Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles United States: Presidential elections / Presidents / Government / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance). Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes Section size for Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election (85 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 45,959 45,959 Background 132 20,233 Trump's 2012 accusations of electoral fraud 1,043 1,043 Uncertainty over Trump accepting an electoral loss in 2016 3,445 3,445 Uncertainty over Trump accepting an electoral loss in 2020 15,613 15,613 Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss 160 74,992 Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss by Donald Trump 63 25,973 Before results declared 7,600 7,600 After results declared 15,293 15,293 After leaving office 3,017 3,017 Refusal to accept 2020 electoral loss by Trump's allies and supporters 80 48,859 Stop the Steal 32,616 32,616 Conspiracy theories 16,163 16,163 November 2020 5,576 93,450 "Fake" electors 7,464 7,464 Lame duck firings and hirings 16,609 16,609 Lawsuits 5,943 5,943 Michigan officials pressured to not certify 9,402 9,402 Attempt to seize voting machines in Michigan 2,097 2,097 Georgia Secretary of State pressured to disqualify ballots 4,185 4,185 Wisconsin recount-obstruction 3,237 3,237 Partisan hearings with Republican legislatures 2,970 2,970 Conspiracy allegations 25,528 25,528 Threats of violence by Trump supporters 10,439 10,439 December 2020 6,947 75,046 Trump's attempt to pressure state officials 12,125 12,125 Supreme Court petitions 8,089 8,089 Consideration of special counsel and martial law 14,471 14,471 Planning for Congress to overturn the election on January 6 2,422 2,422 Pressure on Pence 1,224 14,933 "Pence Card" conspiracy 9,266 9,266 December timeline 4,443 4,443 Pressure on Justice Department 5,779 5,779 Pressure on Defense Department 3,829 3,829 Plan to seize voting machines 3,618 3,618 Ellis memos 1,717 1,717 Plan to obtain National Security Agency data 1,116 1,116 January 2021 7,233 73,404 Gohmert v. Pence 4,965 4,965 Calls with state officials 15,731 15,731 Justice Department pressured and efforts made to replace acting attorney general 6,902 6,902 Preparations by chief of staff 4,143 4,143 More pressure on Pence 8,139 8,139 January 6 joint session 90 10,823 Senate efforts 8,644 8,644 House votes 1,063 1,063 Report by Rep. Zoe Lofgren 1,026 1,026 Capitol attack 11,254 11,254 Trump operatives breach Coffee County, Georgia election system 1,930 1,930 Lindell memo 2,284 2,284 Later developments 26 63,856 Taxpayer costs 741 741 Security concerns over March 4, 2021 1,576 1,576 Election audits 2,647 34,153 Arizona 8,248 8,248 Georgia 4,104 4,104 Idaho 2,080 2,080 Pennsylvania 6,329 6,329 Texas 3,140 3,140 Wisconsin 7,605 7,605 Mike Lindell reinstatement prediction 1,526 1,526 Senate Judiciary Committee report 750 750 Election law reform efforts 1,848 1,848 Post-election voter restriction efforts by Republicans 195 195 Impact on secretaries of state 981 981 House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack 4,241 4,241 2021 German federal election 1,623 1,623 Justice Department investigations 1,460 1,460 Civil lawsuits 551 551 Continuing subversion efforts and 2024 predictions 10,970 10,970 Post-election allegations of statistical improbabilities 3,215 3,215 Reactions 16 54,443 Republican critiques of the "big lie" 1,877 22,517 Administration dissenters 1,829 1,829 Consistent critics 5,060 5,060 Others 13,751 13,751 Description as attempted coup 39 21,886 Before the Capitol attack 14,343 14,343 During or after the Capitol attack 7,504 7,504 "Trump won" and "big lie" 6,091 6,091 Corporate reactions 3,933 3,933 See also 542 542 Notes 138 138 References 33 33 External links 3,926 3,926 Total 506,022 506,022

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Eggers, Andrew C.; Garro, Haritz; Grimmer, Justin (2021-11-09). "No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved 2021-11-16. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack's Presentation Outline

I don't think we have sufficiently weighty RSs to add this to the article, but its in the media and I wanted to note them for followup later. Politico had this scoop,^[1] which has spawned (of course) a cascade of other media stories based on the original Politco piece. Apparently a secret service agent, Trumps lead guy, gave closed (not public testimony). The committee hasn't disclosed it. So what we have here is he said..... he heard it from a friend.....that the other person told a bunch of people..... stuff (Politico heard it from a source that the agent testified to the panel.) This is why I don't think the report has enough WEIGHT to be added to the article. But it sure is interesting. Even as the violence was happening, Trump was tryhing to talk his detail into taking him down to the capitol. Instead they took him to the White House. At least, if the report is accurate.

Imagine if Secret Service had really taken Pence to Andrews and Trump got to the capitol.....

Anyway, the other part of this story that we might be able to use if the committee discloses the agent's testimony is commentary from Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who studies fascism and coups, and opined that "“If you’re having a coup and summoned everybody, and aim to be anointed as the head of a new illegitimate government, you have to be there,” I'm sure there's a weightier RS than HuffPost but for now, ^[2]

Should be page be renamed to Republican attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? The page is explicitly clear that it is only about efforts by the Republican Party and Donald Trump. Saying "Attempts" is less specific and can also suggest that non-Republican groups attempted to overturn the election, which is not covered by this page. This would be in line with the naming convention in Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. BootsED (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were never any attempts to “overturn” the election. The entire concept is a lie. “Overturn” implies that the election was concluded and Biden had won, and someone was trying to invalidate that result. But there was no official result until the process concluded on January 6.

In fact, what happened was that Trump and others were trying to *change the outcome*, using (arguably) legal means.

It should be renamed, “Republican attempts to change the outcome of the 2020. …”

But no one cares about accuracy. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The election was concluded. Biden won. Trump and his J6ers tried to prevent the certification of the electoral vote with a riot. We care about accuracy. You care about maintaining the narrative you've been fed. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: the election was not concluded until the House vote on Jan. 6.

The fact that you do not understand this fact is good evidence that the title is misleading. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objections were raised and dismissed. Then they stormed the Capitol chanting "hang Mike Pence". Not legal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has literally nothing to do with what I said. Come back when you learn English. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We base our articles on reliable sources, which generally describe activity after the election's outcome was clear but before January 6 as attempting to overturn it. See the contents of the "attributed to multiple references" citation bundle, most of which cover that timeframe. Just from a linguistic standpoint, there's no particular reason why someone couldn't attempt to "overturn" an outcome that is seen as having already been functionally decided even before the final steps in the formal process have been completed; but either way, if you disagree with how sources covered it you'd have to present other sources that have covered it differently. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity is key in article titles, and we can't assume that everyone who stormed the Capitol is or was a Republican. They can be MAGAs unaffiliated with the GOP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is incorrect. Brevity does not trump correctness. 96.2.30.37 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's not incorrect? We cover all attempts to overturn the election (or at least every one that got significant coverage.) The fact that the attempts were virtually all by Republicans, or at least aimed to overturn it in favor of the Republican candidate, is true but isn't really something that needs to be in the title. It would only be incorrect if there were other significant attempts that we omitted, and in that case it would probably make more sense to just add them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is correct, and the incorrect move was my engaging with this IP. For BootsED, the policy is WP:CONCISE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As of 14 October 2024, its readable prose size was 20,872 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.

— Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)—[reply]

Do you have any suggestion on how to reduce it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2022, audio of Steve Bannon saying that Trump planned to declare victory on election night even if he was losing was leaked. This was reported on by several reliable sources (The Washington Post, The Guardian, Business Insider etc). Should there be a mention of this in the article? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]