => '::::::*If you want to be even stricter with [[WP:NOTNEWS]], we would have to wait until all states and districts are projected by every major outlet before adding the vote tally to the infobox. I am absolutely opposed to not updating the infobox initially, and then all of the sudden updating the infobox once a winner is unanimously declared- meanwhile one or two states are still too early to call and we could possibly see news organizations call those races at different times. We should either update the infobox on election night, or wait until every state and district has been projected. All or nothing. But, what we could do (and maybe this is what you were suggesting) is to bold the candidate that won once they are unanimously projected the winner, but leave out the vote total until we get full results. This should maybe be discussed in the national criteria section below. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 146 => '::::::Completely unrelated, but why don't we just designate one editor to update the projections every half hour? This will prevent any major edit conflicts, or people that obsessively edit and refresh, hoping to be the one that adds the state. To take it to another level, maybe fully protect it and make an admin edit it every half hour? <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 22:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 147 => '::::::*But what about the rest of the article..? Would we have to make edit requests to update the article as well..? I'm not sure if this is necessary, especially if we can agree on a criteria for the infobox. By the way, do you support a 3+ source infobox, an AP only infobox, or do you think we should hold off on election night projections altogether? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 148 => ':::::::{{u|Prcc27}}, that was an error on my part. I just now realized that if you're extended-confirmed, you'd probably see the warnings before editing, and follow the rules. I personally support just the AP infobox, as many of the major outlets use that as a gold standard, as well as the campaigns themselves. Clinton didn't concede until the AP called the race, so I consider the AP to be the one that matters. Of course, we won't be getting many calls on election night, as the mail-in ballots can be received later in many states. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 23:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 149 => '::::::::If we were to have a halt on updating the infobox until there was clear sourcing for who won either any state or the entire race, what criteria would we want to use to determine when the dust has settled and we can update the page? I am willing to go along with this principle of don't edit the infobox on election night if the consensus goes this way, but I am against simply saying don't update the infobox for 24 hours after polls close. While it is incredibly likely that the race will not be callable within 24 hours, it is possible that one candidate wins in a massive landslide, and, more importantly, there is a pretty decent chance that some states, namely those considered safe, will be called by most Reliable Sources within a pretty short time and I don't think it is a violation of NOTNEWS to declare that a candidate has won a state/district when most major media outlets are declaring they have. Simply putting a full stop on the page would incorrectly display that no one is considered to have won any state/district when there is a distinct possibility that a candidate has won some districts. I would absolutely want a note saying that the page is out of date and we are waiting for the dust to settle, but I have some concerns that implementing a policy of "no infobox editing for the first 24 hours" conveys a message of "things will be too crazy to call in the first 24 hours", which is undocumented speculation and thus a [[CB]] violation. However, I also take issue with statements to the effect of we need all or most major media outlets to call a state/district for us to call it, and I have made such statements in this very response. What counts as all major outlets? Further up in the thread we have a list of around 15 sources we consider reliable. Do we need 10-15 sources to update the infobox in that case? Surely that is a source overkill and thus a violation of [[WP:OVERKILL]]. This could possibly by mitigated by finding 10 sources and then only citing AP, but I think that is an issue in it of itself. The answer may be to simply go with the AP only infobox, but my issue with that is it based our infobox off of 1 source could be an [[WP:NPOV]] violation, among other things. My point is if we want to say the 3+ infobox violates a bunch of Wikipedia policies, which I'm not sold on the fact that it does but for the sake of argument let's say it does, I am having problems coming up with a solution of my own or finding a previously proposed solution that does not violate some other policy as well. Clearly having an updated infobox is important so surely it would be better to update it some way as opposed to sitting in gridlock here. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 02:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 150 => ':::::::::Yeah, I'm not really buying the [[WP:NPOV]] arguments against an AP only infobox. While the AP is "only 1 source", it is seen by many as the most prominent source for election projections. And many news organizations rely on them. Per [[WP:DUE]], I think it's absolutely fine to give more weight to the AP's projections. It's a stretch to say this proposal violates Wikipedia policy. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 02:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 151 => '::::::::::I agree with {{u|Prcc27}}. AP is the standard. For example, NPR will not call a state until AP has called it.[https://www.npr.org/2020/10/30/929402276/how-the-associated-press-calls-winners-during-the-election *] [[User:Tcr25|Carter]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 03:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 152 => ':::::::::::I should be more clear: there is at least 1 user here who has concerns that an AP only infobox could violate [[WP:NPOV]]. I generally agree that AP is reliable but the point is that every proposed solution here someone somewhere has had some sort of issue with, not over principle or accuracy or whatever but directly over WP policy. If, for the sake of argument, we say that an AP only infobox doesn't violate [[WP:NPOV]], which I don't necessarily agree with but for the sake of argument let's make that assumption, you could argue that because AP is inherently a news organization, using only AP is a violation of [[NOTNEWS]]. If we take the stance that AP is the be all end all projection source, which again I don't necessarily agree with but for the sake of argument let's make that assumption, just because the AP puts out news, that does not necessarily mean that it is worthy for the article. From [[WP:NOTNEWS]] itself: {{tq|Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories}}. Thus, this statement from WP policy can directly be taken to mean that precisely because AP is regarded as the first news source for elections, it is the precise definition of "first-hand news reports on breaking stories", and thus we should wait until the dust has settled from the election to be updating the infobox. I'm certain there exists a counter argument back for why an AP only infobox does not, in fact, violate NOTNEWS. While you may believe your proposal doesn't violate WP policy, my point is that "your proposal violated WP policy and mine doesn't" is a poor angle to go on because, at least in the scope of this discussion, that's subjective, and we should be evaluating infobox policy on how to most accurately, efficiently, and consistently provide encyclopedic information about the election, using WP policies to guide us to a solution that achieves that rather than taking firm ideological stances on one particular solution and warping WP policies to justify our most liked solution.', 153 => '', 154 => ':::::::::::An example of this would be such: due to the fact that WP should not offer first hand news reports on breaking stories, the infobox for the election should not be edited at all for some amount of time, say 6 hours, after polls close. Then, the infobox should be updated only to updates states/districts where the AP has called the race at least 6 hrs after polls have closed AND several news organizations, say 2 or 3, have corroborated the story from the AP after the AP calls the race in that state/district. The race itself should not be called for say 24 hours after polls close and only when the AP calls the race and 3/4 news orgs corroborate this after the AP folks have called the race. This should be used as a building block for further discussion and not as a strict hardline solution I want to die over, but this sort of discussion, I hope, can help break the deadlock on this page. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 03:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 155 => '{{OD}}Yes, there are [[WP:NOTNEWS]] concerns, I'm not denying that. But my point was, those concerns are not specifically related to the AP proposal itself, but rather about ''any'' election night inclusion criteria broadly. [[WP:EVENTCRITERIA]] seems to allow us to update the infobox on election night and possibly even renders WP:NOTNEWS not applicable. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 04:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 156 => 'I don't quite get the rationale for not displaying the results of the election when we know of the results of the election. Our job is to serve our readers, both for today, tomorrow, and 20 years from now, and we have a responsibility to present them with accurate, up to date information, and not giving them that information as soon as we responsibly can is shirking our responsibility. After AP calls the race, and possibly after other news organizations have as well, we should display that; there is no logical argument (as far as I can tell) for arbitrarily denying information to the public for a large amount of time. [[User:Zoozaz1|<span style="background-color:#FF0017; color: #FFFF00">'''Zoozaz1'''</span>]] [[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]] 04:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 157 => ':I am for displaying in the infobox any result called by the AP and a few other news orgs. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 10:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 158 => '::{{u|Przemysl15}}, You said "the infobox for the election should not be edited at all for some amount of time, say 6 hours, after polls close" and "The race itself should not be called for say 24 hours after polls close," which seems like an arbitrary time limit. [[User:Zoozaz1|<span style="background-color:#FF0017; color: #FFFF00">'''Zoozaz1'''</span>]] [[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]] 14:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 159 => ':::I think we should update the infobox with projected electoral votes immediately when the AP calls races. But, the consensus to hold off on adding popular vote totals until 12 hours after polls close and only update them ever 6 hours still seems to be unchallenged. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 17:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 160 => '::::{{u|Prcc27}}, are we doing that after the state has ended elections, or all of america has ended elections? [[User:HeartGlow30797|'''<span style="color:red; text-shadow:#ffdf00 0.0em 0.0em 2.0em">Heart</span>''']] ^{<small>[[User talk:HeartGlow30797|''(talk)'']]</small>} 12:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 161 => ':::To clarify, this consensus for the popular vote criteria only holds if we agree to update the infobox on election night. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 17:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 162 => '::::I apologize, I thought you meant the electoral votes. I don't really think the specific number of sources we use is really that important, only that we provide accurate and up to date information. [[User:Zoozaz1|<span style="background-color:#FF0017; color: #FFFF00">'''Zoozaz1'''</span>]] [[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]] 18:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 163 => ':::::{{ping|Zoozaz1}}, I also said {{tq|This should be used as a building block for further discussion and not as a strict hardline solution I want to die over, but this sort of discussion, I hope, can help break the deadlock on this page.}} The point is to try and achieve some workable consensus so we definitely do not need any arbitrary time limit, but we should have some way to ensure we are not reporting numbers not backed by a sweeping RS consensus. I would then prefer to wait until the AP AND a few other sources call the race, the few sources corroborating AP as opposed to calling it before AP, so we have a better way to ensure our information will not be taken back at a later date. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 19:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 164 => '::::::A projection is never 100% accurate, even if several media organizations are in agreement. I don't think it's that big of a deal if we have to retract an AP projection tally in the infobox, because it should be quite clear that these are not official results. However, I wouldn't have an issue with holding off on bolding a candidate until at least 1 media organization agrees with the AP. This is something we have already discussed in the national criteria section. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 165 => ':::::::I also mean to say that this should be how state/district calling works as well. Once AP and 1 other source (preferably more but 1 seems to be something we can all agree on) say a candidate has won a state/district, we should reflect that information. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 166 => ':::::::Yeah, I think having AP and one or two major news organization call it is the way to go. [[User:Zoozaz1|<span style="background-color:#FF0017; color: #FFFF00">'''Zoozaz1'''</span>]] [[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]] 20:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 167 => '::::::::Yeah, no. That absolutely will not happen. Many users have already expressed that this would violate [[WP:SYNTH]]. We can't ignore a Wikipedia policy due to personal preferences. The only viable proposals thus far that can be carried out are using 1 source for the infobox tally (e.g. the Associated Press), or holding off on updating it until the tally is closer to being finalized. Can we please move on away from this proposal that clearly will not be implemented per Wikipedia policy? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 21:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 168 => ':::::::::You are confusing this proposal with a prior one. This is a more refined version of the first alternative proposal you suggested. We use the Associated Press as the primary source for the infobox, but we do not put up the AP sourcing until a few other news organizations have corroborated the AP's findings. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 21:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 169 => ':::::::::Adding up the electoral votes to me seems to be a pretty clear example of the basic arithmetic described in [[WP:CALC]]. We could easily just add up the electoral votes from the states that have been called by a number of reliable sources. [[User:Zoozaz1|<span style="background-color:#FF0017; color: #FFFF00">'''Zoozaz1'''</span>]] [[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]] 21:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 170 => '{{OD}}It still seems like borderline WP:SYNTH. [[WP:CALC]] may negate the SYNTH concerns, but my biggest concern is actually [[WP:VERIFY]]. Our electoral vote tally should be easy to verify via a source. Waiting for a source to agree with the AP before updating the infobox will likely lead to an infobox tally that does not match any major media organization's electoral vote tally. Maybe we could have a separate color for states that have been projected only by the AP (light blue/light red) and another color for states where the AP projects a state with agreement from another source (regular blue/regular red). But honestly, I worry this will overcomplicate the map and infobox. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 22:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 171 => ':Personally, I think it is sufficient to let users verify the result from state results as long as it is clearly stated where the overall tally comes from; my main concern with relying on only one source is the chance of an incorrect call. It's best to be cautious about something as consequential as this and to me, that means not depending on a single source for the results. [[User:Zoozaz1|<span style="background-color:#FF0017; color: #FFFF00">'''Zoozaz1'''</span>]] [[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]] 23:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 172 => ':*If more users voice support for that proposal, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to that as a compromise (although I still have reservations about the proposal). But more users seem to support an AP only criteria, so unless more users agree to that proposal- I feel like agreeing on an AP only criteria would be our only viable option. Otherwise, waiting until after the election to update the infobox would seem to be the consensus. Let's see what other users have to say about the proposal though. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 23:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)', 173 => '::I'm starting an RfC below, where it'll (hopefully) be more organized and easier to follow. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 02:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 174 => '', 175 => '=== Legions of Lawyers: Part 2===', 176 => 'Unless there's a Biden blowout that even Trump can't contest, there's going to be a contested election or at least an attempt by the Trump people to make it one. Now whether how much is going to be on this page and how much will be on a new article will be determined when the time comes. An article called [[Supreme Court cases related to the 2020 US Presidential election]] can be started now, as there have been, as I mentioned before two cases, not including Trump's taxes (that would make it five) which have already been ruled on. I suggest we have a list of the cases and their rulings before the big stuff gets going. Then I'm not so sure. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 00:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 177 => '*Do the 2 current cases warrant creating a completely new article? Would we end up with a stub article if we move forward with a new article today? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 02:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 178 => '::A stub will do for now. There are at least ten or fifteen cases that haven't been ruled on yet, including Trump's second bite at the apple on the taxes thing. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 12:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)', 179 => '', 180 => '=== National criteria ===', 181 => 'There seems to be a weak consensus for a 3+ sourced map/infobox, a weak consensus to list other tally/tallies in the infobox as well, and a moderate consensus that there are some [[WP:SYNTH]]/[[WP:NOTNEWS]] concerns (which might have been mitigated to a small degree in my compromise proposal in one of the discussions above that nobody has explicitly objected to). Many users are not tuned in to the discussion we have had. So it's possible, that on election day (when more users will be tuned into this article) that [[WP:CCC|consensus will change]]. Nevertheless, we should move forward with the consensus that we achieved here. That being said, while we have a 3+ source criteria for declaring a candidate a winner of a state- we do not currently have a criteria for declaring a candidate the winner of the national election (projected president-elect). When should a candidate be "declared" the winner of the election in the infobox? In other words, when should we bold the candidate's name, running mate's name, and electoral vote tally? Should we bold a candidate once our map shows they have won, so long as at least 1 other major news organization has also projected them a winner? Should we bold a candidate once 3+ major news organizations have declared a candidate the winner, even if our map does not yet reflect that? My answer to both questions is "yes"- both should be the criteria for bolding a candidate. Of course, if the media organizations all declare a candidate the winner simultaneously- this discussion will be moot. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)', 182 => ':I see no reason not to extend the consensus for the infobox to the calling of the race. When 3+ sources call the race, we should as well. I also disagree with your characterization of the consensuses in the prior discussion: there is at least a moderate consensus, and I think more accurately a decently strong consensus, for a 3+ sourced map/infobox, at most a weak consensus to list other tallies in the infobox, and at most a weak consensus that there are SYNTH, etc, concerns. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 08:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)', 183 => ':*There is moderate consensus for a 3+ sourced map/infobox broadly speaking, but there is weak consensus for an infobox that ''only'' lists a tally using the 3+ source criteria. I should have made that more clear. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 18:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)', 184 => ':Anyone object to me closing this so we can eventually get it archived? It's still attracting random comments that are keeping it from archiving. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 185 => '::I don't, but the [[#What to do on the mid-afternoon on November the Fourth]] section and [[Archiving]] section show that some people might object. (Even though the current talk page is nearly the equivalent of three archives.) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 16:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 186 => '', 187 => '== Reduce height of nominee tables ==', 188 => '', 189 => '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? [[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 21:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)', 190 => '', 191 => '{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="font-size:90%; text-align:center;"', 192 => '|+class=nowrap|Republican', 193 => '! colspan="2" |[[File:Republican Disc.png|65x65px|link=Republican Party (United States)]]<big>&nbsp;2020 Republican Party ticket</big>', 194 => '|-', 195 => '! style="font-size:135%; background:{{Republican Party (United States)/meta/color}}"|{{colored link|white|Donald Trump|Donald Trump}}', 196 => '! style="font-size:135%; background:{{Republican Party (United States)/meta/color}}"|{{colored link|white|Mike Pence|Mike Pence}}', 197 => '|- style="font-size:100%; background:#ffd0d7"', 198 => '| '''''for President'''''', 199 => '| '''''for Vice President'''''', 200 => '|-', 201 => '|[[File:Official Portrait of President Donald Trump.jpg|center|200x200px]]', 202 => '|[[File:Vice President Pence Official Portrait.jpg|center|200x200px]]', 203 => '|-', 204 => '| style=width:16em|[[List of presidents of the United States|45th]] [[President of the United States]] {{nowrap|<small>(2017–''present'')</small>}}', 205 => '| style=width:16em|[[List of vice presidents of the United States|48th]] [[Vice President of the United States]] {{nowrap|<small>(2017–''present'')</small>}}', 206 => '|-', 207 => '| colspan="2" |[[File:Trump-Pence 2020.svg|200x100px]]{{spaces|5}}'''[[Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign|Campaign]]'''', 208 => '|}', 209 => '', 210 => '{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="font-size:90%; text-align:center;"', 211 => '|+class=nowrap|Democratic', 212 => '! colspan="2" |[[File:U.S. Democratic Party logo (transparent).svg|65x65px|link=Democratic Party (United States)]]<big>&nbsp;2020 Democratic Party ticket</big>', 213 => '|-', 214 => '! style="font-size:135%; background:{{Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color}}"|{{colored link|white|Joe Biden|Joe Biden}}', 215 => '! style="font-size:135%; background:{{Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color}}"|{{colored link|white|Kamala Harris|Kamala Harris}}', 216 => '|- style="font-size:100%; background:#c8ebff"', 217 => '| '''''for President'''''', 218 => '| '''''for Vice President'''''', 219 => '|-', 220 => '|[[File:Joe Biden official portrait 2013 cropped (cropped).jpg|center|200x200px]]', 221 => '|[[File:Senator Harris official senate portrait.jpg|center|200x200px]]', 222 => '|-', 223 => '| style=width:16em|[[List of vice presidents of the United States|47th]] [[Vice President of the United States]] {{nowrap|<small>(2009–2017)</small>}}', 224 => '| style=width:16em|[[United States Senate|U.S. senator]] from [[California]] {{nowrap|<small>(2017–''present'')</small>}}', 225 => '|-', 226 => '| colspan="2" |[[File:Biden_Harris_logo.svg|200x100px]]{{spaces|5}}'''[[Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign|Campaign]]'''', 227 => '|}', 228 => '', 229 => '{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="font-size:90%; text-align:center;"', 230 => '|+class=nowrap|Libertarian', 231 => '! colspan="2" |[[File:LPF-torch-logo (cropped).png|65x65px|link=Libertarian Party (United States)]]<big>&nbsp;2020 Libertarian Party ticket</big>', 232 => '|-', 233 => '! style="font-size:135%; background:{{Libertarian Party (United States)/meta/color}}"|{{colored link|white|Jo Jorgensen|Jo Jorgensen}}', 234 => '! style="font-size:135%; background:{{Libertarian Party (United States)/meta/color}}"|{{colored link|white|Spike Cohen|Spike Cohen}}', 235 => '|- style="font-size:100%; background:#ffffbf"', 236 => '| '''''for President'''''', 237 => '| '''''for Vice President'''''', 238 => '|-', 239 => '|[[File:Jo Jorgensen portrait 3.jpg|center|200x200px]]', 240 => '|[[File:Spike Cohen portrait 1 (crop 2).jpg|center|200x200px]]', 241 => '|-', 242 => '| style=width:16em|Senior Lecturer at {{nowrap|[[Clemson University]]}}', 243 => '| style=width:16em|Podcaster and businessman', 244 => '|-', 245 => '| colspan="2" |[[File:Jorgensen Cohen 2020 Campaign Logo.svg|200x100px]]{{spaces|5}}'''[[Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign|Campaign]]'''', 246 => '|}', 247 => '', 248 => '{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="font-size:90%; text-align:center;"', 249 => '|+class=nowrap|Green', 250 => '! colspan="2" |[[File:Green Party of the United States social media logo.svg|65x65px|link=Green Party (United States)]]<big>&nbsp;2020 Green Party ticket</big>', 251 => '|-', 252 => '! style="font-size:135%; background:{{Green Party (United States)/meta/color}}"|{{colored link|white|Howie Hawkins|Howie Hawkins}}', 253 => '! style="font-size:135%; background:{{Green Party (United States)/meta/color}}"|{{colored link|white|Angela Nicole Walker|Angela Walker}}', 254 => '|- style="font-size:100%; background:#6BDE9D"', 255 => '| '''''for President'''''', 256 => '| '''''for Vice President'''''', 257 => '|-', 258 => '|[[File:Hawkins 2010 (1).jpg|center|200x200px]]', 259 => '|[[File:Angela Walker (cropped).jpg|center|200x200px]]', 260 => '|-', 261 => '| style=width:16em|Co-founder of the [[Green Party (United States)|Green Party]]', 262 => '| style=width:16em|[[Amalgamated Transit Union|ATU Local 998]] Legislative Director {{nowrap|<small>(2011–2013)</small>}}', 263 => '|-', 264 => '| colspan="2" |[[File:Hawkins Walker logo wide.png|x60px]]{{spaces|5}}'''[[Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign|Campaign]]'''', 265 => '|}', 266 => '*'''Mostly oppose:''' I think centering the logos makes the tables look cleaner and more organized. I do support limiting the campaign logo height to 100px. ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]])} 21:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)', 267 => '*'''Mostly oppose''', I concur with Tartan357, I think these wider tables look worse than the current vertical ones. I am fine with the images being limited to 100px in height though. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)', 268 => '::Do you see the tables wider? On my screen they have the same width as the current ones, only the height is reduced. [[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 269 => ':::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. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 20:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 270 => '::::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? [[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 00:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)', 271 => '*'''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). [[User:Tcr25|Carter]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 01:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 272 => '::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. [[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 273 => '*'''Mostly oppose''', per reasoning laid out by Tartan357 and Devonian Wombat. --[[User:Jgstokes|Jgstokes]] ([[User talk:Jgstokes|talk]]) 01:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 274 => '::Thanks for the comments. For now, I'll only limit the height of the logos to 100px. [[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 02:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 275 => '', 276 => '== Should "President Trump" be replaced with either "Trump" or "Donald Trump"? ==', 277 => '', 278 => 'I feel President Trump makes it feel like a news article. I'm in favor of "Trump". Should it be replaced? <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 22:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)', 279 => '*'''Support''' per nom. ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]])} 23:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)', 280 => '*'''Support''' Just "Trump" is fine after the first mention in the lede. Wikipedia does not use honorific prefixes before names per [[MOS:HONORIFIC]]. I think "President" is included within that category. [[User:KidAd|<span style="background-color: orange; color: black">KidAd</span>]] [[User talk:KidAd|<span style="color: orange">talk</span>]] 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)', 281 => ':I am not supporting or agreeing, just noting that some if not all of the mentions are relevant about Trump as the president of the time not just a mere candidate like Joe Biden or Kayne West. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 23:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)', 282 => '::Is Kanye West still running? <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 00:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 283 => ':::{{u|Thanoscar21}}, he says he is, although he only has access to 237 electoral votes, even including write-in access, which is not enough to win. Every voter in the country could write him in and he still wouldn't win. It's therefore accurate to say he's lost and is no longer a candidate. ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]])} 00:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 284 => ':*'''Support''' per [[MOS:HONORIFIC]]. First reference President Trump/Former Vice President Biden, and then just Trump/Biden. In cases where the office is relevant, we still know Trump is currently president or the sentence can be recast in some way. [[User:Tcr25|Carter]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 01:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 285 => '*'''Support''', per [[MOS:HONORIFIC]] and on the same argument as laid out above by [[User:Tcr25|Tcr25]]. --[[User:Jgstokes|Jgstokes]] ([[User talk:Jgstokes|talk]]) 01:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 286 => '*'''Comment''' - How is it done on the other US prez election articles, where an incumbent president is running for re-election? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 287 => ':*'''Comment''', looking at 2012, "President Obama" is used only three times in the prose, two of those in captions. By contrast "Obama" by itself is used 99 times. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 03:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)', 288 => '', 289 => 'he's still president until and/or if biden wins and is officially sworn in on inauguration day <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:E000:110E:4A9D:45AC:1CFB:C051:9797|2605:E000:110E:4A9D:45AC:1CFB:C051:9797]] ([[User talk:2605:E000:110E:4A9D:45AC:1CFB:C051:9797#top|talk]]) 09:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 290 => '', 291 => '== Updating predictions ==', 292 => '', 293 => '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 [http://npr.org/2020/10/30/929077049/final-npr-electoral-map-biden-has-the-edge-but-trump-retains-narrow-path) 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. [[User:Spondborber|Spondborber]] ([[User talk:Spondborber|talk]]) 02:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)', 294 => '::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. [[User:Oddeivind|Oddeivind]] ([[User talk:Oddeivind|talk]]) 08:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 295 => '', 296 => '== US election disinformation contact email at WMF ==', 297 => '', 298 => '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.', 299 => '', 300 => '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 [https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/how-wikipedia-is-preparing-for-the-2020-u-s-election-d2be81ba4bc1 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 [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-fake-news-disinformation 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.', 301 => '', 302 => '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 [[WP:Office action|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 [[WP:EMERGENCY|emergency@]], please only use it to report potential disinformation incidents, and not for general queries. [[User:Samwalton9 (WMF)|Samwalton9 (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9 (WMF)|talk]]) 11:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)', 303 => '', 304 => '== Protecting state election articles ==', 305 => '', 306 => '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. [[User:DemonDays64|DemonDays64]] ([[User talk:DemonDays64|talk]]) 00:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC) {{ppor}}', 307 => ':{{re|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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 00:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 308 => '::{{ping|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). [[User:DemonDays64|DemonDays64]] ([[User talk:DemonDays64|talk]]) 01:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC) {{ppor}}', 309 => ':::{{re|DemonDays64}} Huh, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=986784456&oldid=986784391&diffmode=source did that]... surprised it didn't ping you correctly. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 310 => '::::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! [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 03:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 311 => '', 312 => '::::{{ping|InedibleHulk}} what? [[User:DemonDays64|DemonDays64]] ([[User talk:DemonDays64|talk]]) 06:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 313 => '::::::[[Gremlin]]s. 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). [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 08:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 314 => '', 315 => '== RfC: What sources should be used for calling states? ==', 316 => '', 317 => '{{rfc|pol|rfcid=C4B39E4}}', 318 => 'What sources should be used for calling states? Below are three of the (consensus) options from the section [[Talk:2020 United States presidential election#Election night prep|above]].', 319 => '* '''The Associated Press''', which is used by many other news sources', 320 => '* '''The AP and a couple of other sources that ''don't'' rely on the AP'''', 321 => '* '''The AP and a couple of other sources that ''do'' rely on the AP'''', 322 => '* '''Don't call anything'''', 323 => '<span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 324 => '===Responses===', 325 => '* '''AP only''', as the AP is considered the gold standard of calling elections. Many other news sources use the AP, as well as HRC's campaign in 2016. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 326 => '*'''The AP and a couple of other sources that ''don't'' rely on the AP'''. <s>Preferably 2 other sources who DO rely on the AP but this RfC does not have that as an option</s>. I would like to have a broader catch of RS consensus than just the AP, and/or a show of faith in a call by the AP from other RS. Failing that, would prefer only AP to not calling anything until there is a clear and distinct winner because I feel that the infobox should be updated with as reliable as information as can be garnered. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 02:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)</s>', 327 => ':Yeah, sorry about that, I've added that as an option now. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 02:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 328 => '::Actually, I have changed my mind and I do support my original statement. I misunderstood the options, my apologies. Up to you if you want to keep that option, but I no longer need it. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 03:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 329 => '*'''The AP and a couple of other sources that ''don't'' rely on the AP''' We are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. It's best to rely on multiple sources in case AP turns out to be incorrect; in other words, better safer than sorry. [[User:Zoozaz1|<span style="background-color:#FF0017; color: #FFFF00">'''Zoozaz1'''</span>]] [[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]] 02:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 330 => ':I'll also add that there is a dispute whether to show the overall electoral tally according to AP or according to the called state races on Wikipedia, which themselves are the subject of this discussion, so maybe you could work that into the rfc? [[User:Zoozaz1|<span style="background-color:#FF0017; color: #FFFF00">'''Zoozaz1'''</span>]] [[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]] 03:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 331 => '::I support attempting to include all of this in the RfC seeing as the election is literally tomorrow. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 03:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 332 => '* '''AP only'''. They've been accurately and properly calling elections since 1848 and I think they're the most reliable source when it comes to this.[[User:Herbfur|Herbfur]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 03:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 333 => '*'''AP only''', the second (and possibly third) option has [[WP:VERIFY]] issues as well as borderline [[WP:SYNTH]] concerns. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 03:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 334 => '*For information purposes only: [https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1323265835738320900 Twitter] will "consider a result official" when at least two of the following have made the call: [[ABC News]], [[Associated Press|AP]], [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], [https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ DecisionDeskHQ], [[Fox News]], [[NBC News]]. My personal opinion is that you're not going to get the 3 reliable sources that you talked about above if you're only going to accept AP. [[User:Risker checklist|Risker checklist]] ([[User talk:Risker checklist|talk]]) 04:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (Note this is an alternate account of mine - [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 05:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC))', 335 => '*'''Option 2'''. I like the idea of relying on any two sources from a predetermined list of high-quality news organizations (including the AP), sort of like what Risker mentioned Twitter is doing. Per Zoozaz1, we should also specify that the sources should be independently reporting, not, say, the AP saying "X has won" and another source saying "The AP has called the race for X". [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 05:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 336 => '* '''Option 2''', as I have said previously, relying only on the AP is a bad idea, since that organisation is by no means infallible. We should instead have a predetermined list of reliable organisations, and since the clear consensus we had was buried among endless procrastinating, we should follow Twitter's lead as a last resort. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 05:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 337 => '**No projection is infallible, that's why it's called a projection. In 2018, most news outlets projected a House candidate for the wrong candidate, so option 2 doesn't necessarily ensure complete accuracy either. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 05:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 338 => '::Just a note, with 15 minutes to polls closing, Google has put up a map, and it says that they use the AP only. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 22:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 339 => '*It's a little late to be holding a RfC on this question. I mean by this time tomorrow, the voting will be over on the West Coast and the counting will be continuing. This RfC probably should have been done in September, not the night before the election. You can't hold an RfC for 12 hours and consider it definitive or say it's "the consensus". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 340 => '**Good point. Since we probably won't come to a consensus by tomorrow- it looks like we are going to have to hold off on updating the infobox and map altogether. And most people at the noticeboard actually said they preferred not updating the map and infobox. So it looks like that will be the consensus by default. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 341 => '*ALL of the results that will be released on November 3-4 will be provisional. None of them will have been certified by the end of November 4. Some states will have projected winners, but most news outlets have indicated they will be very conservative in "calling" races this year, so it is quite possible that there will still be many states without projected winners by the end of November 4. I think it is wise to hold off on the infobox/map updating until then, and insist that any state results also meet the same standard of a minimum of 2 or 3 reliable sources for projected winners. [[User:Risker checklist|Risker checklist]] ([[User talk:Risker checklist|talk]]) 05:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 342 => '**I disagree. If we are going to hold off on updating, we should either update once 1 source (i.e. the AP) has projected all states and districts or we should wait until all states and districts have been unanimously projected by every major media outlet. Your proposal has [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:VERIFY]] concerns. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 343 => '', 344 => '* '''Option 1''' even though it seems like consensus won't be reached in the next 12 hours, I think that relying on just AP will give us less of a headache of each result being subject to interpretation. Sidenote: {{ping|Prcc27}} do you know which other news sources rely on AP? I know at least [[NPR]] and some NBC local affiliates do but I can't find a definitive list. [[User:Sixula|'''Sixula''']]^{[[User_Talk:Sixula|'''''Talk''''']]} 13:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 345 => '**I think the New York Times and Bloomberg also rely on them? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 15:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 346 => '* '''Option 2''' per GW. I'd separately support not calling any states until 0600 UTC, when the final polls close. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 17:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 347 => '::On the map, GorillaWarfare said that "results should not be added until 12h after polls close at minimum." I want to clarify that this was the possible consensus for the popular vote tally only. The electoral vote consensus was to either update the map immediately or hold off on it indefinitely. The 12 hour suggestion wasn't really every proposed for the map. The only reason we haven't updated the map is because consensus is still split. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 02:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 348 => '*'''AP only:''' The AP is the most reliable single source for this, and I think relying on multiple sources at the same time would quickly get very complicated. ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]])} 22:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 349 => '*'''AP only'''. We are lucky to have them. Used by PBS. -[[User:SusanLesch|SusanLesch]] ([[User talk:SusanLesch|talk]]) 15:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 350 => '*'''AP only'''. Although I feel that [[WP:SYNTH]] does not apply (as "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" is not the case), the AP has long been held to be the leader in calling elections. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 18:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 351 => '*'''Option 2'''*. AP made a mistake when they called Arizona for Biden way too soon. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 17:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC) ', 352 => '====Post Election day discussion====', 353 => '', 354 => 'Given that we were unable to update the map and infobox on election night, due to a split consensus- we now need to decide ''when'' we will add states to the map and infobox. I think we should hold off on adding states until all major media organizations have projected a winner for every single state and district (where applicable) race. However, I would be open to adding states/districts with unanimous projections by the media right this second, even though some states are outstanding. But I would prefer that we ultimately hold off on updating it until every state and ME-2 has been projected- even if we get an overall projected winner beforehand. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 17:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 355 => ':Seconded. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 19:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 356 => ':Thirded. [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 20:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 357 => '*'''Support''' per nom. ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]])} 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 358 => '* I think it is safe to color in some called states. AZ, MI and WI should probably be left alone for now, but I think some have obvious winners. Possibly all states with a 5% or higher lead? [[User:Lsw2472|Lsw2472]] ([[User talk:Lsw2472|talk]]) 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 359 => ':I would prefer to color in states/districts with unanimous projections by the media right now, but would not be opposed to a consensus for waiting until every state/ME-2 has unanimously been projected if that is where consensus goes, which is where it seems to be going. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 23:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 360 => ':Agree with adding unanimous calls to the page. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa">&nbsp;[[User:Nixinova|Nixinova]]&nbsp;</b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> [[User talk:Nixinova|T]]&nbsp;</b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff">&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Nixinova|C]]&nbsp;</b>&nbsp; 00:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 361 => ':*{{reply|Nixinova}} Could you please clarify whether you support waiting until all races are called before adding them or whether you support adding them right now? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 00:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 362 => ':*:I support adding them now if they have been unanimously called. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa">&nbsp;[[User:Nixinova|Nixinova]]&nbsp;</b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> [[User talk:Nixinova|T]]&nbsp;</b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff">&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Nixinova|C]]&nbsp;</b>&nbsp; 01:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 363 => '*'''Support''' updating page to reflect states that have been called unanimously. (At this point, I believe this would leave AZ, GA, ME-02, NV, NC, and PA. [[User:Whackyasshackysack|Whackyasshackysack]] ([[User talk:Whackyasshackysack|talk]]) 04:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 364 => '*<s>'''Technically Opposed'''</s> I think that if all sources say X won a state, then we should be able to include it in the article as long as it isn't controversial. (Basically agreeing with Lsw2472 and Nixinova) I can say that the 5% or higher lead by Lsw2472 is a good cutoff, but I do want to suggest a second cutoff on percentage of expected votes in. Something like 85%, 90%, or 95+% should be good in my opinion if others agree. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 05:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 365 => '*:(Amended) '''Support adding [[:File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg]]''' to the article. It has the states that are unanimous and further discussions can be held later as to if something needs to be added or removed. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 00:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 366 => '*'''Support.''' If all or most media outlets have called a state, it meets [[WP:RS]]. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/upshot/network-race-call-tracker.html This] is a good summary of the calls that have been made. [[User:Antony-22|Antony&ndash;'''''22''''']] (^{[[User talk:Antony-22|talk]]}⁄_{[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs]]}) 05:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 367 => '*'''Support''' including those states called by the AP. Both the AP and [https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2020/general-results Fox News(!)] have called [https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/associated-press-calls-wisconsin-for-joe-biden-trump-campaign-vows-recount/article_af050aa2-8329-5ebc-ab1b-3c8b937ffab3.html Wisconsin] and [https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-arizona-joe-biden-bb16f91b04456b2513f40436248eb62d Arizona] for Biden and have displayed 264/214 for about 18 hours now. Fox News viewers are unhappy with their favorite channel for doing that. The only states not called by the AP are Alaska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. [https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president CNN is more conservative] and not counting Arizona yet. [https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-states-still-in-play-56dbf7c0c4c155facf7920f0a3099509 AP EXPLAINER: States still in play and what makes them that way] -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 15:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 368 => '** I'd caution against including Arizona at this point; it's been called only by Fox News and AP (which I believe are using a different exit polling system than everyone else) and there's been a lot of commentary even in the mainstream media about whether the call was appropriate. Since reliable sources disagree, it should either be excluded or be colored differently to indicate that there's not consensus among the media organizations about it. [[User:Antony-22|Antony&ndash;'''''22''''']] (^{[[User talk:Antony-22|talk]]}⁄_{[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs]]}) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 369 => '*'''Support'''. There are numerous states that have been called and are not in question at all. I would prefer that the AP projections are added as well, but would advocate for the addition of unanimously-called states since that seems to be a matter of some contention. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 18:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 370 => '* Comment: I think we have consensus for adding all states/districts minus AK, AZ, GA, ME-02, NV, NC, and PA, as every other state/district has been unanimously called. I cant figure out how to mess with the map but I think we should be able to update the map at this point. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 22:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Edit: Added Alaska per comment underneath.', 371 => '** At this point AK hasn't been called either, but ME-2 has been called for Trump by most but not all media outlets. See [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/upshot/network-race-call-tracker.html]. FYI, the image already exists at [[:File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg]]. [[User:Antony-22|Antony&ndash;'''''22''''']] (^{[[User talk:Antony-22|talk]]}⁄_{[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs]]}) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 372 => '::I still prefer waiting until we can fill in the entire map before adding it, rather than uploading an incomplete map right now. Quite a few users did say they agreed with me, but of course, this isn't a vote, and consensus seems to be shifting towards updating the map with states that have been unanimously called ASAP. That being said, I feel like we should wait at least 24 hours before updating the map, to give those users and other users time to weigh in. I know how to update the map and could do so tomorrow, if consensus doesn't change. We can't use the file that Antony-22 provided because ME-2 has not been unanimously called. Nonetheless, would we also update the infobox with a projected electoral vote tally too? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 22:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 373 => ':::Yes of course we should wait 24 hours, just wanted to start discussion on how to move forward now that this has been up a bit and weve got some responses. Also, I presume we would update the infobox with EVs as well. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 22:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 374 => '*'''Support''', this is obviously what we should do. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 06:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 375 => '**{{reply|Devonian Wombat}} Can you please clarify if you support updating the map/infobox soon vs. updating the map once we can fill every state and district in. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 07:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 376 => '***I support updating right this second. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 07:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 377 => '****Thank you for clarifying. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 07:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 378 => '{{OD}}', 379 => '* '''Not just AP''' – Wiki should have more than one major media source for calling the election. I suggest we wait at least for [https://www.nytimes.com/ ''NYT'']', and ideally also for the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/ WX ''Post'']. I say this as one who has tremendous respect for the Associated Press – and one who once actually worked for the AP as a news writer. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 380 => '**{{Reply|Sca}} I don't think only using the AP is being supported by many users anymore now that we are post election day. Most people here seem to support adding a state only if it is unanimously projected by major media organizations. But we still need to decide if we want to update the map now, or if we want to wait for every state (and ME-2) to be called before updating the map. The consensus seems to be leaning significantly towards the former. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 16:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 381 => ':::Ah. 10-4 and thanks. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 382 => '* '''Update immediately''', with caveats. We should '''include all calls by any major network, even when not unanimous, but should use some different color, pattern, shade, or indicator when there is a split decision or when only some major networks have made a call'''. In a situation like this, we should absolutely note stuff like the AP + Fox calls, because they are major parts of the story, and because failing to note them at all will cause confusion from readers who follow those sources; but we also need to absolutely make it clear that it's just a those two rather than a unanimous call. During an election, we should also revise the table of called states in order to list calls by major networks instead of the current breakdown by party (which seems useless to readers - at the moment it is almost entirely empty, with just a ton of wasted space.) Something like [https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/tv-network-calls/ Politico's] graph of network calls would be more useful; just have each cell colored by the network's call, and list the total at the bottom. In practice implementing this mid-election-count would be tricky (and unnecessary since it seems like this will be over in a few hours anyway), but for future elections we should go with a system like this because otherwise we run into this debate over which calls to use ''every single time'', even if this time was particularly stark, and because given how significant this is it's important to keep our maps, tables, etc. as up to date as possible with as much accurate information as possible. This means both unambiguously registering all "partial" calls, and making it clear somehow, at a glance, that they are not yet unanimous - ignoring them entirely and presenting them identically to unanimous calls both strike me as unworkable options. (Also, of course all ''unanimous'' calls for individual states need to be added immediately - failing to do so is just absurd and serves no purpose.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 383 => '** Fully agree. One of our important functions is to document the flow of history, not just document that A moved to G. We should document ''how'' A got to G. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 20:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 384 => '* '''Support updating immediately and either 1) only coloring on consensus across all sources, or 2) Aquillion's proposal to use a different color to indicate how many RS have called the state, with preference for option 2.''' We may have a lack of consensus for a while, so not showing anything is't really helpful. [[User:Chrisvls|Chris vLS]] ([[User talk:Chrisvls|talk]]) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 385 => '', 386 => '== Removal of material w claim of “ dubious relevance” ==', 387 => '', 388 => '[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=next&oldid=986825860 here].', 389 => '', 390 => 'That the material is relevant is evident [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/jasonleopold/judge-orders-more-mueller-report-unredacted here]. @{{u| Devonian Wombat}}, kindly revert your removal. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 391 => ':Why is it here exactly? As far as I can tell, that material should be at [[2016 United States presidential election]]. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 392 => '', 393 => ':: E.g., https://apnews.com/article/5e14adfdd3f24f03b6944b778751a650. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 09:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 394 => '::: The only reference to 2020 in this article is the title and a sentence in the introduction: {{tq| "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. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 09:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 395 => '::::@{{u|Przemysl15}}, also {{tq|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.}} [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 09:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 396 => '::::@{{u|Przemysl15}}, I provided evidence that your claim is incorrect. Please respond. The text I offered is appropriate here.[[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]])<', 397 => '', 398 => '::@{{u|Devonian Wombat}}, also https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/us-voters-have-mueller-report-final-say-2020-election. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 10:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 399 => ':::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. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 10:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 400 => '::::That’s not ‘off-hand’. That’s -analysis- by AP. Did you read the VOA article? [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 10:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 401 => '::::From VOA:', 402 => ':::::#Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.', 403 => ':::::#The Mueller rreport found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.', 404 => ':::::#Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.', 405 => ':::::#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.', 406 => ':::::#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.', 407 => ':::::#As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.', 408 => ':::::#Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.}} ', 409 => ':::::[[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 10:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 410 => ':::::{{re|Devonian Wombat}} I have provided additional evidence the material is appropriate to include. Pls respond. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 11:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 411 => '', 412 => '{{re|Devonian Wombat|Przemysl15}} I have provided more than sufficient evidence to counter your objections, which seem to approach [[WP:IDL]]. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 11:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 413 => '', 414 => 'Also note [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/judge-orders-more-mueller-report-unredacted this] re timing. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 12:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 415 => '', 416 => 'With that, I propose {{tqb| 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.<ref name="Buzz1102">{{Cite web|last=Leopold|first=Jason|last2=Bensinger|first2=Ken|title=New: Mueller Investigated Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, And Roger Stone For DNC Hacks|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/new-mueller-investigated-julian-assange-wikileaks-and-roger|access-date=2020-11-03|website=www.buzzfeednews.com|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Leopold|first=Jason|last2=Bensinger|first2=Ken|title=A Judge Has Ordered The Justice Department To Release More Portions Of The Mueller Report Before Election Day|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/judge-orders-more-mueller-report-unredacted|access-date=2020-11-03|website=www.buzzfeednews.com|language=en}}</ref>}} [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 13:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 417 => '', 418 => 'At this point, this amounts to [[WP:Stonewalling]]. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 419 => ':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. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 02:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 420 => '::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. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 03:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 421 => '', 422 => '{{Reflist-talk}}', 423 => '', 424 => '== An admittedly quite pedantic suggestion ==', 425 => '', 426 => '"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."', 427 => '', 428 => 'to', 429 => '', 430 => '"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."', 431 => '', 432 => 'Reasoning:', 433 => '', 434 => '1. The votes of the people technically don't matter. So "States will nominate" is more accurate.', 435 => '', 436 => '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.', 437 => '', 438 => '[[User:Dieknon|Dieknon]] ([[User talk:Dieknon|talk]]) 14:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 439 => '', 440 => ':Per your first point, they do matter according to the laws of all 50 states. [[User:Mossypiglet|mossypiglet]] ([[User talk:Mossypiglet|talk]]) ''quote or something'' 16:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 441 => '', 442 => '== RFC on newly redacted portions of the Mueller report ==', 443 => '{{rfc|pol|rfcid=65F9473}}', 444 => 'Should the following be appended to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Foreign_interference Foreign interference §]?', 445 => '', 446 => '{{tqb| 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.<ref name="Buzz1102">{{Cite web|last=Leopold|first=Jason|last2=Bensinger|first2=Ken|title=New: Mueller Investigated Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, And Roger Stone For DNC Hacks|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/new-mueller-investigated-julian-assange-wikileaks-and-roger|access-date=2020-11-03|website=www.buzzfeednews.com|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Leopold|first=Jason|last2=Bensinger|first2=Ken|title=A Judge Has Ordered The Justice Department To Release More Portions Of The Mueller Report Before Election Day|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/judge-orders-more-mueller-report-unredacted|access-date=2020-11-03|website=www.buzzfeednews.com|language=en}}</ref> The newly released passages indicated that "federal prosecutors could not establish that the hacked emails amounted to campaign contributions benefitting Trump’s election chances."<ref name="Buzz1102" />}}', 447 => '', 448 => 'For relevance, pls see my comment in Discussion, below.', 449 => '', 450 => '[[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 451 => '{{Reflist-talk}}', 452 => '===Survey===', 453 => '* '''No''' It's about the 2016 election. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 454 => ':*Pls see my comment in Discussion below. Thx, [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 17:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 455 => '*'''No''' Not unless there's any evidence that this has any impact. It seems to belong on [[Mueller report]], not here. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 456 => ':*Has the criterion of {{tq|evidence that this has any impact}} rather than straightforward relevance been applied to anything else in this article? [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 457 => '* '''No''' Does not appear pertinent to this election cycle. [[User:KidAd|<span style="background-color: orange; color: black">KidAd</span>]] [[User talk:KidAd|<span style="color: orange">talk</span>]] 19:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 458 => ':*It seems that experts anticipated (see points #6 and 7 in Discussion below) the Mueller investigation (of which this is part-and-parcel) would, in fact, be pertinent to this election cycle. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 459 => '*'''No''', completely irrelevant to the election, also the quote you added to the article previously was not the quote that was actually in the article. While I do not wish to throw aspersions, I must call into question the motives of Humanegr in this particular situation, given he, as far as I can tell, made up a quote and added it to the article. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 460 => ':*{{re|Devonian Wombat}} Link please [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 22:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 461 => '*'''Yes''' Reliable sourcing below and in the thread two above clearly believe that this may have an effect on voters in the 2020 election, even though the report is about the 2016 election. I do not think it is of monumental importance, but given the importance of the Muller Report in general, the inclusion of the report in the article already, and the length (or lack there of) of this proposed addition, I think this is perfectly weighted for the article. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 03:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 462 => '* '''No''', obviously. Coverage connecting this to the election is too slight to justify inclusion here. If we included every single news item that anyone tangentially brought up as an argument related to the election in the immediate runup to it, we would have every news item from the month before the election listed. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 463 => '', 464 => '===Discussion===', 465 => 'Relevance to this article is indicated by [https://apnews.com/article/5e14adfdd3f24f03b6944b778751a650 this] July AP analysis:', 466 => '', 467 => '{{tqb|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.}}', 468 => '', 469 => 'and by the following points from [https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/us-voters-have-mueller-report-final-say-2020-election this] earlier VOA article, in particular, points #6 and 7:', 470 => '{{tqb|', 471 => '#Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.', 472 => '#The Mueller rreport found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.', 473 => '#Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.', 474 => '#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.', 475 => '#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.', 476 => '#As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.', 477 => '#Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.}} ', 478 => '[[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 17:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 479 => '', 480 => '== Why this deletion? ==', 481 => '', 482 => 'Due to the "consensus required" provision for this article, I won't immediately revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=next&oldid=986880809 this absurd deletion], with no edit summary, by [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] of a good sentence added by [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]]. Here is the deleted sentence:', 483 => '', 484 => ': "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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Republicans publicly silent, privately disgusted by Trump’s election threats|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/03/republicans-trump-election-threats-433910|access-date=2020-11-03|website=POLITICO|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|date=2020-09-24|title=US election: Trump won't commit to peaceful transfer of power|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54274115|access-date=2020-11-03}}</ref>', 485 => '', 486 => '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. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 18:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 487 => ':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.[https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/donald-trump-election-integrity/index.html] Just an undue mess of contradictions. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 488 => ':: Then how should it be improved? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 489 => ':::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."--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 20:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 490 => ':::I did improve it with my revert. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 491 => ':::: 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. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 21:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 492 => ':I've seen as a counterpoint to your {{tq|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. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 493 => ':: Which has nothing to do with voting rights. Infighting between political parties is par for the course. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 19:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 494 => '::: Keeping a party off the ballot {{tq|has nothing to do with voting rights}}? You're saying {{tq|[[wikt:infighting|infighting]]}}: {{tq|Fighting or quarreling among the members of a single group or side}}? Very confusing. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 19:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 495 => ':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. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 20:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 496 => ':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.[[User:Herbfur|Herbfur]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 20:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 497 => '::But he has committed to it, repeatedly. The purposed addition is basically just partisan talking points. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 498 => ':::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. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 20:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 499 => '::: 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. [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] (comment above) is right. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 500 => ':::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. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 21:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 501 => ':::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." -[[User:Avial Cloffprunker|Avial Cloffprunker]] ([[User talk:Avial Cloffprunker|talk]]) 22:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 502 => '::::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. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 22:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 503 => '*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. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 504 => '*: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. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 505 => ':::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. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 506 => '::::The answers you seek are above. Did you read above or just count heads again? [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 507 => '{{sources-talk}}{{clear}}', 508 => '', 509 => '== Campaign issues section ==', 510 => '', 511 => 'I added a new [[2020_United_States_presidential_election#Campaign_issues|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.—[[User:Naddruf|<u>Naddruf</u>]] ([[User talk:Naddruf|''talk'']] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Naddruf|'''contribs''']]) 19:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 512 => ':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. - [[User:Bri.public|Bri.public]] ([[User talk:Bri.public|talk]]) 20:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 513 => '::Thanks for the suggestion. I changed it a bit. —[[User:Naddruf|<u>Naddruf</u>]] ([[User talk:Naddruf|''talk'']] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Naddruf|'''contribs''']]) 20:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 514 => ':::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: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/us/politics/trump-immigration-policies-election.html NYT], [https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/politics/biden-immigrant-children/index.html CNN]. -[[User:Avial Cloffprunker|Avial Cloffprunker]] ([[User talk:Avial Cloffprunker|talk]]) 22:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)', 515 => '', 516 => '== State results official ==', 517 => '', 518 => 'Trump for Kentucky', 519 => 'Biden for Vermont [[User:MMessine19|MMessine19]] ([[User talk:MMessine19|talk]]) 00:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 520 => ':Please see the discussions above—we need high-quality sources, preferably multiple, to report results before they will be added to this page. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 00:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 521 => '::[https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-delaware-wilmington-elections-29b5233341f4eea285dab7fcb4a2709d AP] [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 522 => '::Also [https://www.politico.com/ politico] and [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-president.html New York Times]. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 00:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 523 => ':::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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 00:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 524 => '', 525 => 'According to google 2020 election results [[User:MMessine19|MMessine19]] ([[User talk:MMessine19|talk]]) 00:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 526 => ':Just a note, but Google is just showing the [[Associated Press]]' results. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 00:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 527 => '', 528 => ':Per my current understanding of [[Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election#Election_night_prep|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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 00:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 529 => '::{{re|Super Goku V}} Also see [[#RfC: What sources should be used for calling states?]] [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 00:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 530 => '', 531 => 'Trump for West Virginia [[User:MMessine19|MMessine19]] ([[User talk:MMessine19|talk]]) 00:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 532 => ':[https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-delaware-wilmington-elections-29b5233341f4eea285dab7fcb4a2709d AP] & [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-west-virginia.html?action=click&module=ELEX_results&pgtype=Interactive&region=FooterNavigation NYT] for Trump in West Virginia. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 533 => '', 534 => 'Biden for Virginia [[User:MMessine19|MMessine19]] ([[User talk:MMessine19|talk]]) 00:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 535 => ':{{re|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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 00:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 536 => ':[https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-delaware-wilmington-elections-29b5233341f4eea285dab7fcb4a2709d AP] & [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-virginia-president.html NYT] for Biden Virginia. You keep beating me to it! [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 537 => '', 538 => 'Trump in South Carolina. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-south-carolina-president.html NYT]. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 539 => '', 540 => 'Illinois for Biden [https://www.politico.com/ Politico]. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 01:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 541 => '', 542 => '', 543 => '* {{ec}} AP has called these races around 8pm: [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792373067993089 Alabama (Trump)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792396556132352 Connecticut (Biden)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792399546621956 Delaware (Biden)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792402189004800 Illinois (Biden)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792426566328321 Maryland (Biden)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792446313107456 Massachusetts (Biden)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792375462924289 Mississippi (Trump)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792465418137601 New Jersey (Biden)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792488814039046 Oklahoma (Trump)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792509131259907 Rhode Island (Biden)], [https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1323792405355810817 Tennessee (Trump)] --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 01:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 544 => '', 545 => '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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 546 => ':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. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 02:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 547 => '::I was under the impression we would be updating states but not vote tallies in the first 12 hours. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 04:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 548 => '::*No, we cannot add states to the map until we come to a consensus on how to update the map. Consensus is currently split. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 17:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 549 => '', 550 => '== Stop adding those results ==', 551 => '', 552 => '[[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. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 00:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 553 => ':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. [[User:Vallee01|Vallee01]] ([[User talk:Vallee01|talk]]) 00:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 554 => '::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! [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 01:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 555 => ':::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. [[User:Vallee01|Vallee01]] ([[User talk:Vallee01|talk]]) 01:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 556 => '::::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. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 01:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 557 => '*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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 558 => '::{{re|Risker}} I've just been told by [[User:Prcc27|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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 02:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 559 => ':::Would anyone object to moving the section to "projected"? [[User:Vallee01|Vallee01]] ([[User talk:Vallee01|talk]]) 02:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 560 => '', 561 => '::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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 562 => '', 563 => '[[User:HeartGlow30797|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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 03:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 564 => ':{{u|GorillaWarfare}}, I just saw that notice, I'm reverting right now. My bad! Thanks for letting me know! [[User:HeartGlow30797|'''<span style="color:red; text-shadow:#ffdf00 0.0em 0.0em 2.0em">Heart</span>''']] ^{<small>[[User talk:HeartGlow30797|''(talk)'']]</small>} 03:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 565 => '::All good, there are a lot of notices to wade through. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 03:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 566 => '', 567 => '== As to the polling results ==', 568 => '', 569 => '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. [[User:Vallee01|Vallee01]] ([[User talk:Vallee01|talk]]) 00:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 570 => ':Per my current understanding of [[Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election#Election_night_prep|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.) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 00:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 571 => '::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. --[[User:AntiCompositeNumber|AntiCompositeNumber]] ([[User talk:AntiCompositeNumber|talk]]) 01:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 572 => '', 573 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020 (4) ==', 574 => '', 575 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 576 => '"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"', 577 => '', 578 => '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. --[[Special:Contributions/75.84.168.86|75.84.168.86]] ([[User talk:75.84.168.86|talk]]) 01:03, 4 November 2020‎ (UTC)', 579 => '', 580 => ':Citations please? I know its obvious however it is required for everything on Wikipedia. [[User:Vallee01|Vallee01]] ([[User talk:Vallee01|talk]]) 01:28, 4 November 2020‎ (UTC)', 581 => '', 582 => '== Electoral College svg ==', 583 => '', 584 => 'can someone start colouring in the official colours of the winners in each state which are officially announced now?, this is how we followed the elections in 2016... its impossible to follow it here this time around cause everyone is lazy and refusing to do it, just add those stated confirmed and its that easy..--[[Special:Contributions/27.123.139.73|27.123.139.73]] ([[User talk:27.123.139.73|talk]]) 02:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 585 => ':No, there has been an agreement on this page to wait until results are more solidly determined before adding such data. There are plenty of maps out there (I know ''NYT'' has one) that can be used by those wanting breaking news. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 02:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 586 => '::oh wow GW, you are still around..figured..i didn't say add those where they haven't done a 100% count, only those confirmed... looks like someone is already doing it..--[[Special:Contributions/27.123.139.73|27.123.139.73]] ([[User talk:27.123.139.73|talk]]) 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 587 => ':::See the various conversations above. <s>Consensus is to wait 12+ hours after polls close.</s> Just see the conversations above... evidently it's more complicated than I said. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 02:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 588 => '::::Whenever y'all decide that you want it, [[:File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg]] has the current consensus results from WaPo, NYT, NPR (AP), Politico, Reuters, and Fox News. I'm not expecting any changes anytime soon, but it's 2020 who knows. --[[User:AntiCompositeNumber|AntiCompositeNumber]] ([[User talk:AntiCompositeNumber|talk]]) 13:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 589 => ':::::[[WP:V]] governs, not some faux consensus of two editors on this talk page. The electoral numbers and map are incomplete but not in doubt. Post the verifiable facts now and the. Update them when they change. If the stonewalling continues, that’s a behavioral problem to be addressed at [[WP:AE]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 11:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 590 => '', 591 => '==My Question==', 592 => 'I am from the Philippines. Can anyone update the live results on the table in the main page? [[User:Marc Raphael Felix|Marc Raphael Felix]] ([[User talk:Marc Raphael Felix|talk]]) 02:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[[User:Marc Raphael Felix|Marc Raphael Felix]] {{small|([[User talk:Marc Raphael Felix#top|talk]])}} 02:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 593 => ':Wikipedia does not publish breaking news, so I would pick another source for a live feed of election results. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 594 => '', 595 => '== Why aren’t votes on the map? ==', 596 => '', 597 => 'When elections come up there is usually colors on the map.[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 03:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 598 => ':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. [[User:Vallee01|Vallee01]] ([[User talk:Vallee01|talk]]) 03:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 599 => '::{{tq|Votes cannot be cast after the Poles are closed!}}&mdash;it's literally true, but it is a mere truism. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 06:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 600 => '::: ...or after the Swedes, Danes, and Germans are closed. The Poles have yet to comment on their role in the American election. {{;)}} -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 13:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 601 => ':::: [https://deadline.com/2020/11/donald-trump-tweet-censored-poles-1234608879/ Donald Trump “Poles” Tweet Has A Lot More Wrong With It Than Spelling Error] -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 13:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 602 => '', 603 => '== Archiving? ==', 604 => '', 605 => 'Hi,', 606 => '', 607 => 'Can someone set up archiving for this talk page? It's getting pretty lengthy. Thanks, [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 04:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 608 => ':We have automated archiving, would we want to decrease how many days it takes to archive? Can we do that? [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 05:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 609 => ': Auto-archiving is at 15 days; there are a few sections which probably could be manually archived but I don't see a strong need. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 06:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 610 => ':: Thanks for the reply. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 00:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 611 => '', 612 => '== New § for 'Reactions to election results' ==', 613 => '', 614 => '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. [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 05:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 615 => ': Lead with your sources. Most of the time, we don't care about people's reaction to the results; the results are the results. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 06:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 616 => '', 617 => '== What to do when the race is called ==', 618 => '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 [[WP:DUE|due weight]] to a major media organization projection. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 06:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 619 => ':Assuming news orgs call the race before the AP does, I would support this course of action. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 06:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 620 => '::Aye. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 07:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 621 => ':Or, ABC News "predicts Biden has won, without a projected winner being obvious."[[Special:Contributions/50.111.11.25|50.111.11.25]] ([[User talk:50.111.11.25|talk]]) 19:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 622 => '', 623 => '== Trump's press conference ==', 624 => '', 625 => 'So Trump had just claimed that he's won the election and states that he would be going to Supreme Court to stop the count. Where does this get included? [[User:Juxlos|Juxlos]] ([[User talk:Juxlos|talk]]) 07:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 626 => '', 627 => ': I personally think, if NY Times claimed Donald Trump to have won the election, that should be the point where everything is settled. One person's claim mean nothing, especially when the speech is delivered at a location he got <10% of the votes.--[[User:1233|1233]] <small>( [[User Talk:1233|T]]</small>&nbsp;/&nbsp;<small>[[Special:Contributions/1233|C]]）</small> 07:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 628 => ':: I'm not saying Wikipedia says "Trump wins the election", I'm saying Wikipedia should say "Trump claimed that he won the election during the press conference despite [xxx]". NYT and co. definitely has articles about that press conference. [[User:Juxlos|Juxlos]] ([[User talk:Juxlos|talk]]) 07:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 629 => ':::Then I think it being reasonable, considering the statement and how much backlash he made, directly hours after the election ended.--[[User:1233|1233]] <small>( [[User Talk:1233|T]]</small>&nbsp;/&nbsp;<small>[[Special:Contributions/1233|C]]）</small> 09:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 630 => ':"Campaign issues"? [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 07:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 631 => ': I'd wait; especially for Trump, claiming to take it to the Supreme Court is very different from taking it to the Supreme Court. We could say it's combative or unorthodox, anything more will probably need to wait a day for context and sources. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 07:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 632 => ':To be more precise he claimed that he has won states that he is currently leading but where votes are still being counted, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, if I remember correctly. <b>[[User:JackintheBox|J<small><small>ACKINTHE</small></small>B<small><small>OX</small></small>]]</b> • <i><b>^{<small>[[User talk:JackintheBox|<span style="color:#006400">TALK</span>]]</small>}</b></i> 08:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 633 => ':: Baseless claims of victory in North Carolina and Georgia too, neither of which are called; "pundits" give Trump about a 90% chance in NC but only 50% in GA. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 08:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 634 => ':::I agree that the entire thing is still a toss-up, but the fact that he makes such claims should be included. [[User:Juxlos|Juxlos]] ([[User talk:Juxlos|talk]]) 08:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 635 => '::::Agreed, but I think it should be just two or three sentences until his campaign actually engages in litigation. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 08:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 636 => ':::::Perhaps dump it in "Potential rejection of election results" for now, but a "reactions" section probably has to be added to the Results section to properly showcase this information. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 09:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 637 => 'For some sources: [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/trump-tries-to-claim-victory-even-as-ballots-are-being-counted-in-several-states-nbc-has-not-made-a-call.html CNBC], [https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/11/04/trump-falsely-tries-to-claim-victory-as-votes-still-are-being-counted/?sh=3ca45e347058 Forbes], [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-claims-victory-states-undecided-supreme-court-white-house Fox News], [https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54791113 BBC]. [[User:Juxlos|Juxlos]] ([[User talk:Juxlos|talk]]) 08:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 638 => ': I think it should be included, but the text should stress that this is a claim made by Donald Trump, not an authoritative statement of fact as described by a neutral RS. Whether or not he actually takes it to the supreme court is actually not all that relevant, what's relevant at the moment is his stated intention to do so. Considering Trump's recent supreme court nominations, RS were already talking about that potential scenario and its potential consequences since before the election. [[User:Goodposts|Goodposts]] ([[User talk:Goodposts|talk]]) 12:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 639 => '::<small>Biden will likely win Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 270 electors. Trump lost. The winner will be declared before Pennsylvania counts all the votes. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)</small>', 640 => '', 641 => 'We might want to take a look at [[2016 United States presidential election]] for a model. Under "Results" there are a number of prose sections, including "Election night" and "The next day". They include a brief summary of comments made by the two candidates. Currently our "Results" section includes no text, just tables to be filled in, but I think some textual information would be appropriate. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 19:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 642 => ':I'm going to add such a section. Please feel free to expand it. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 19:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 643 => '', 644 => 'Re: [[Special:Diff/987078667]]: It should specify the time zone (2:30am EST, I think?). Also, I think some care should be taken with regards to the wording here with regards to the vote counting. Trump specifically says {{tq|we want all voting to stop}}. As [https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-5479111 the BBC article linked above] interprets, most likely his meaning is {{tq|he wants to block the counting of postal ballots, which can be legally accepted by some state election boards after Tuesday's election}}. The wording "all vote counting to stop" conveys a slightly different nuance (something along the lines of "oh since we're ahead in the vote count in these states, we can declare victory here and not count the remaining precincts"). The argument (at face value; no comments on whether Trump intentionally phrased it in a misleading way or not) concerns the validity of ballots ''received'' after election day, not counted after election day. -- [[User:Ununseti|Ununseti]] ([[User talk:Ununseti|talk]]) 20:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 645 => ':I'm not so sure. In the past he has said "We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list." He was implying, as he often does, that there is cheating in the counting - that "they" add false ballots to inflate the other side's score. (It does happen in American elections that the results shift from Republican to Democratic as the mail ballots come in, for perfectly legitimate reasons known as the [[Blue shift (politics)]].) IMO Trump wanted the COUNTING to stop. In the runup to the election he said several times that the winner should be declared on Election Night and no further counting should take place. Apparently his followers think that's what he meant too, because there is now a demonstration outside the Detroit election center with people shouting "Stop the count!" -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 22:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 646 => '', 647 => ':The text at this point makes a false characterization that "and that all vote counting should stop." He instead referred specifically to voting. Here is an exact quote from his 2:30 a.m. speech, with the actual statement in italic: "We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election,” Trump claimed, adding: “''We want all voting to stop''. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. It’s a very sad moment. We will win this, and as far as I’m concerned we already have won.” Please use his words, not a false paraphrasis. [[User:Tgkohn|Tgkohn]] ([[User talk:Tgkohn|talk]]) 23:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 648 => '', 649 => '::[[User:MelanieN]] I do personally think that this was most likely his intention. But imo putting that in the text directly is kind of a [[WP:SYNTH]], because the currently cited CNBC source doesn't make that connection explicitly, so it may be worth adding some sources to back that up. The [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/trump-tries-to-claim-victory-even-as-ballots-are-being-counted-in-several-states-nbc-has-not-made-a-call.html CNBC source] just says: {{tq|“We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court, we want all voting to stop,” Trump continued more than an hour after the final U.S. polls closed in Alaska. “We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list.” It was unclear what Trump meant by “going to the Supreme Court,” given that the nation’s highest court is rarely the first judicial venue for a case, but rather, it reviews lower court rulings.}}.', 650 => '', 651 => '::The [https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/11/04/trump-falsely-tries-to-claim-victory-as-votes-still-are-being-counted/?sh=3ca45e347058 Forbes source] does interpret it as {{tq|He promised to go to the Supreme Court to stop late vote-counting}}, though. The [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-claims-victory-states-undecided-supreme-court-white-house Fox News source] interprets it as {{tq|Trump hinted the White House would push the Supreme Court to rule over disputed ballots, warning that a “very sad group of people” was trying to “disenfranchise” voters}}. This [https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/america-votes/biden-confident-he-ll-win-after-all-votes-counted-1.5174191 CTV source] interprets it as {{tq|Earlier Wednesday, Trump attacked media organizations for not declaring him the winner, saying in an early-morning appearance that it was "a major fraud on our nation." "As far as I'm concerned, we already have won this," he said, calling for outstanding ballots not to be counted.}} Meanwhile this [https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-virus-outbreak-campaigns-elections-203d1bc1ad56b10d42638c77749cfa07 AP News source] just kinda snarks a bit on Trump's word choice: {{tq|Trump says: “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court — we want all voting to stop.” In fact, there is no more voting — just counting.}} -- [[User:Ununseti|Ununseti]] ([[User talk:Ununseti|talk]]) 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 652 => ':::If there is clear sourcing supporting the idea that Trump wants vote counting to stop, which there appears to be, we should say so, but for clarity and context should also include the direct quote about voting from Trump himself. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 23:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 653 => '', 654 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020 (5) ==', 655 => '', 656 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 657 => 'Add the US economy to "Issues" section.', 658 => '', 659 => 'According to this Washington Post article, roughly a third of voters named the economy as their most important issue.', 660 => '', 661 => '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', 662 => '', 663 => 'Here's a relevent snippet, and thanks for taking a look:', 664 => '', 665 => '', 666 => '', 667 => '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.', 668 => '', 669 => '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.', 670 => '', 671 => '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 [[Special:Contributions/2601:603:400:964:1883:EFF9:C8DC:ABC8|2601:603:400:964:1883:EFF9:C8DC:ABC8]] ([[User talk:2601:603:400:964:1883:EFF9:C8DC:ABC8|talk]]) 14:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 672 => '', 673 => ':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. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 14:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 674 => '', 675 => '::"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. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 19:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 676 => '', 677 => '== How biased ==', 678 => '', 679 => 'Any edit suggested by a leftist, is confirmed. Yet when it comes from the right wing, it's removed and complaints are deleted. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:A040:19B:31A9:D928:DA6A:7406:6040|2A00:A040:19B:31A9:D928:DA6A:7406:6040]] ([[User talk:2A00:A040:19B:31A9:D928:DA6A:7406:6040#top|talk]]) 17:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 680 => '', 681 => ':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. [[User:Sixula|'''Sixula''']]^{[[User_Talk:Sixula|'''''Talk''''']]} 17:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 682 => ':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 [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 17:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 683 => '', 684 => '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.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NoWikiNoLife|NoWikiNoLife]] ([[User talk:NoWikiNoLife#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NoWikiNoLife|contribs]]) </small>', 685 => ':{{u|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 [[WP:RS|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. ', 686 => ':Just as you can dictate what is said and done in your residence, Wikipedia can determine what happens on its computers. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 17:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 687 => '::<small>(Not true, actually. This is a tax-free 503(c), not a private residence, so there are restrictions [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:2C00:3CA:383F:605A:91BF:EF55|2600:8800:2C00:3CA:383F:605A:91BF:EF55]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:2C00:3CA:383F:605A:91BF:EF55|talk]]) 18:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC))</small>', 688 => ':::Yes, there are. And the main restriction is found at [[WP:Verifiability]] - we only published what has been reported in [[WP:42|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. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 19:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 689 => '', 690 => '== Any way to color states? ==', 691 => '{{atop|1=Please discuss updating the map and/or results sections at [[#Post Election day discussion]]. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 20:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)}}', 692 => '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)? --[[User:Allen2|<span style="color: #00f;">Allen</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Allen2|talk]] / [[Special:Contribs/Allen2|ctrb]])} 20:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 693 => ':Like <span class=plainlinks>[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2020_with_results.svg this]</span>? --[[User:Foghe|Foghe]] ([[User talk:Foghe|talk]]) 20:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 694 => '::Yes, but I mean on this page in the infobox. --[[User:Allen2|<span style="color: #00f;">Allen</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Allen2|talk]] / [[Special:Contribs/Allen2|ctrb]])} 20:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 695 => ':::Please discuss [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election#Post_Election_day_discussion here]. We have to decide ''when'' we are going to ultimately update the map and infobox. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 696 => '{{abot}}', 697 => '', 698 => '==How is this not on the front page's "in the news" section?==', 699 => 'How?[[Special:Contributions/198.161.4.44|198.161.4.44]] ([[User talk:198.161.4.44|talk]]) 20:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 700 => ':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?]]. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 20:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 701 => '::thank you[[Special:Contributions/198.161.4.44|198.161.4.44]] ([[User talk:198.161.4.44|talk]]) 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 702 => '', 703 => 'It's there now, in Ongoing. It will get a blurb as soon as there is a result. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 04:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 704 => '', 705 => '== Election Night - which time zone? ==', 706 => '', 707 => '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.[[Special:Contributions/198.161.4.44|198.161.4.44]] ([[User talk:198.161.4.44|talk]]) 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 708 => ':{{done}}, good call. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=987092930&oldid=987087789 diff]) [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 21:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 709 => '', 710 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020 (6) ==', 711 => '', 712 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 713 => 'please fill in the current map according to https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/04/us/election-results [[Special:Contributions/71.183.143.126|71.183.143.126]] ([[User talk:71.183.143.126|talk]]) 22:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 714 => ':[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> 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?]]. ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]])} 22:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)', 715 => '', 716 => '== Shouldn't there be a part about how Trump is pushing for undemocratic ideas in the introduction/lead section of this article? ==', 717 => '', 718 => 'It just seems so historical. America, the country that was once known for its democratic freedom around the globe, may be throwing it all away. If Trump loses to Joe, he may take it to the state OR supreme court. If they agree with him and his reason, he may actually be awarded the presidency by the court despite Joe winning. Don't you understand? This has never happened in America before! I would really like to recommend that you include his statements on calling the election a "fraud" and "rigged." He may refuse to concede if he suffers defeat. Maybe include voter suppression as well. Let's not forget he wanted to stop the counting of ballots. [[User:SweetMilkTea13|SweetMilkTea13]] ([[User talk:SweetMilkTea13|talk]]) 01:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 719 => '', 720 => ':If you believe that ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' was voter suppression, then no, it actually has happened before. This obviously is not an excuse to do it to the 2020 election. Right now, it just seems speculative about what the president plans to do. I know that American politicians have a reputation for playing dirty, and Mr. Trump is no exception. If I were you, I would wait for future events to unfold. Maybe then, we can add the details. '''[[User:FreeMediaKid!|<span style="color:darkred">Free</span>]][[User talk:FreeMediaKid!|<span style="font-family:Times;color:DarkGreen">Media</span>]][[Special:Contributions/FreeMediaKid!|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue">Kid!</span>]]''' 01:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 721 => '', 722 => '{{re|SweetMilkTea13}}, if the counting is stopped across the United States, Biden will win the presidency, as he has a lead in Nevada and Arizona. CNN has called 253 electoral college votes for him. Now,With AZ (11) and NV(6), He will have 17 electoral votes, thus winning the race. However, Trump still has a chance in Nevada, AZ, PA, GA, NC. And Biden will not a landslide victory, because Trump won in Florida, Iowa, Ohio. So all the votes need to be counted. I still think Trump has a pathway to victory. Biden needs to win more than 300 electoral college votes to avoid "Bush vs. Gore" scenario! [[User:Ppt2003|Ppt2003]] ([[User talk:Ppt2003|talk]]) 02:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 723 => '*It's already present, in {{tq|In the lead-up to the election, as well as on election night, 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.}} That's sufficient in my view. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> ^{[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]} 07:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 724 => ':* Does 2:30 AM on Wednesday count as "election night", strictly speaking? [[User:Juxlos|Juxlos]] ([[User talk:Juxlos|talk]]) 09:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 725 => '', 726 => '{{re|Juxlos}}, I would say -"The morning after election day/The following day. [[User:Ppt2003|Ppt2003]] ([[User talk:Ppt2003|talk]]) 11:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 727 => '', 728 => '== Edit needed ==', 729 => '', 730 => '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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Krautank|Krautank]] ([[User talk:Krautank#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Krautank|contribs]]) 01:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 731 => ':{{u|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 [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 01:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 732 => '', 733 => '== Might be a tad bit unrelated, but can an expert in US Politics please create an article titled something like "2020 United States Election Riots" ==', 734 => '', 735 => 'News just came in a few minutes ago, but there were intense clashes between the police and protesters as they demanded to 'count every vote."<ref>https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-nyc-protesters-2020-election-count-every-vote-20201104-g5n574jrtzg47a44ouuw4vhkoy-story.html</ref>', 736 => 'Although no one was killed, several people were injured. It would be more informative if someone created an article revolving around this terrible situation. [[User:SweetMilkTea13|SweetMilkTea13]] ([[User talk:SweetMilkTea13|talk]]) 05:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 737 => ':If its just minor incidents then a section on this page would suffice (e.g. "Aftermath") instead of a separate article. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> [[User:Nixinova|Nixinova]] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> [[User talk:Nixinova|T]] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> [[Special:Contribs/Nixinova|C]] </b>  06:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 738 => '', 739 => ':Certainly not. These protests are something that Trump is encouraging his followers to do, but they in no way approach being a riot. If the Daily News called it a riot - well, that's a good example of why we don't regard the Daily News as a reliable source. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 19:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 740 => '::P.S. I have added a paragraph about the protests to the "Election Night aftermath" section. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 19:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 741 => '', 742 => ':AFAIK, Republicans haven't been protesting over the 2020 results, the way Democrats did over the 2016 results. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 743 => '::Those protests will come after we actually have results. So far the only protests are against the process (see [[Brooks Brothers riot]] from 2000). Both sides are likely to take to the streets if their guy doesn't win. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 19:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 744 => ':::There is an article called [[2020 United States election protests]], you can create an RfC if you believe riots are more appropriate. [[User:Albertaont|Albertaont]] ([[User talk:Albertaont|talk]]) 22:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 745 => '', 746 => '{{reply to|Albertaont}} Well written article! I'm going to leave it at "protests" for now. Yes many have been arrested and there has been some critical injuries as a result of clashes between police, Trump supporters and Biden supporters, but so far no one has died. I really hope we can keep it this way, but if we do see some deaths after the results are finalized then we definitely have to switch the title to "riots." [[User:SweetMilkTea13|SweetMilkTea13]] ([[User talk:SweetMilkTea13|talk]]) 05:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 747 => '', 748 => '{{talk reflist}}', 749 => '', 750 => '== Age superlative in lead ==', 751 => '', 752 => 'I removed the sentence {{tq|This is the first presidential election in which both the major candidates are over 70.}} from the last paragraph in the lead, since it's only [[WP:DUE]] to spend so much time on the ages of the candidates, and the paragraph already mentions that {{tq|If elected, Biden would become the oldest person to serve as president at 78 years old on the day of his inauguration}} and {{tq|If reelected, Trump would be the oldest president to be inaugurated in U.S. history, as he would be 74 at the time of the 2021 inauguration.}}. I noticed that it was back today, and after some digging (a ping rather than a stealth revert would've been appreciated), I found that {{u|Paintspot}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=987005407&oldid=987000679&diffmode=source re-added it] with summary {{tq|Undid removal. It's not redundant – it's an additional fact}}. I'm not persuaded by that. What do others think? <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> ^{[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]} 06:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 753 => ':A trivial fact. It'll be better to remove it. [[User:Enjoyer of World|<b style="font-family:monospace;font-variant:small-caps;border:0.5px solid #6d6f30;background:linear-gradient(#cdf4ae,#cbedf8);color:#6d6f30">Enjoyer of World</b>]]^{[[User talk:Enjoyer of World|💬]]} 10:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 754 => '::It being the first time something happened does not sound trivial to me. However, this does not seem to be widely discussed in RS, so I agree with DUE concerns. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 10:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 755 => ':The age of the candidates are covered in quite a few sources, [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/2020-candidate-ages/index.html 1], [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/28/the-age-of-the-elderly-candidate-how-two-septuagenarians-came-to-be-running-for-president 2], with [https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/the-septuagenarian-sweepstakes-presidential-race/ this source] even drawing attention to the fact that {{tq|Never before in our history has the nation been confronted with a choice of leaders all of whom were 70 or more}}. I would suppose this fact is far from trivial. -- [[User:Dps04|Dps04]] ([[User talk:Dps04|talk]]) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 756 => '', 757 => '== Votes counted timestamp in the future? ==', 758 => '', 759 => '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? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.56.77.83|78.56.77.83]] ([[User talk:78.56.77.83#top|talk]]) 09:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 760 => ':Probably. I updated it now with the time stamp from the website. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 10:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 761 => '', 762 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 (7) ==', 763 => '', 764 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 765 => 'In the subsection "Election Night" of the section "results," change:', 766 => '"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.""', 767 => 'To:', 768 => '"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."', 769 => '', 770 => '[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.] [[User:Kokopelli7309|Kokopelli7309]] ([[User talk:Kokopelli7309|talk]]) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 771 => ':{{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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 17:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 772 => 'I see – that makes sense, I didn't realize the Wikipedia community had already reached that conclusion.~~User:Kokopelli7309~~', 773 => '== Popular vote in Infobox ==', 774 => '', 775 => 'I understand the countroversy around the EC and the states yet to be called, etc. But why shouldn't we post the Popular Vote total as it's being updated? Said number isn't going to change the state of the race and I see no reason why we shouldn't put it in the Infobox. Apologies if a consensus was reached about it, I didn't find it before posting this. --[[User:Yeah 93|yeah_93]] ([[User talk:Yeah 93|talk]]) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 776 => '::Looks like it is already there. Be sure to keep it updated. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 18:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 777 => ':::Actually, the consensus was to only update it at 6-hour intervals. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 778 => ':FWIW, why was Biden & Trump images switched? Trump's still the ''incumbent'', so should be on the left side, ''until'' we know who won the election. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 779 => '::I agree. I think they should be switched back to Trump on the left and Biden on the right. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 18:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 780 => '', 781 => '==Edit request==', 782 => 'Mention that Joe Biden got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history (you could also mention he was first to 70 million votes but that may be too trivial) [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 783 => ':Too early IMO. Wait for a final count. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 784 => ':should definitely be included for the section on how fraud was so easily assumed and identified -- [[User:Flynnwasframed|Flynnwasframed]] ([[User talk:Flynnwasframed|talk]]) 02:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 785 => '', 786 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 ==', 787 => '', 788 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 789 => 'Article states that Biden, if inaugurated, would be the 2nd former vice-president to be elected president & first since Richard Nixon. This is false, George H. W. Bush won the 1988 presidential election and served as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President from 1981-1989. [[Special:Contributions/147.226.73.199|147.226.73.199]] ([[User talk:147.226.73.199|talk]]) 19:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 790 => ':Former, not current. H. W. was the incumbent VP when he was elected whereas Biden and Nixon were in an election after having already left office as VP. [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 19:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 791 => ':[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> I have changed "former" to "non-incumbent", however, after re-reading the sentence and seeing the potential for confusion. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 792 => '::I think this should be removed from the lead as it is not significant. Defeating an incumbent president is significant, but being a former instead of current vice president is not. —[[User:Naddruf|<u>Naddruf</u>]] ([[User talk:Naddruf|''talk'']] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Naddruf|'''contribs''']]) 19:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 793 => ':::Being a ''former'' vice president upon being elected president, is quite rare though. As mentioned, only Nixon has accomplished feat, so far. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 794 => '::::Nixon was the 3rd VP of any kind per the [[1968 United States presidential election|1968]] election page. It makes no reference to him being the 1st non-incumbent VP. Maybe too nuanced to be notable. [[User:ErieSwiftByrd|ErieSwiftByrd]] ([[User talk:ErieSwiftByrd|talk]]) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 795 => ':::::According to [[List of vice presidents of the United States by other offices held#Presidents|this section of the Vice President list,]] Nixon was the {{tq|Only former vice president to become president in a non-immediate fashion}} while under Bush is says he was the {{tq|Fourth sitting vice president elected president}}. I would say it might be fair to include as long as the wording is clear. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 02:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 796 => '', 797 => '== A couple of things ==', 798 => '', 799 => 'In the second sentence, perhaps it should be changed to {{tq|Voters select'''ed''' [[Electoral College of the United States|presidential electors]] who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020...}}, as voting is done. We could also de-bold the popular vote results. I know that Biden is, in all likelihood, going to win the popular vote, but it's still a possibility for Trump (though low) to win the popular vote, with ~10% of ballots outstanding. Thoughts? Thanks, <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]_{[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]}</span> 20:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 800 => ':I adjusted the tense per your suggestion, since that ought to be uncontroversial. I didn't change the popular vote bolding, though I agree that we should not bold the numbers until a result has been called. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 20:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 801 => ':{{ping|Thanoscar21|GorillaWarfare}} I just undid the popular vote bolding. ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]])} 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 802 => '', 803 => '== 270 electoral votes ==', 804 => '', 805 => '{{ping|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. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/upshot/arizona-election-call.html] 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. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/upshot/network-race-call-tracker.html]. —[[User:Naddruf|<u>Naddruf</u>]] ([[User talk:Naddruf|''talk'']] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Naddruf|'''contribs''']]) 21:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 806 => '', 807 => ':I added info on the split coverage regarding Arizona and noted that Biden needs both states to get to 270. [[User:ErieSwiftByrd|ErieSwiftByrd]] ([[User talk:ErieSwiftByrd|talk]]) 21:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 808 => '', 809 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 (2) ==', 810 => '', 811 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 812 => '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." [[User:Ubzerver|Ubzerver]] ([[User talk:Ubzerver|talk]]) 22:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 813 => ':Looks like it's been done. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 00:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 814 => '', 815 => '== Demographic trends ==', 816 => '', 817 => 'Now that the election (the voting, but not the counting) is over, what should we do about the [[2020_United_States_presidential_election#Demographic_trends|Demographic trends section]]? Some of it is speculation on the impact of demographic changes on the result. Should the actual results be included in this section, or not? If we do include information about results, do we wait until the media starts publishing stories like "suburban women cost Trump the election", etc.? —[[User:Naddruf|<u>Naddruf</u>]] ([[User talk:Naddruf|''talk'']] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Naddruf|'''contribs''']]) 22:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 818 => ':Yes, we should wait until the result is final and the analysis articles start to be written. And IMO we should only include the demographic issues on which there appears to be general agreement. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 00:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 819 => '', 820 => '== Gender rights ==', 821 => '', 822 => 'Please add a section on LGBT rights. --[[Special:Contributions/2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A|2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A]] ([[User talk:2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A|talk]]) 23:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 823 => ':Could you elaborate on that? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 23:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)', 824 => '::Whereas Trump is transphobic, [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-town-hall-transgender-rights-zero-discrimination/ Biden tells mother of transgender daughter there should be "zero discrimination"]. --[[Special:Contributions/2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A|2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A]] ([[User talk:2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A|talk]]) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 825 => ':::This article is about the election; it's not a biography of either of them. Gender rights is something on which they may disagree, but it has not been a big issue in the election. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 00:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 826 => '', 827 => '::::LGBT rights should be under [[2020_United_States_presidential_election#Campaign_issues]].--[[Special:Contributions/2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A|2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A]] ([[User talk:2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A|talk]]) 00:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 828 => '', 829 => '::::Whereas, for example, Michael Bloomberg said that trans right mean nothing to the people in the Midwest[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/michael-bloomberg-2020-transgender-comments-video], the Governor of a midwestern state [[Gretchen Whitmer]] praises the ''[[R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|Harris Funeral Homes]]'' decision [https://wwmt.com/news/local/whitmer-issues-statement-on-supreme-court-ruling-protecting-lgbtq-americans].--[[Special:Contributions/2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A|2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A]] ([[User talk:2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A|talk]]) 00:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 830 => '', 831 => ':::::This was not a major campaign issue by any means. There is no more reason to add a 'LGBT rights' section to this article than it would to add a 'Soybean Farming Subsidies' section. [[User:Thereppy|Thereppy]] ([[User talk:Thereppy|talk]]) 01:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 832 => '', 833 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2020 ==', 834 => '', 835 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 836 => 'Change', 837 => 'to be elected president;[d][9][10] in addition, his running mate Harris would become the first woman to serve as vice president', 838 => 'to', 839 => 'to be elected president.[d][9][10] In addition, his running mate, Harris, would become the first woman to serve as vice president', 840 => '', 841 => 'These are embarrassing errors to have in an article that is getting as many readers as this one![[User:Qc1okay|Qc1okay]] ([[User talk:Qc1okay|talk]]) 01:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC) [[User:Qc1okay|Qc1okay]] ([[User talk:Qc1okay|talk]]) 01:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 842 => ': Just the punctuation, right? Done <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> [[User:Nixinova|Nixinova]] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> [[User talk:Nixinova|T]] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> [[Special:Contribs/Nixinova|C]] </b>  02:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 843 => '', 844 => '== Historical firsts ==', 845 => '', 846 => 'What about an own section listing all the historical firsts or records this election comes with by now already? Record participation, Biden receiving more votes than any other candidate in US history, historical record of number or percentage of mail-in voting, and if I understand CNN right, Biden may be the first Democrat presidential candidate winning Arizona and Trump may be the first Republican candidate winning Ohio but losing the election. Of course, it's too early to call the latter two, but once they're called, I think they should be mentioned in such a section. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5|2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5]] ([[User talk:2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5|talk]]) 03:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 847 => ':Sorry, but Biden ''would not'' be the first Democrat to win Arizona & Trump ''would not'' be the first Republican to win Ohio, but lose the election. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 848 => '::We also have no reason to believe Biden was the one responsible for drawing that influx of new voters (or any old state's core) to the anti-Trump ticket. Fans of strong black women had their first choice for "most likely to succeed" this year. No mere coincidence. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 03:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 849 => ':::I didn't claim Biden would be personally responsible for the high turnouts or the fact he has received more votes than any other candidate in US history. Personally, I believe that's solely due to an alienating push factor from Trump rather than any personal pull factor on behalf of Biden himself, and that if Biden will be elected, he will probably be one of the mediocre Presidents and not win a re-election, as was the case in recent decades especially with Ford and Bush, sr. (as a European, my view on Carter is probably more positive than that of many Americans). All I'm saying is, the turnout, the number or percentage of mail-in votes, and the number of votes won by Biden are unprecedented in US history. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5|2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5]] ([[User talk:2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5|talk]]) 04:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 850 => '::::As a Canadian, I agree, Carter's the best! And I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. More just a note that, should this section happen, we should be clear that Biden and Harris were a package. They both got/won/received the same number of votes from the same people. Call them the Democrats, call theirs a ticket, however works best. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 05:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 851 => '', 852 => '== Bias in wording of information ==', 853 => '', 854 => 'This article states that Trump is making false claims of fraud. Maybe the claims are false or maybe they aren’t, but either way, it is not the job of Wikipedia to determine whether the claims are false or not. This page should objectively state information about a candidate, not determine whether a candidates claims are true or false, and another thing, since when did Trump refuse to commit to a peaceful transfer of power? That is blatantly false and that claim should be removed from this article. [[User:Jay72091(2)|Jay72091(2)]] ([[User talk:Jay72091(2)|talk]]) 03:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 855 => ':Many sources they say Trump claims are false. Do you have any sources that support Trump's claims? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 856 => '', 857 => ':Trump is making claims that differ from what every major media outlet is reporting, the outlets we depend on as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. He is providing no new, independent evidence for those claims. He has made statements suggesting he will not accept the result of the election. He has made no statements saying he will. I see nothing wrong with the wording we are using. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 03:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 858 => '', 859 => ':{{ec}}[https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54274115 "US President Donald Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses November's election. "Well, we'll have to see what happens," the president told a news conference at the White House. "You know that."] If you think we need different examples, just searching "Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power" gives examples from [https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/trump-election-day-peaceful-transition/index.html CNN], [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-transfer-2020-election.html New York Times], [https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-refuses-to-commit-to-peaceful-transfer-of-power-2020-9 Business Insider], [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/23/trump-wont-commit-to-peaceful-transfer-of-power-if-he-loses-the-election.html CNBC], [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/23/trump-declined-commit-peaceful-transfer-power-if-he-loses-election/3510914001/ USA Today], etc. The BBC is a more Worldwide source, so I believe that is why it was picked. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 03:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 860 => '::{{ping|Jay72091(2)}} We even have this today from CBS News' Twitter that says [https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1324549627421609987 CBS News has learned that President Trump does not plan to concede even if Joe Biden declares victory in the coming days]. I know that per [[WP:TWITTER]] it is difficult to use a source on Twitter, but we can do so using {{Template|Twitter}} or {{Template|Cite tweet}} if we must and if we follow all of the instruction to do so. (Though I would imagine that CBS News will make an article within 24 hours.) Jay72091(2), I ask that you provide a source for the changes that you want to make. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 04:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 861 => '', 862 => '== Map and Electoral Vote Update ==', 863 => '', 864 => 'Hello. I have looked through this page and tried to find all the relevant discussions. What I've done is posted the least speculative information about the electoral vote total (Decision Desk HQ, which powers many news organizations, and the NYT). Some sources (AP, Fox) project AZ to Biden. Other's don't. When in doubt, leave it out.', 865 => '', 866 => 'This should be good overnight. Tomorrow morning the total and map may need to be updated. The remaining number of updates will be few and easily accomplished. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 04:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 867 => '', 868 => ':All good with me! Good to finally get the certain states up on the page. <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 869 => '', 870 => '===Infobox edit request===', 871 => 'Underneath the map, add "Red denotes states won by Trump/Pence and blue denotes those won by Biden/Harris [and grey denotes too close or early to call]. Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia." as per tradition. [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 04:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 872 => ': Done. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 04:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 873 => ':: {{ping|Nojus R|Jehochman}} I am informing you here that I have removed the addition because all of the states are grey on the default map and the text is claiming that they are all "too close or early to call" underneath. I think the chance should wait until it is decided that [[:File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg]] should be added to the article, whenever it is. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 05:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 874 => '::: I am open to discussing what the text below the map should say. There appears to be a consensus at this time to have the map and the electoral vote count. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 05:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 875 => '::::The consensus is to wait until tomorrow afternoon before updating the map, to give users time to weigh in at the RfC. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 06:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 876 => ':::::Two editors is a thin consensus and consensus can change. Let me be perfectly clear: this article is on the home page of Wikipedia and getting high volume of traffic. It should be updated with current reliable facts that are readily available. The information I posted is in no way disputed or disputable. On your talk page I proposed letting the information go live now, but agreed that you could remove it if there are complaints. Also, we could use your help to craft a nice explanation of the map. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 877 => '::::::Many users have expressed [[WP:NOTNEWS]] concerns, both on this talk page and at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#2020_United_States_presidential_election_WP%3ASYNTH%2FWP%3ACALC No original research noticeboard]. Consensus may be shifting away from that view, but you have to wait for others to weigh in before rushing and changing the Wikipedia article. I have not damaged the article by suggesting that we wait and see if we can get a stronger consensus before updating the map. The consensus for updating the map and article ASAP is weak at best. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 06:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 878 => ':::::::I agree that WP should be updated with current, reliable facts, but I want to make sure there is consensus on what currently are reliable facts. Obviously information like Trump being projected to win North Dakota is a reliable fact, but it is not so clear on information like projections for ME-2 and Arizona. While we could simply say anything not clear shouldn't be added, if we updated the map to exclude ME-2 and Arizona that would indicate WP does not consider those projections to be reliable enough for inclusion on the page, and although I believe this is what should be done, that may not be a proper reflection of consensus opinion on this page. We should at least have a preliminary indication of consensus on this issue before committing any changes. We are an encyclopedia, not a breaking news source. There is no rush. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 07:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 879 => ':::::::{{ping|Prcc27}} I can understand you have a different viewpoint, but could you please not revert every edit at [[:File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg]]. Editing the infobox to link to [[:ElectoralCollege2020.svg]] is fine, but as a reminder, this article and related ones are subject to discretionary sanctions. You made two edits to the "with results" map that blanked the whole map. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 10:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 880 => ':::::::*{{Reply|Super Goku V}} I don't think [[:File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg]] should have even been created. It seems redundant, and we have [[:File:Test.svg]] for a reason. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 881 => ':::::::::While that is your opinion, there seem to be five users over there that disagree with your thoughts along with myself here. Again, I feel that the "with results" map is under discretionary sanction and that reverts should not be done. Especially with discussion on this page pending about including it in the article. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 15:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 882 => '::::::::::Commons administrator who created the file here. Commons doesn't have DS, but we do have [[c:COM:OVERWRITE]]. Edit warring over file revisions is much more disruptive compared to text revisions. I expected there to be significant disagreement over whether to include results at all, making adding results to the existing file a "controversial or contested change". For that reason, I decided to split the files and to use page protection to enforce Commons guidelines on edit warring and overwriting files. That forced the decision on whether to include results *at all* to be held not on Commons, but enwiki [[c:COM:NPOV|where it belongs]]. The working consensus has been that the results map should only contain races that have been called by major news organizations and where there is no dispute between those organizations on if or how to call the race. If a clear consensus develops over time here to include more results, then and only then should those results be included. --[[User:AntiCompositeNumber|AntiCompositeNumber]] ([[User talk:AntiCompositeNumber|talk]]) 18:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 883 => '* [[WP:NOTNEWS]] is not relevant to this discussion. This map and electoral count have been the same since Wednesday -- they aren't news; these are established, widely reported facts. It could be days and days before we get final results. It does not serve the reader's interest to hide verifiable and relevant information from them because a couple random editors on a Wikipedia talk page decide to invent novel editing process. I strongly urge that the map and the electoral count be restored. There is no basis to challenge the accuracy or verifiability or relevancy of that information. Therefore, it goes in the article now. Just because some facts aren't known does not mean that other facts must be removed. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 12:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 884 => '', 885 => 'The edits needed are these, for the avoidance of doubt: ', 886 => '# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=987302776&oldid=987295660&diffmode=source] ', 887 => '# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2020_United_States_presidential_election_imagemap&diff=prev&oldid=987303030&diffmode=source], but change "file" to "image"', 888 => 'Thank you. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 13:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 889 => '', 890 => '== Merger proposal ==', 891 => '', 892 => 'It was suggested above that a "2020 United States presidential election riots" page be created – assuming that things play out like they did [[Protests against Donald Trump|last time]]. As an apparent compromise, [[2020 United States election protests]] was created to list a few broken windows. The basic premise of this page's existence is flawed. There cannot be true "protests" against/in response to the election until votes are counted and a winner is announced. Until then, this page clearly violates [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. It should be merged to the aftermath section of this page. [[User:KidAd|<span style="background-color: orange; color: black">KidAd</span>]] [[User talk:KidAd|<span style="color: orange">talk</span>]] 08:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 893 => ':I think this is missing a few templates. One sec. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 09:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 894 => ':Ok, I guess that for merging, only two templates and a talk page discussion is needed so we are fine. :) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 09:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 895 => '', 896 => '===Survey===', 897 => '*'''Support merge''' per [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. Protests are minimal right now, likely because there isn't a result to protest yet, as {{u|KidAd}} pointed out. The assumption that these will expand—which seems a central premise of the article—is unverifiable speculation. ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]])} 09:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 898 => '*'''Opposed''' - Based on what I have read, there is [https://www.npr.org/2020/11/05/931688625/-count-every-vote-large-post-election-protests-seen-in-many-cities 600+ people cited], at least 33 arrested with [https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/8-arrested-seattle-election-night-protests/DH2EH2QE5VFHXN5KKMKOR4NC2U/ 8 for Seattle] and 25 for New York (using the NPR citation), and the Oregon National Guard had to be called in. I would say that it sounds notable enough to have a standalone article for now. If anything, the only thing I currently would support is spinning some content from this article into an "Aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election" and merge the "election protests" article. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 09:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 899 => '*'''Oppose''' per the precedent set by the existence of the [[Brooks Brothers riot]] page. There is no way that this this article can cover the election protests in a manner that would both satisfy the sourcing that currently exists and that satisfies [[WP:UNDUE]], so it should be split off. I believe that these protests are almost certain to pass [[WP:10YT]]. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 10:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 900 => '**''"There is no way that this this article can cover the election protests"'' that's pure speculation on your part and even if there were a lot of protests that did happen, it doesn't necessarily mean that they need to be included. At this point it's best to adopt a wait and see approach. Merge the article for now, but reinstate it if something big happens. [[User:Flickotown|Flickotown]] ([[User talk:Flickotown|talk]]) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC) ', 901 => '***Uhhh no, I’m saying that if we take coverage that already exists I do not see a way for this article to cover it properly, no speculation there. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 14:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 902 => '*'''Support for now'''. There is nothing that is on that page that can't go (with proper citation and citations of course) into the "election protests" section of this one, which makes a lot of sense as the protests are confined to a handful of places and have by and large been peaceful, especially when compared to the George Floyd protests. But if anything serious happens comes of the protests (e.g. a killing) then we can reinstate it. [[User:Flickotown|Flickotown]] ([[User talk:Flickotown|talk]]) 11:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 903 => '**[[User:KidAd]] Be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and just merge it. [[User:Flickotown|Flickotown]] ([[User talk:Flickotown|talk]]) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 904 => '**:Perhaps being bold was okay before starting this discussion. But when it has been started with 2 opposes and 3 supports (counting the OP), clearly being bold was no longer on the table. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 905 => '*'''Support for now''' Until/unless widespread protests develop, having a separate page for them is unnecessary. [[User:Nightenbelle|Nightenbelle]] ([[User talk:Nightenbelle|talk]]) 14:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 906 => '*Comment: This discussion is probably going to be moot within a day or two when the results are finalized and it becomes more obvious that either (a) there are significant protests warranting an individual page or (b) there aren't significant protests and the pages should be merged. In other words, we will likely know more concretely whether the pages should be merged before this discussion will even be finished; and when that information comes out in a day or two, everything said here up to that point will be rendered useless by the new information. For me, this raises the question of whether discussion right now is productive, since the discussion may become meaningless quite soon. [[User:Ikjbagl|Ikjbagl]] ([[User talk:Ikjbagl|talk]]) 14:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 907 => '*:Back in 2012, we had a situation like this regarding the NFL Referee strike. The [[2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game]] was put up for an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game|AfD]] the day after the game for a claim of lack of notability. Initially, the arguments were over if it deserved a spot because of it being such a bad call and there were other bad calls that had been deemed notable enough to have articles. Then there was the politician threatening to ban replacement officials for sporting events a few hours prior being brought up, the NFL resuming talks with the NFL Referees Association that evening, and an agreement to end the lockout being reached the next day. The AfD was closed hours later with a note that merging discussion could be brought up later. (I already stated above my opposition to merging.) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 15:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 908 => '* '''Oppose for now''' ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] _{([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])} 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 909 => '* In order for my answer to not be too [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]]-y, I'll say this: if there's a lot more protests that will go on beyond this election, '''Oppose the merge''', and if the article content remains this small with no expansion, '''Support the merge'''. [[User:HumanxAnthro|HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|talk]]) 16:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 910 => '** This seems like a sensible approach to me. As mentioned above, there's enough notability and sources that I'm inclined to say '''Oppose for now''' and see if the article expands in the near future. [[User:MagPlex|MagPlex]] ^{<i>([[User talk:MagPlex|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/MagPlex|contribs]])</i>} 16:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 911 => '** Same here. If the relative size of this page to the main page stays as about now, '''support''', otherwise '''oppose'''. [[User:BACbKA|BACbKA]] ([[User talk:BACbKA|talk]]) 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 912 => '*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:SIZE]]. Either keep the article where it is or place it up for AfD. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 18:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 913 => '::The decision of whether or not to initiate the AfD process is contingent upon the results of this discussion. If the page was nominated for deletion, a winner was declared, and people ''actually'' started throwing bricks through Walmart windows and lighting things on fire, the page would likely be kept. Right now it seems a bit premature. No need to predict turmoil when little has occurred. [[User:KidAd|<span style="background-color: orange; color: black">KidAd</span>]] [[User talk:KidAd|<span style="color: orange">talk</span>]] 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 914 => '*'''Support merge and draftify''' per [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]] [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 19:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 915 => '*:{{u|Nojus R}}, How does CRYSTALBALL apply? The protests are ongoing, not ''planned''. ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] _{([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])} 22:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 916 => '*'''Oppose''', this article is already huge, and there's plainly enough sources there to support a separate article. Additionally, while the protests are plainly being treated as ''significant'' based on the coverage (and therefore deserve an article), they are not a major part of the broader and much larger 2020 presidential election topic, which makes them more appropriate to cover separately. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 917 => '*'''Support for now'''. As mentioned, a handful relatively peaceful. Doesn't seem to warrant separate article. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; <i>[[User:Mk17b|MK17b]]</i> &#124;</b> ([[User talk:Mk17b|talk]]) 20:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 918 => '*'''Support for now'''. Let's see what happens after a winner is called. If that results in massive nationwide protests, OK, we may need an article. Or maybe not. Recall that there actually were huge, days-long protests against the election of Trump in 2016, and all that activity is summarized in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Protests a few paragraphs] at the 2016 election article. I favor the same thing happening here. Right now this amounts to small protests in a few cities, and so far only Portland (lucky Portland) seems to have had serious activities like damage to property. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 21:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 919 => '*'''Support merge'''. There is presently little evidence that this is a distant event from the election. I would also recommend that we give more distinction to what is happening. There is a large group of pro-Trump protests, a minor group of pro-Biden protests, and a few riots in cities like Portland that seem to oppose anyone being elected president. These should be subdivided or described in detail, and a bullet point list is far less effective than what the article could be. Rioting has been damaging, but it does not affiliate so much with a side; the Trump protests are intending to stop vote counts and many groups are armed. Both of these are stories, but (a) they have different levels of importance, and (b) they are from different sides. Nevertheless, it is probably best to merge unless these protests start doing anything other than building upon the election info. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PickleG13|PickleG13]] ([[User talk:PickleG13#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PickleG13|contribs]]) 22:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)</small>', 920 => '*'''Oppose for now''' it's best to not have to argue over inclusion of every thrown brick here; if there are substantial notable protests in the future the article will surely be kept separately, otherwise it can be selectively merged or deleted later. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 23:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 921 => '::Appears you made a mistake with your vote. {{tq|it's best to not have to argue over inclusion of every thrown brick here}} did you mean to say you support the merger? [[User:BCEVERYWHERE|BCEVERYWHERE]] ([[User talk:BCEVERYWHERE|talk]]) 07:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ', 922 => '*'''Oppose for now''' can always delete later per [[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]]. First wait for announcement of actual winner, and if no significant protests post-announce, can merge. [[User:Albertaont|Albertaont]] ([[User talk:Albertaont|talk]]) 01:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 923 => '*'''Oppose for now'''.--[[User:Namnguyenvn|Namnguyenvn]] ([[User talk:Namnguyenvn|talk]]) 06:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 924 => '*'''Support''' we have had a couple of days of these protests now and they've turned out to be....your run of the mill ones. The normal kind of stuff that, you know, goes with every election. Is there a reason why we acting like this article will be gone forever if it gets taken off? [[User:BCEVERYWHERE|BCEVERYWHERE]] ([[User talk:BCEVERYWHERE|talk]]) 07:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 925 => '*'''Support''' per BCEVERYWHERE's point. I'll note that most of the votes above are prior to today's changes that trimmed the article to a bullet-pointed list. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]^{[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]} 08:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 926 => '*'''Support'''. Any protests are part of the larger overall election event. We have precedent to merge based off [[2016_United_States_presidential_election#Protests]]. <span style="font-size:90%;background:#e9f2e9;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 2px 2px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Knowledgeable Raven|Knowledgeable Raven]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Knowledgeable Raven|<small>Comments?</small>]]&nbsp;</span> 08:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 927 => '', 928 => '== 'False' claims ==', 929 => '', 930 => '''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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cichy93|Cichy93]] ([[User talk:Cichy93#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cichy93|contribs]]) 11:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 931 => ':{{u|Cichy93}} Wikipedia summarizes what independent [[WP:RS|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. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 932 => '', 933 => '== Candidate table ==', 934 => '', 935 => '{{re|Devonian Wombat}} There are some inconsistencies in the table:', 936 => '#Joe McHugh and Kyle Kopitke had more ballot access than some of the candidates listed. Should they be included too?', 937 => '#Princess Khadijah and Cancer Scott had the same ballot access as Mark Charles and Joseph Kishore, although they had less write-in access. Should they be included too? What criteria should be used for inclusion in the table? Should write-in access be considered at all? The text above the table also needs to change accordingly.', 938 => '#The Birthday Party was not a real political party, it was only a label that Kanye West invented and it was listed on the ballot only in Louisiana, which allows labels freely. A similar situation occurs with Brock Pierce, who used label Freedom and Prosperity only in Louisiana, and Jade Simmons, who used label Becoming One Nation only in Louisiana and in Wisconsin's write-in list. Should those candidates' labels be included, or should we mark all of them as independent? Should Kanye West's label be treated differently because it includes the word party? In addition, Brock Pierce was listed with political parties in two states, Gloria La Riva and Rocky De La Fuente were listed with different parties in some states, and Donald Trump and Joe Biden were listed with additional minor parties in New York. Should any of these parties be mentioned in notes?', 939 => '#Should we add colors to other political parties such as Bread and Roses and Approval Voting? Should we add different colors also to each independent candidate?', 940 => '#Rocky De La Fuente's two vice presidential candidates are listed in separate rows, but Gloria La Riva's and Jade Simmons's alternative vice presidential candidates are mentioned only in notes. Is there a reason to split only the first case? Is it because Kanye West was also a presidential candidate? Also, his home state in the vice presidential column is shown as Illinois but in the presidential column as Wyoming. He had residences in both states but voted in Wyoming and ran his campaign from there.', 941 => '#Rocky De La Fuente lives in California, Bill Hammons lives in Texas, and Adrian Wallace lives in Kentucky.', 942 => '#Dario Hunter's party is the Oregon Progressive Party. I suggest keeping the name in the table as simply Progressive but adding a wikilink.', 943 => '#The hyphen in vice-presidential, in the table header, is more common in British spelling. I suggest removing the hyphen.', 944 => '[[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 12:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 945 => ':Currently, the inclusion criteria is "Any candidate with ballot access (not write-in) who has a Wikipedia page or is the nominee of a party with a Wikipedia page is in the table". I would suggest changing that to be consistent with [[Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election]], with an exception for Jade Simmons as she is in the ballot access table, meaning that Segal, Huber, Charles and Kishore would be removed.', 946 => '', 947 => ':I would support using the colours over at the Third-party page for candidates in the table.', 948 => '', 949 => ':No objections to fixing home states, or the hyphen.', 950 => '', 951 => ':Not sure on the Hunter Oregon Progressive link, since he was also on the ballot in Colorado.', 952 => '', 953 => ':With the whole De La Fuente-West situation, Peltier officially withdrew from the vice-presidential nomination, so I don't think that that situation is comparable. Maybe Simmons should have a two-colspan as well, but her alternative vp only had write-in access in Florida so I doubt it is necessary. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 13:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 954 => '', 955 => '::{{re|Devonian Wombat}} Thanks for explaining the current criteria. Based on that, [[Tom Hoefling]] and [[Jesse Ventura]] would have to be added too, but I prefer your suggestion. The criteria in the minor candidate article is to have ballot access to more than 15 electoral votes, while in the ballot access table it's to have ballot access in more than one state and ballot plus write-in in most states. I'll combine both for the candidate table.', 956 => '::You're right, Dario Hunter was listed in Colorado as simply Progressive. I also agree that the other vice presidential candidates are not comparable to Kanye West because they withdrew or only had write-in access. However, Kanye West was listed for vice president by the American Independent Party, not the Alliance Party, so the party row should be split too. And what do you think about item 3 above? [[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 14:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 957 => '', 958 => 'Once the final results are in, [[2020_United_States_presidential_election#Candidate_table]] should be consistent with [[2016_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_results]], which has a threshold of 0.05% of the popular vote or electoral votes received. It should not list each person who received zero coverage in the media and less than one vote in two thousand. Ballot access is undue. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]^{[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]} 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 959 => ':I second that. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 09:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 960 => '', 961 => '==Elected President==', 962 => '', 963 => 'This should not be updated until more news sources agree on the final results. As of now, most sources are still not saying there is a clear winner.[[User:Nightenbelle|Nightenbelle]] ([[User talk:Nightenbelle|talk]]) 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 964 => '', 965 => ': Decision Desk HQ has called it, and that is the information source used by most of the media. The media need to write a story and they need to get all kinds of clearance before publishing something so significant. This creates a bit of delay, but they will arrive at the same conclusion soon. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 966 => '', 967 => '::Decision Desk HQ (DDHQ) appears to be independent organization that was formed in 2012 and does not seem to work with ABC, NBC, Fox News, CBS, AP, nor the BBC. I doubt that "clearance" is actually needed and it is more that the networks do not want to call it without it being 100% guaranteed. Regardless, no one has stated that DDHQ should be a reliable source for the Wikipedia article counts to my knowledge. So, any information from them should not be used to verify who won the presidency, though I am not opposed to a mention in the text that they were the first to make a call. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 15:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 968 => '', 969 => '::We need more than one source calling the election, I think, in order for us to say so. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 970 => '', 971 => '::: I agree. If a fact this important is verifiable, it should be reported widely. Nate Silver has praised Decision Desk HQ's call as correct, but that's also not enough. This information is really a preview of what's coming soon. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 15:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 972 => ':Shouldn't we wait until Biden actually reaches 270 anyway? [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 15:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 973 => '::[https://www.270towin.com/news/2020/11/06/biden-elected-pennsylvania-puts-him-across-270-electoral-votes_1126.html 270towin] has also called the election, but I don't know if it makes an independent projection or repeats Decision Desk. {{re|Nojus R}} ''Actually'' reaching 270 only occurs when the states certify results, assuming no faithless electors, or when the electoral college votes on December 14. Until then everything is a projection, which varies by source. Decision Desk does project Biden over 270. [[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 16:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 974 => ':::The EC vote is a formality only. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 975 => '::::Last time 7 electors voted for other candidates, so if the expected count is very close the EC could make a difference. But I agree that we can report the result here when multiple sources agree with the projection. [[User:Heitordp|Heitordp]] ([[User talk:Heitordp|talk]]) 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 976 => '', 977 => ':::{{ping|Heitordp}} - Seems like a repeat, but if not, it still isn't part of the sources agreed upon in the sections above. I would only support a brief mention of [[270toWin]] calling it in the text. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 978 => '', 979 => '[https://www.businessinsider.com/why-ddhq-and-business-insider-called-the-election-for-biden-2020-11 Decision Desk HQ and Business Insider] have called it for Biden.', 980 => '', 981 => '[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/upshot/network-race-call-tracker.html The New York Times] has noted this. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 16:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 982 => '::::Once a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] projects a winner, then we can update the article. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 17:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 983 => ':::::I believe based on the above sections that we would be a combination of AP and another one of the reliable sources listed elsewhere on the talk page. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 17:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 984 => '::::::In one of the above sections, we agreed to update the article even if only one major media outlet projects a winner. But we would have to note that the other networks have not called it. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 18:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 985 => ':::::::I'll reiterate: Aye. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 23:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 986 => 'I think we should wait until the results are certified per [[WP:NPOV]]. I have never seen a case where the vote has been overturned, but we also don't have the state results up for the same reason (I assume). - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 18:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 987 => '', 988 => ':Vox uses Decision Desk HQ. The TV networks are being ridiculously slow. We should declare the winner (the Dem ticket defeated the GOP ticket) and cite DDHQ as a source. We should also mention Trump's reaction to the results in the first paragraph. [[User:Philosopher Spock|Philosopher Spock]] ([[User talk:Philosopher Spock|talk]]) 21:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 989 => '::The AP, which most major news organizations defer to, will not call a race if the race will go to a recount. They will also not call a race if a candidate's lead is smaller than the number of ballots left to count. [https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-states-still-vote-counting-80c8894292be0b4ec652ce9088af0624] That's definitely the case here, and calling a presidential election is nothing to rush into -- being prudent isn't "ridiculous". --[[User:AntiCompositeNumber|AntiCompositeNumber]] ([[User talk:AntiCompositeNumber|talk]]) 22:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 990 => ':::I read the AP article and you misunderstood the part about the lead being less than the uncounted ballots. DDHQ was actually founded by a Republican precisely because AP and everyone else is so slow. Last time, they were slow to declare Trump the winner. This is beyond prudence. At this point, declaring the winner would be stating the obvious, not rushing into anything. [[User:Philosopher Spock|Philosopher Spock]] ([[User talk:Philosopher Spock|talk]]) 01:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 991 => '::::We are an encyclopaedia not a news site, so being conservative and slow is entirely in our bailwick. IMO we can mention the DDHQ declaration but we should wait for multiple independent sources to make a declaration before we suggest Biden is president elect in wikivoice. We should not be declaring anyone the winner when most of the media are still not doing so. That isn't "stating the obvious", that's getting ahead of reliable sources. It's not like this is a highly obscure story where no one else has reported it because they didn't notice it or they don't care. Sources aren't reporting it precisely because they feel it's too soon. You're welcome to head over to Wikinews or some other news site and argue about how a news site should handle it. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 992 => ':::::I'd further note that even sources that use DDHQ don't always seem to be treating their call as sacrosanct. Buzzfeed News does, but their page [//www.buzzfeednews.com/] still just says the US is edging closer to knowing [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/pennsylvania-election-result-biden-trump]. The Economist uses DDHQ and they are perhaps a bit closer to accepting their call [//www.economist.com/united-states/2020/11/06/joe-biden-is-set-to-capture-the-white-house] including an old story they headline as "Hello 46" on their main page [//www.economist.com/us-election-2020], but weirdly their results table [//www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/11/03/the-us-2020-election-results] hasn't been updated for 21 hours so of course doesn't have Pennsylvania called or even Biden leading. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 993 => '::::::I'd add that Biden himself is not declaring victory, so not only are we getting ahead of the reliable sources, we're getting ahead of the supposed winner themselves. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 994 => ':::::I take your point that this is an encyclopedia, but the current article feels outdated. How about we add the word "apparently" in order to be "prudent", and remove the "if Trump wins" references? IMO sources aren't officially reporting it because they're afraid. Everyone implicitly acknowledges Biden has won. [[User:Philosopher Spock|Philosopher Spock]] ([[User talk:Philosopher Spock|talk]]) 04:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 995 => '::::::It's not our place to judge why sources aren't reporting something. We don't [[WP:OR]] what sources supposedly implicitly acknowledge. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 996 => ':::AP clearly doesn't refuse to call a race if the lead is smaller than the number of ballots left to count. If that was the case, they wouldn't have called Arizona on Wednesday US EST morning, a few hours after Fox News, a state which a number of media organisations have still notably refuse to call now on Friday US EST night in part because there is still more ballots to be counted than the lead [//apnews.com/article/ap-explains-arizona-joe-biden-bb16f91b04456b2513f40436248eb62d] [//www.bloombergquint.com/politics/arizona-results-draw-different-conclusions-by-news-outlets] [//www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/11/04/fox-ap-arizona-biden/] [//www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/upshot/arizona-election-call.html] [//www.thecentersquare.com/arizona/previously-called-for-biden-ap-giving-arizona-a-closer-look/article_15858650-1faf-11eb-8681-5b05d291b3f8.html]. AP came to the conclusion based on their data that Trump would not be able to gain enough net votes from the remaining ballots to win early on, but as the lead has narrowed their call has come under increasing question and I don't mean by Trump supporters. Assuming that it ends with Biden winning in Arizona but with a fairly narrow lead it's possible that each side will stick with their views. AP will say they were right in the end. Others will say the lead narrowed so much that it could have easily reversed if their assumption about how much it would narrow was off by even a small percent. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 997 => '::::Not yet. The election is considered "called" when the major networks call it and not until then. They each have their own decision desk and this year they are being very conservative. In any case, they will not "call" the presidential elections until they have "called" enough states to amount to 270 electoral college votes. ([[Decision Desk HQ]] seems to be a self-appointed referee that provides election information to a few news organizations that can't afford their own coverage team or decision desk.) -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 03:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 998 => ':I feel a need to offer my two cents here. As someone who, on the one hand, has had extensive overall experience in Wikipedia (I've been editing here in various capacities for just under 1.5 decades now), I am also one who is relatively new in contributing to dscussions, deliberations, and decisions as they relate specifically to political articles. With that background in mind, on the one hand, Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCRYSTAL|not a crystal ball]], and should not use one, two, or even a few isolated sources as justification to provide information that is not confirmed in a majority of the [[WP:Rs|reliable sources]] we have used for content up to this point. So there needs to be a balance as far as content here is concerned to ensure that we avoid going above and beyond what a majority of the reliable sources are saying. But that being said, we are also living in an unsual period of time where the call on some states may be delayed by legal proceedings, voting recounts, and, in the worst-case sceanrio, investigations of fraud. There is a lot at stake here, and my thought is that it would be wiser for us to be more prudent, cautious, and reserved in how we approach what to say and the manner in which it is said. ', 999 => ':At the same time, with most of the major television networks in the United States reticent to make even the calls on states where votes are still being tabulated, or where the outcomes may face a legal challenge, and with many of those networks not yet declaring a winner, I'd say it would be more prudent for us to recognize that the nation is in an unprecedented situation that is constantly in flux, and is likely to be so for a while. As a result, my personal feeling is that patience, and reticence regarding what is said and the manner in which it is said will go a long way. I will take my comment further: I am not personally comfortable with the idea of this article using any wording that would indicate a conclusion any readers of this article should draw. I am far more comfortable with the idea of letting things play out. In instances like this, it's easier to be cautious and reserved in things for the time being than it would be to try after the fact to fix something put into this or other articles that is eventually verified as inaccurate or untrue. Just my two cents here, for whatever they may be worth to any of you reading them here. --[[User:Jgstokes|Jgstokes]] ([[User talk:Jgstokes|talk]]) 05:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1000 => '', 1001 => '== Pastor Paula White calls on angels from Africa and South America to bring Trump victory ==', 1002 => '', 1003 => '[https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/05/paula-white-trumps-spiritual-adviser-african-south-american-angels/6173576002/ See here:]', 1004 => '', 1005 => '"Megachurch pastor and televangelist Paula White-Cain, who is spiritual adviser to President Donald Trump, delivered a prayer service Wednesday night in an effort to secure Trump's reelection."', 1006 => '', 1007 => '[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUmMUmLYT1Y Video fragment of prayer service]', 1008 => '', 1009 => '[[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 18:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1010 => ': LOL! She's a bit late. Does she expect God to destroy ballots after they have been cast? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1011 => '::Most Christians expect God to [[Christian eschatology|destroy almost everything]] on Earth, at some point, some doubting even the rule of law can can stop a [[Great Tribulation]]. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1012 => '', 1013 => '== Has PA been called yet? ==', 1014 => '', 1015 => 'The only states that weren't definitively called last time I checked were PA, AZ, NV, GA, NC, and AK, where Biden had 253 electoral votes and Trump had 214, therefore making PA have more than the 17 Biden needs to win. 270ToWin says PA is called for Biden, but IDK if it officially, definitively is called for Biden. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/135.180.2.61|135.180.2.61]] ([[User talk:135.180.2.61#top|talk]]) at 18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)</small>', 1016 => ':It varies by source, but the majority say it's too close to call. [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 19:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1017 => ': Biden has pulled ahead in Pennsylvania, but it has not been called yet. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> [[User:Nixinova|Nixinova]] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> [[User talk:Nixinova|T]] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> [[Special:Contribs/Nixinova|C]] </b>  19:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1018 => ':Only Decision Desk has called it, the others haven't made a call yet. Biden holds a narrow lead at the time of writing. [[User:Herbfur|Herbfur]] ([[User talk:Herbfur|talk]]) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1019 => '', 1020 => '== Quick question ==', 1021 => '', 1022 => 'Greetings! I was just curious; how come on this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&type=revision&diff=987370863&oldid=987368692 edit] the pictures were swapped from left to right? Thanks kindly! (Keep up the good work) [[User:1holeinmysock|1holeinmysock]] ([[User talk:1holeinmysock|talk]]) 19:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1023 => ':I would assume because Biden is the likely winner, however the page probably shouldn't be reordered until the winner is actually declared. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> [[User:Nixinova|Nixinova]] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> [[User talk:Nixinova|T]] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> [[Special:Contribs/Nixinova|C]] </b>  19:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1024 => ':: Thanks! [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&type=revision&diff=987401098&oldid=987398011 fixed it]! [[User:1holeinmysock|1holeinmysock]] ([[User talk:1holeinmysock|talk]]) 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1025 => '', 1026 => '== BuzzFeed, reliable source? ==', 1027 => '', 1028 => 'Why is it considered so? Especially given its large amounts of bias and other issues with the site? [[User:Aardwolf68|Aardwolf68]] ([[User talk:Aardwolf68|talk]]) 22:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1029 => ':{{u|Aardwolf68}}, see [[WP:RSP]] for more information. Buzzfeed News is a reliable source. Buzzfeed (regular) is not. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 23:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1030 => ':{{ec}} {{re|Aardwolf68}} [[WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News]], and the multitude of discussion links in its table row, ought to answer your question. Note that it is distinct from [[WP:RSP#BuzzFeed]]. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 23:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)', 1031 => '', 1032 => '== Revert Edit on Ages of Candidates ==', 1033 => '', 1034 => 'I think the edit made at 20:40, 6 November 2020 should be reverted. While Joe Biden and Donald Trump would both be the oldest candidates to have been inaugurated, at 78 and 74, respectively, this shouldn't be merged into the same sentence, as the previous versions of the article made a clear distinction between them: If Joe Biden is elected president, he would be the oldest person not just to be inaugurated as president, but to also serve as president in general, as no other president has reached the age of 78 while in office (Ronald Reagan left office at 77 years of age). [[Special:Contributions/2600:8802:800:E4:49A8:CE00:8D10:7369|2600:8802:800:E4:49A8:CE00:8D10:7369]] ([[User talk:2600:8802:800:E4:49A8:CE00:8D10:7369|talk]]) 00:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1035 => '', 1036 => ':Agreed. Working on phrasing it clearer, though. <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 00:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1037 => '', 1038 => '== Candidate table ==', 1039 => '', 1040 => 'Something is messed up with the Don Blankenship row in this table. I am not confident in my ability to edit this, so I am leaving this note here in case someone with more skill comes along. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 00:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1041 => '', 1042 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 ==', 1043 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 1044 => 'According to Fox News and Politico: Arizona has been called for Joe Biden, and Maine District 2 has been called for Donald Trump. That brings the electoral votes to 264 (Biden) - 214 (Trump). [[User:Kerim123456|Kerim123456]] ([[User talk:Kerim123456|talk]]) 02:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1045 => ':{{Not done}}. Per the discussions above, the consensus is to wait for news organizations to unanimously project a winner for a state/district. Most news organizations have not called Arizona, and CNN still hasn't called ME-2. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 02:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1046 => '', 1047 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2) ==', 1048 => '', 1049 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}', 1050 => 'Kamala Harris IS NOT BLACK! This is a gross error in ethnicity, not to mention ignorance, to say the least. She is, by her very name and parentage (as it states on her own Wiki page) of Indian, Hindu descent, her family hailing from Chennai, which, for the illiterate, is the capital of the state of Tamil Nadu IN INDIA. Moreover from a highly cultured family (read the page). Whoever wrote this illiterate entry about her being black needs to go back to school. [[User:Annaclewis|Annaclewis]] ([[User talk:Annaclewis|talk]]) 05:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC) PLEASE CORRECT THIS UNACCEPTABLE ERROR IMMEDIATELY![[User:Annaclewis|Annaclewis]] ([[User talk:Annaclewis|talk]]) 05:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1051 => ':{{notdone}}: this has already been discussed ''ad nauseam''. Just read [[Talk:Kamala Harris|this talk page]] and its FAQ. —[[User:MelbourneStar|<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b>]]<span style="color: #FF9F00;">☆</span>[[User talk:MelbourneStar|<sup style="color:#407">'''''talk'''''</sup>]] 05:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1052 => '', 1053 => '== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3) ==', 1054 => '', 1055 => '{{edit extended-protected|2020 United States presidential election|answered=no}}', 1056 => 'In the section "Election night aftermath," the sentence "Fox News projected Biden would win Arizona at 11:20 p.m. EST on election night, and the Associated Press called the state at 2:50 a.m. EST on November 4, several other media outlets concluded the state was too close to call." There should either be a semicolon instead of a comma after "November 4," or the word "but" or "although" after "November 4." [[User:Mlb96|Mlb96]] ([[User talk:Mlb96|talk]]) 06:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1057 => '', 1058 => '== North Carolina is........BLUE ???? ==', 1059 => '', 1060 => 'North Carolina is........BLUE ???? Really ?? Just look at the map. And look at the results - Trump is leading there !!!! [[Special:Contributions/76.21.97.234|76.21.97.234]] ([[User talk:76.21.97.234|talk]]) 08:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1061 => ':What map are you referring to? AFAICT, North Carolina has never been blue in the map in the infobox, and I checked all revisions [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ElectoralCollege2020_with_results.svg&offset=&limit=500#filehistory] [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1062 => '::If you're referring to the results by state table I also cannot see where it's ever been blue going back to this revision [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=987461776&oldid=987459701#Results_by_state] [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)', 1063 => '', 1064 => '== For the first time in history, most Americans are cast their ballots before Election Day ==', 1065 => '', 1066 => 'According to Washington Post - "For the first time in history, most Americans are expected to cast their ballots before Election Day.". This is an interesting info. Source - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/26/timing-election-results/]. [[User:Миша Карелин|M.Karelin]] ([[User talk:Миша Карелин|talk]]) 08:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)' ]