Talk:2024 United States elections

Maps

The maps seem to be incorrectly formatted or something, as the legend and the maps don’t match up. BrokenSquarePiece ^{(complete me)} 23:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes; the legends are for the preelection maps. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024

Change “Trump was shot at” to “Trump was shot” Travis Morger (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This would be inaccurate as he was hit by a bullet. 99.10.110.201 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

❌ Not Done: the attempt was failed SKAG123 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (2)

I believe his name is Tim Walz, not Tim Waltz. Please change | president_map_caption = Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states won by Harris/Waltz, red denotes those won by Trump/Vance, and gray denotes those yet to be called. Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia. to | president_map_caption = Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states won by Harris/Walz, red denotes those won by Trump/Vance, and gray denotes those yet to be called. Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia. LennnyLo (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Text search didn't find any matches for "Waltz", so I'm presuming that the error was in a previous version of the page. Liu1126 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (3)

Change

Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia.

to

Numbers indicate how many electoral votes each state has

The Electoral College has not convened yet. The wording at 2024_United_States_presidential_election.207.96.32.81 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've used the text Numbers indicate allotted electoral votes. as that seemed to be the consensus for the 2020 election during the equivalent period. Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Domestic Election Interference

Someone has inserted references to domestic groups interfering in US elections. What they mean by this is that US citizens are donating money to AIPAC. This is pretty beyond the pale. The idea that you can characterize US citizens donating money to an American political group as "election interference" because those citizens have donated money to a cause that OP does not personally support is a pretty flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's great, honey 197.91.18.157 (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw the "ping pong" match in the edit history on this issue and decided to find a happy and productive medium for both "sides". "Election Interference" I changed to "Alleged Foreign Election Interference" to clarify that its for discussing other nations tampering with the process (not citizens engaging in the process) and moved to the bottom of the Issues section (because it honestly was 1 paragraph asserting the possibility of interference, should not have been anywhere near the top of the section anyway).

I then created a new subsection "Foreign Relations" with a sub-subsection of "Israel-Hamas War", added context relevant to the 2024 election cycle and loads of citations.

Now everyone can feel better. Those that have a big issue with AIPAC can still have it mentioned in a much better format with more citations and context, without trying to come across as insisting that American voters/supporters were somehow engaging in election interference for engaging in their nations democratic process via donations, volunteering, or activism on a foreign relations issue. TheRazgriz (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Underlying Data?

Is there a way I can see/download the underlying data used to make the maps? I'm interested in vote totals by state by candidate for presidental election years.

Thanks, KathyS158 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if there’s an answer to this but Wikipedia:Help desk may be able to help. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024

Not sure how to do it, but the new Pennsylvania senator is a republican not a independent. 2600:6C44:27F:618A:49BE:4097:FDF8:AB23 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Falsehood in lede

In the intro, it is stated that "This marked the first time since 1896 that the Republicans completely rolled back a Democratic trifecta and replaced it with a Republican trifecta in a single presidential term." This is not true.. disregarding the fact that the Democratic Party did not hold a trifecta prior to the election, the last time that partisan control shifted from the Democrats to Republicans in all three elections is 1952, as in 1950, Democrats held their preexistent trifecta, and Republicans won a trifecta in 1952. 50.235.136.53 (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I did some research into this, and you are absolutely correct. Going into the 1952 election, the Democrats held a trifecta and the win of Dwight Eisenhower in the Presidential Election brought both a popular vote victory over his Democratic opponent and brought control of both chambers of Congress, resulting in a Democratic trifecta flipping into a Republican trifecta, and this has not happened since then.

I went ahead and removed that part of the lede entirely, as both the underlying premise (that Democrats held a trifecta going into the 2024 election cycle) and the point it was trying to make (Republicans havent flipped a trifecta since 1892) were both false, so no other creative edit to it gave it any merit to remain on the page. TheRazgriz (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Format & Info Updates

Hello all.

A quick glance at the edit history at the moment of this writing will show that Ive made a number of edits and updates to the page recently. A mix of trying to reformat certain sections of the page to better lay out and expand on information as well as to end some bickering back and forth between different "sides" on what should or should not have been mentioned under the previous format, and Ive also done quite a bit of expanding on contexts and adding links and citations while updating information that was very lean and in need of updates.

I would assume the most "controversial" edits I made were: 1) to remove the incorrect information from the lede which implied that Democrats held a "trifecta" across POTUS, House, and Senate going into 2024, when they did not, while trying to insist that Republicans had not previously flipped a "trifecta" since 1892, which ignores the 1952 "trifecta" flip of Eisenhower, and; 2) the changes I made within the "Issues" section, where I created 2 new "subsections" titled "Foreign Relations" and "Alleged Foreign Election Interference" to better sort out the previous edits trying to talk about AIPAC under a context of "election interference". I understand that other users opinion that a domestic lobby for or against a certain other nation is in their opinion the same as "foreign interference", but I think most objective people would disagree that its the same as Iran hacking into a candidates emails and leaking them, or China using AI social media accounts to try and shift the perception of politics on social media and pop culture, or Russia's own President very publicly endorsing one particular candidate.

These and my other edits were done with the hope to end bickering by finding a professional middle-ground that I think honestly enhances the quality of the page, to highlight objective truths and give information readers my not have previously known before reading, and to hopefully foster some users to actually take the lead themselves and not be afraid to make edits they believe will enhance the page (such as the user who had all of the facts already to verify that "trifecta" info in the lede was outright false, but chose to only make a talk topic instead of making the good faith edit). I hope my edits and the reformatting of some of the subsection formatting will be appreciated and expanded upon if needed. If there are any minor edits to be made, then make them. If there are major issues to be sorted out, then lets sort them out. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight in "Issues"

The economy, which various sources [1][2][3] state one of, if not the main reason that the Republicans (and Trump) did so well, is given a single paragraph while abortion, which wasn't nearly as important is given 3 entire body paragraphs, which could just be in a separate article and trimmed down. The indictment stuff should also be trimmed down but it isn't that biased since most indictments were on Trump but it still is pretty biased against him.

Billionten (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat agree on the Abortion vs Economy issue...I was actually stunned to see the Abortion subsection was that lengthy, but imho when you see the demographic split between men and women voters (especially within "minority" communities) I figure it could merit a good overview.

But when you consider that Trump being only the second POTUS to successfully have a non-consecutive term, and both who have done it have done it because in-between was an administration that took the blame for a horrible domestic economy that the non-consecutive candidate was promising to fix with tariffs and such...yea, seems to me the economy just might hold more weight to the topic than abortion does.

Im not the guy to look to for expanding a conversation on the economy in this setting, but if someone can think of a way to expand on the economy issue here, that would be great. TheRazgriz (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Abortion was an important issue in this campaign. But, it could be that the economy was more important. As we figure out "why Trump won", we will revise the article to better reflect that, I expect. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you posted this talk, I went back and made a few changes within the "Issues" section. After careful reading and consideration, I removed 2 paragraphs on "Abortion" as one was sensible pre-election but wildly out of place post-election, and the other was completely focused on documenting a single random politicians career history on the issue...which is weird. Would be one thing if it was tracking Trump or Sanders or some other household name, but even then it would still have been slightly out of place.

As for the point you bring up about the Indictments, each part of that section was there when I started editing the page post-election, but Im responsible for expanding on each of them. While there is something to be said for wanting and trying to keep things trimmed down and to the point, I always personally put more weight on the idea that the devil is in the details ESPECIALLY about controversial or otherwise important things. His repeated indictments and the cases that followed were international news these last couple of years, and many pundits and political commentators have attributed this "lawfare" as being at least a small part of the reason he saw significant gains in polling and in the election within "minority" communities.

So a favor if you will...would you mind coming back and reading the updated "Issues" section from start to finish? Id like to know if in its current form you still believe it warrants the "biased" warning/tag, and if you do then Id be interested to hear what exactly you think could be done to un-bias it. Teamwork makes the dream work. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The economy & abortion section are now more balanced, but eight paragraphs about Trump's indictments seems far too much for this section. Do reliable sources really say that Trump's legal issues affected the campaign more than the economy, abortion, and foreign wars combined? ypn^2 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight, clearly not. George Santos clearly has no relevance to the 2024 elections. I removed it and the Menendez indictment, and the Trump and Hunter Biden indictments can be shortened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, this is not the page dedicated to the Presidential election, but to all elections this cycle. Santos and Menendez are just as relevant on this page as Trump is.

Trump is the "main character" here, but that doesnt mean the B and C plots get tossed in the bin here. TheRazgriz (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Gave the section another re-read with fresh and rested eyes, and I agree. Your point here is also valid.

Instead of just hitting "undo" to all that, Ive trimmed it WAY down, and also restructured the section into "Federal" vs "State" indictments. I ask the same favor again, give it a read and share what you think. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok since the economy section is now big enough I will remove the undue weight template Billionten (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Pa senate

What’s with the yellow coloring? I know it’s not called yet from some major sources so grey would make sense but the yellow has no meaning Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

On Commons the file key has yellow meaning "too close to call" ... ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Page lede subject matter

Based on precedent set by several previous election cycle pages (2008 in particular, but far from exclusive), the mention of the historical (first) assassination attempt in the lede is entirely valid. I will be undoing its removal, though if someone would like to make a good faith creative edit that can find a way to trim it down while still presenting its historical relevancy, that is obviously entirely encouraged.

On this particular issue, I think it would be wise to seek a consensus prior to removal of this piece of the page, as it seems to be one of the most relevant and historical parts of this election cycle. Others and I have taken the liberty of restructuring or outright removing pieces of this page prior, but again this bit is a headlining historical matter, not a bit of policy or politicking. And no, I dont feel this way because I wrote it, I only wrote it because based on the content of previous pages it was striking that it was missing. It isnt like the page lede is exactly bursting with paragraphs and other info. Its surprisingly lean even compared to midterm cycle pages. TheRazgriz (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For another example, one in which I had nothing to do with if it makes you feel better, you can also look to 1968 US election page lede, but again go through all prior pages to this one and you can and will find similar historically important information in their ledes as well, not just on the Presidential pages.

This information is relevant, is due, does conform with long standing precedent, and if there is a debate to be had about any part of that assertion then have it here first please. Insisting that it is undue because a related, more focused page also holds due that information, does not make it automatically undue.

I say again, if someone can creatively edit to trim down potential undue fat, that would be lovely. But let us please arrive at a consensus prior to removing that bit. I created this topic so it could be discussed and agreed to without risking "edit warring". TheRazgriz (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheRazgriz: The content you keep adding is wildly undue. If you insert it in the lead and it alone, we are suggesting that the assassination is the most important element of these elections. Consulting the sources in this article and the content of the 2024 United States presidential election, this is an inappropriate characterization. Inserting massive changes to the article and getting reverted means that you have the burden of defending its addition, per WP:ONUS. Please stop adding content back despite repeated reversions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that having it in the lede characterizes it as the "most important element" of the election. 1) it wasnt alone, it was the second paragraph, and as you yourself demonstrated it did not preclude additional information being added. 2) it is clearly noted in the context of its historical relevancy to the electoral cycle, not its perceived or real relevancy to the electoral results. 3) this information brief in the lede falls in line with the standards of our predecessor pages on similar historical events.

To my view, at this point you were reverting with disregard for WP:CON. Its one thing to challenge an edit as WP:UNDUE and "force" the other User(s) to justify the content existing under WP:ONUS, its another to assert something is undue by choosing to ignore and circumvent the pre-existing talk on the subject which already provided the contents justification and requested a consensus prior to reversion. So no the onus was not on me as I had already done my part and no one had challenged the argument for retaining the content (and there was no argument or reason given for attempting to remove in the first place, which is why I assumed it could have been a mistake), it was on you to participate here and challenge the merits of the content as already laid out, prior to you making a unilateral reversion, per WP:REVEXP.

It is only now that you are participating here and attempting to explain yourself, which I appreciate and Im sure other current and future users will as well. Thank you. Though I do also take the highest level of disagreement possible to the actually wild assertion that this piece was "inserting massive changes", and the inherent assertion that I have a history of "adding content back" after reversions. Of all of the changes that I have made on this page, I would rank that change near the bottom of the list, and none of my other changes have been reverted. Where another User has found fault in my work here, I have sought to work together to fix it, and time and again defer to others judgement and taste. TheRazgriz (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Above aside, you're a very new editor who doesn't seem to grasp the policy here. As a fellow editor, please take my word for it: this is a case of WP:UNDUE and you have failed to sufficiently justify your insertion of that content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Irrelevant to this discussion, but since you bring it up: This account is "new-ish", my time on wiki is not. I never cared to create an account until a few months ago, but I have been participating actively for well over a decade, mostly focused on bringing the English-translation versions of South American historically-focused pages from other languages into proper English grammar standards and adding citations and relevant missing context when/where appropriate.

So no, I will not take your word for it as you are not an infallible authority on deciding what is and is not undue, or what is or is not sufficiently justified, simply by self-assertion at being right, hence WP:CON being a thing. I justified my position with reference outside of myself. Please keep the discussion limited to the issue at hand and the arguments for or against it. If you do not wish to further argue the issue, then let it rest. If you are inclined to dismiss the "equal but opposite" portion of WP:COTD to ignore counter-argument, then I cannot help. TheRazgriz (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your years as an editor, especially in an area subject to systemic bias that diminishes English-language coverage. The current lead seems fine (it needs expansion, but it's adequate). Please consider brushing up on WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS, and other relevant standards. Welcome to the world of registered editing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED Your edit to the lede and edit note doesnt make sense. Can you better explain (as your edit does not match the content of the page)?

Here, here, and here are counters to your stated reason for removing the previous portion, in addition to the material already present in the article. If one was arguing that "lawfare" was the number one issue, that could be disproven and dismissed easily. Asserting that it was not at all a major issue in this cycle is factually inaccurate according to the data at hand, especially when applying critical thinking to exit polling showing that most Trump voters were agreeing that the more broad-brush idea of "Democracy being threatened" was a major issue (Source: here).

As Users here just recently came to WP:CONSENSUS on the content within "Issues" and the portion of the lede removed refers to a section still present, sourced, and due within it, I will be reverting your edit and hoping to see "immigration" and "democracy" possibly added by you (or another bold editor) both in the lede and actually discussed in the issues section to match. TheRazgriz (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources you provided are either opinion pieces or primary sources from right-wing pollsters. A majority of reliable, secondary sources which are preferred state that the economy, abortion, immigration, and democracy were the biggest issues in this election. The assertion that Trump's legal cases are "lawfare" are not asserted by reliable sources, and such a claim is false. Claiming that Trump is the victim of "lawfare" is false, as no reliable source states that the claim has any basis in fact and is baseless. BootsED (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A further follow up, I will be adding in sections on immigration and democracy once I have some more free time. These are well documented and covered on the related issues section of the 2024 presidential campaign page and should be included on this page as well. This should address concerns over the lead not following the body. BootsED (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to their inclusion, that was a massive oversight on our collective part to not add those in post-election. I daresay the exit polling warrants the "immigration" being the top or second listed issue. That is a good find there so thank you for spotting. I actually laughed aloud that none of us caught that before.

And I do appreciate the edit on Foreign interference section. Another good spot there, thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Once I get home from work I will add in the immigration and democracy sections. Within the democracy section I will be sure to include claims by conservatives of lawfare, but I will be sure to include statements by RS that describe them as false to avoid making claims in wikivoice that are not backed up by reliable sources. BootsED (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Here, here, and here, for yet more examples, each explicitly considered to be reliable here on wiki as subject matter experts from the realms of political science, journalism, and legal practice, to fully dismiss this poor argument of reliability. An opinion by a subject matter expert is an expert opinion, not to be dismissed lightly. Referring to it as "lawfare" is accurate per its accepted scholastic definition and its real world application. That is not personal opinion, that is objective truth, supported by subject matter experts themselves doing so.

This is a discussion relating to a major election cycle, aka politics. We can not in good faith operate as if media, opinions, and perspectives shared by roughly half the electorate in the cycle are inherently WP:UNDUE to the topic. Even operating with an understanding that "right wing" sources are not objective (which is true in most cases anyway), it is wrong to assert they have no relevance to the discussion. Our goal is to present a WP:NPOV, that is not accomplished by dismissing half of the relevant conversation and content. Regardless of if you disagree with the term being used, the fact of the matter is that it was used throughout the election cycle to refer to the many legal woes of Donald Trump after he announced his re-election bid. I have proven that assertion to be true. Can you disprove that assertion? TheRazgriz (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem for me is that the "lawfare" allegations are backed by no reliable sources indicating that the multiple legal actions against Trump were politically motivated. Trump and his supporters (including in the opinion pieces cited here) may have successfully characterized the actions as politically motivated, but that doesn't equal them actually being politically motivated in the eyes of NPOV, reliable, secondary coverage. I've added "allegations of" to the lede as a first step to qualify the statement, but I would support removing the charged term and putting a more NPOV description in place. It's notable that the phrase does not appear elsewhere in the article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not proven this assertion to be true. You have posted opinion pieces and used them to state in wikivoice that Trump is the victim of "lawfare". See this article by the NYT that specifically states, "Long before announcing his candidacy, Mr. Trump and his supporters had been falsely claiming that President Biden was 'weaponizing' the Justice Department to target him". Or this article that describes Trump's numerous claims of lawfare against him by the Democrats as false. There are multiple articles online that describe Trump's claims of "weaponization" and "lawfare" as false.

You also claim that lawfare was a big factor in this election. However, there is no source provided for your claim that it was a big factor in the election. At this point, your assertion that Democrats are using lawfare against Trump is WP:OR and WP:FALSEBALANCE. I believe this falls under WP:BLPRS and calls for instant removal without discussion as no reliable sources per WP:BESTSOURCES have been provided for this claim.

I believe my upcoming edit adding immigration and democracy sections to the article will address your concerns. But including this statement in the lead in wikivoice is entirely undue and original research.

BootsED (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have not accused Democrats of anything, Ive not defended Trump of anything, etc. I am presenting the perspective of a side relevant to the topic, arguing that it is indeed relevant, and defending the accurate use of a term to describe/summarize a piece of the article. That is all I am doing with this. Please do not mischaracterize or misconstrue my actions as otherwise.

On the actual point, read the pieces and the credentials of the people writing them. Those are expert opinions, and by WP:RS actual guidelines, absolutely RS as per WP:RS/SPS. Handwaving valid sources in this manner just comes across as WP:IDL beyond this point. My sources are valid, so if you take further issue with this descriptor being used then your issue is with the Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, Charles Lipson (among many others), not with me. Please see WP:APPLYRS, in particular "Conflict between sources" section as I feel that may be the cause of this dramatic case of "talking past each other" here.

I did however see your valid point that it could be viewed as contentious or otherwise "hot button" which is why I opted in the revised version to add it within quotations, in line with WP:ASF and WP:VOICE guidance. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so there are opinions that Trump is the victim of lawfare. However, we have multiple RS that state he is not. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE to give these opinions greater prominence than the majority of reliable sources state. You are stating in wikivoice that the opinions of a few are greater than the consensus of reliable sources. We can mention these allegations in the body only if they are followed up by stating how such allegations are baseless as per reliable sources. BootsED (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There are EXPERT opinions that he is, of which I have provided merely a select few. Please cease this highly fallacious line of argumentation that assumes the "side" you are representing in this discussion holds de facto more weight than the "side" I am representing, and as if the RS I have provided are not RS, when neither of those points are true. I am trying to engage this discussion honestly and in good faith, but I can not do that if you display no intention of arguing the issue itself and instead wish to continue to bullishly stand against both the letter and the spirit of WP:RS guidelines.

I am not "stating in wikivoice that the opinions of a few are greater than the consensus of reliable sources". Donald Trump won the popular vote, not just from his traditional base of support, but by increasing support in Democrat areas as well. What exactly did the Trump supporting side note as a "threat to Democracy" this entire election cycle? We dont have to do WP:OR to speculate, they were telling us point blank the whole time, loud and clear.

So in line with WP:NPOV we have an obligation to state the relevant issue without giving WP:UNDUE to the side highly critical of this perspective and dismissing the side that highly supports this perspective, per WP:ALLOWEDBIAS. It is not WP:FALSEBALANCE to do this, it is actual balance to explain "how Trump won" to readers of the page. It is NPOV to note the dissenting sides view that it is not "lawfare". It is not NPOV, nor is it factually correct, to treat the matter dismissively as if there is expert consensus that it is not "lawfare", when that is not the case. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are arguing right now. Are we talking about Trump's vote totals? I don't see how that has anything to do with the lawfare discussion we were having. Your expert opinions are just that, opinions. There are several, reliable secondary sources that talk about how such claims are false. The consensus is that it is not lawfare. I don't think I have much more to add to this discussion.

And no, you were claiming in wikivoice that Trump was the victim of lawfare using those opinions. As per WP:ALLOWEDBIAS, "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."

The allegation itself is mentioned in the page as it stands right now, followed by reliable sources stating that such claims of "election interference" are false. Putting this in the lead is unnecessary, and we do not need to add in every single opinion piece where someone describes how they think the consensus is false. BootsED (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already answered this in the meat of my previous reply:

"What exactly did the Trump supporting side note as a "threat to Democracy" this entire election cycle? We dont have to do WP:OR to speculate, they were telling us point blank the whole time, loud and clear."

Again, your argument is seated in this odd insistence that it is a fringe view, when it is not, and that it doesnt hold significant weight to the subject, when it does. That is why I reference the time specific polling, because we directly saw time and again where the public directly responded in support of the assertion of lawfare, for 2 years. You cannot just ignore facts and data in this discussion. Here, yet another free RS on this issue.

And again, please stop discrediting RS as "just opinions" by inherently asserting that your RS are the only RS here. This is now multiple times you have done this, and it is nonsensical. Please note: "...not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." in WP:ALLOWEDBIAS, the chief reason I referenced this guideline here. Your inclination to not want this included is not validated by a guideline which cautions against such action unless it better serves the purpose of the article. TheRazgriz (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to clean this discussion up, and as such from this point I will no longer engage with arguments seated in an assumption or assertion that previously citied RS are not actually RS. Such claims and lines of argument will be ignored as they have already been properly addressed.

So for the purpose of putting this back on its actual worthwhile discussion; This is my stance, and a summary of why I take this stance:

It is WP:NPOV to note the view of "lawfare" as an assumed positive assertion while noting critical counter perspectives, seeing as all data shows it was perceived as such by the electorate throughout the election cycle. Had Trump lost, or had the issue not shown any effect during the electoral cycle, then noting "lawfare" purely as an assumed negative assertion while noting critical supporting perspectives (or even not mentioning it at all) would be valid. TheRazgriz (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm lost. Again, the RS you provided says that many Republicans viewed the prosecutions as politically motivated. It did not state that they were. We have other RS that explicitly state that they were not. We can mention the belief that they were motivated, but we cannot say that the were, as we have multiple RS that state in no unclear terms they are not. The fact that a lot of people believe in something or that Trump won the election does not "prove" the belief. You are attempting to claim that because some people disagree, the truth is thus unknowable so we must treat both claims as if they were valid. This is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. BootsED (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"Insisting upon itself" is a fallacy, your repeat WP:IDONTLIKE arguments around RS masked under vague and irrational cherrypicked references to guidelines are moot as far as I am concerned. I entertained them long past their due, and this is where that ends.

It is WP:NPOV to note the view of "lawfare" as an assumed positive assertion while noting critical counter perspectives, seeing as all data shows it was perceived as such by the electorate throughout the election cycle. Had Trump lost, or had the issue not shown any effect during the electoral cycle, then noting "lawfare" purely as an assumed negative assertion while noting critical supporting perspectives (or even not mentioning it at all) would be valid.

If you have valid argument in reference to this, I welcome rigorous discussion and debate as always. If all you have to offer is more circular logic around RS, then your view has been excessively noted already and I ask to not continue to add un-necessary clutter. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I have done my best to explain my position. I don't understand your second paragraph. I believe I have responded sufficiently to this in my prior response. BootsED (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

House of Representatives Map

The House of Representatives map is different compared to all other years. Is this a new, agreed-upon version (with more insets), or did someone just make a new map for fun? If the former, the map itself seems a bit rough, with some weird formatting/sizing issues. If the latter, I would recommend that we return to the traditional House map, since those insets and spacing seem to work fine as is. Dillguy9 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

US House 2024.svg says that Coolxsearcher1414 created it and US House 2022.svg says that Ketrit created it. Looking back pass 2022, it seems like File:US House 2016.svg had a debate about formatting in the edits, which led to the more current style with this being the preceding style. Other than that, I don't see where there is a guideline regarding what the map should look like. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues - Economy

Ive taken the liberty at trying to expand on this section, as we seem to have consensus here and on other pages that this is at minimum one of the top issues of the 2024 election cycle (if not the issue of the cycle).

I'll be the first to admit Im no expert on economic issues, and am likely lacking in being able to adequately do that section justice. Id ask other Users please give it a good read and double check my cited sources for accuracy (and find better sources if you can find them), and if you have a better idea for how to write that section up then please share as I fear the way it reads may still be perceived as having too much bias (though trying to keep in mind Democrats are/were the incumbents and lost, so focus is/was explaining why the incumbents lost to the opposition party on this issue). Thank you! TheRazgriz (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello TheRazgriz,

You recently made an edit to the 2024 United States elections page claiming consensus had been reached for a prior version of the economy section. However, to the best of my knowledge no such consensus exists. If you can provide a link to where such consensus was reached for your preferred version of the page, please provide this to me when you are able. I have restored the section to a version that is more concise does not have NPOV issues for the time being. Thank you. BootsED (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Read above Undue weight in "Issues" topic. In future, do not take it upon yourself to "restore" to a different version when notified that the current in-use version was the result of consensus building. Being supposedly unable to find the consensus is not a valid excuse to pretend you were not informed. If you are unsure what is and is not consensus, please read WP:CON to get up to speed before contributing further.

The proper thing to do is to bring it up here in Talk first, and then display a bit of patience to allow other Users to jump in and discuss with you. If no one shows up, or it cannot otherwise be shown in approx a week after posting in talk (not everyone logs into WP every other day, especially around the holidays), at that point you could have a minimum justification for your preferred edit. But doing it first and then asking for the prior versions consensus is inconsistent with the spirit of WP and blatantly against WP policy on the topic. That is problematic enough anywhere on WP, doubly so on a tagged WP:CTOP page. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, you obviously have a massively unaddressed bias that is causing you to wage a sort of crusade in this article. I am going to politely ask that you either address this bias with yourself before making any further edits to this page as it relates to Trump, discuss future desired edits here in a Talk topic before applying the edits to mainspace to ensure WP:NPOV if you are not confident that you can address this bias, or avoid editing this page altogether.

I, someone who personally has no love lost for Mr. Trump, have had to repeatedly clean up your biased editorializing edits slanted against him dozens of times now. Needless emphasizing via repetition the word "false" in reference to his claims/assertions, even within the same sentence. Misusing sources or using WP:OR to jump to a conclusion about if there is or isnt evidence for/against his position. Making unproven accusations against him in WikiVoice from blatant WP:OR. The number of these negative biased edits you have made, now repeatedly, is bordering on WP:VD behavior, but I do not believe that you are a vandal. I believe you sincerely think you are doing what you think you should be doing...because of unaddressed bias. So please, do address this bias and consider if you are unable to truly tell the difference between WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NPOV when it comes to the subject of Trump. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So you have still not provided any evidence that consensus was reached. Provide me the talk page where consensus was reached regarding the economy section. If you continue to add original research to the page and falsely claim consensus to revert edits, I will escalate this. BootsED (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Going to add, I will be requesting dispute resolution for this and other edits of yours. I am more than willing to discuss my issues with your edits in a civil manner, and my edit summary pointed out several issues with your edit that you have since reverted. You are engaging in ad hominem attacks against myself that I do not appreciate. If you continue to levy personal attacks against myself, and continue to state that you are uninterested in engaging in any constructive dialogue with myself as you did in the "Page lead subject matter" section I will escalate this to ANI. BootsED (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The referenced talk topic was brought up by another User specifically to address two perceived problems in the "Issues" section of the article:

1) Undue weight being given to other "issues", and;

2) Not enough weight being given to the "Economy" issue.

I and other Users worked to address both of these concerns over the course of a few days, and WP:CON was reached by making the "final" version of that edit, the User that brought the issue up agreeing with that version and removing the "undue" tag, and all other users having their suggestions already integrated into that "final" version of the edit and providing no further examples of issues or problems with that version. This is fully in line with WP:CON, specifically WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, especially in light of WP:CTOP.

If you have further issue with this section, and wish to obtain a new consensus, please start a new Talk topic first and then apply any changes if/when a new consensus is reached, not before. Continued refusal to read the referenced topic, refusal to acknowledge and apply WP:CON policy, and resorting to "threats" of escalation are some red flags that you need to address. I recommend logging off for the day and cooling off, and returning when you can handle criticism and discussion in a good faith and constructive manner. If you are unable to do that, then I can not help you. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, as I have stated previously, no consensus was reached in the talk section you mentioned, only discussion that it should be expanded. There was no consensus that your edits were "final." I raised several issues with your section that you have not addressed constructively, instead claiming a non-existent consensus exists. You have reverted removal of blatant original research, using sources published in 2023 to make claims about 2024. Other issues include, but are not limited to extensive use of scare quotes, saying "Democrat messaging", undue focus on the Democratic Party, use of the New York Post to source claims, among other issues.

You have made ad hominem attacks against myself, accused me of "borderline vandalism" and stated you will "no longer engage" with my discussions of your pushing of original research that Trump's criminal trials are "rigged", "election interference" and "lawfare" by the Democratic Party, and have removed sources and edited the article to cast doubt on established consensus. My initial concern with your edits was that you had stated in Wikivoice that Trump's trials were "lawfare" in the lead and that they were a major issue in the election, which I removed per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and because the assertion was unsourced. You continued to provide opinion pieces that you claimed were "expert" pieces. You also engaged in original research when you suggested that these assertions could not be called false because "the public directly responded in support of the assertion of lawfare for 2 years" and that "Donald Trump won the popular vote". I explained to you how Trump winning the popular vote and people believing in such assertions do not make them true. You have still not provided any reliable sources that state the trials were "lawfare" or "rigged" or "election interference" or "weaponization of justice" other than opinion pieces despite RS explicitly stating that such claims are false and without evidence. You have also repeatedly removed the word "false" from Trump's claims of a stolen 2020 election. BootsED (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Out of a deep reservoir of GF and in hopes that we can problem solve this like adults, I will address your response in order. Unfortunately, this will be a rather lengthy text in order to address these many briefly mentioned points with due respect and context they deserve, so I will collapse most of it below out of consideration for other Users so as not to clutter the page. You obviously don't have to read it in full, or at all, but if you do choose to reply to me after this point, I will assume you have read it in its entirety.

Again, points are addressed in the order you mention them in your reply, and are divided into their own paragraph "sections" for your convince if you wish to simply skim for something in particular or wish to address something specific in a future response. Thank you.

My response below:

Extended content

-Consensus was reached, you disagreeing with the outcome or substance of the consensus is invalid. Please read WP:CON in full. If you wish to challenge the consensus and/or establish a new consensus, please create an appropriate Talk topic to do so. If you are unsure of what does and does not constitute a consensus on WP, please again read WP:CON or contact an administrator or mentor to help. -It is not WP:OR to state facts which are validated by WP:RS. The assertion is that polls showed a bump circa 2023 which remained through the rest of the election cycle. Direct citation shows the contemporary bump in polling, other sources in the page validate that polling as being consistent. For further information on what does and does not constitute Original Research, please read WP:OR in full or contact an administrator or mentor to help. -Direct quotes are always meant to be within quotations, to differentiate from WikiVoice assertion. I agree that "scare quotes" (these) are a thing, and agree they should be discouraged within articles themselves, but please ensure to use quotations when directly quoting from a source. For more information, please read WP:QUOTE in full or contact an administrator or mentor to help. -The Democratic party was/is the party in power both in the Presidency and in the Senate going into this election, and as the incumbent party in power they lost in a historic way (second time an incumbent party has lost to the previous 1 term incumbent, first time since LBJ that an incumbent POTUS dropped out of reelection, etc). Therefore, it is undue to focus heavily on Trump/Republicans (winners) but little or not at all on the incumbents (losers) of the election cycle. In addition, I argue it is entirely due to differentiate between election content under the actual incumbent, Biden, vs the technical incumbent Harris, as their messaging was factually vastly different to the American public...which is why I state it as "messaging", because that is what it is, and to differentiate it from being conflated with actual matters of governance (again, as they are the incumbents in power). On this specific topic, I admit we can create a separate Talk topic to discuss how much content of the page or the "Issues" section specifically should focus or highlight the Democrats, and to what extent the focus/highlights should be. That could be highly productive to all involved in the project. -The New York Post is not an unreliable source, per WP:RS, it is perfectly valid especially for its purpose in use here. It is important to note where and how citations from NYP are used. If one is to see what the "other side" has to say for itself on a topic, you have to actually source something relating to the "other side". It is fallacious and in violation of WP:NPOV to dismiss a RS for a view because you don't agree with it, or even because other sources do not agree with it. This is where it requires one to remove their own bias from the equation, because you have to be able to objectively distinguish between a subject using RS to present a WP:FALSEBALANCE versus a subject using RS to present 2 sides to a divided issue in line with WP:BALANCE. Politics is a divided issue. It is not a matter of objectivity alone, unlike subjects such as science or history. Presenting "one view" such as assertions that claims are false, are valid, but do require us to reliably source what the "other view" is on the same subject. One view asserts Trumps claims around "lawfare" are false and lack evidence, the other view asserts the claims have merit and argue what they see as evidence in support of the claim. If this specific subject had been hashed out in a court of law or SCOTUS or some other mechanism, then it would be FBAL to note both views in this way, but it hasn't. Indeed, evidence via polling showed no consensus among the electorate on the issue, and their is not a consensus within the field of Political Science or Law either. It is therefor violation of WP:NPOV to assert, especially in WikiVoice, an emphasis on one side or the other being "false" as if it is objectively established as a consensus and especially a violation to outright reject all RS arguing the side making the assertion. For more information, please read WP:NPOV in full, or contact an administrator or mentor to help. The issue of WP:RS is discussed further in a separate section below. This concludes the points (most of which) that are somewhat based in realistic disagreement relating to WP. What follows are the responses to your more emotionally charged points: -It is not an "ad hominem attack", I have simply noticed a pattern of concern. Under different circumstances, yes I would view many of your edits as WP:VD, but the statements you are making in your edit notes and in Talk pages (including on other articles related to the topic) raised a concern that you are suffering from an unaddressed bias which is potentially effecting your objectivity on this matter. It is constructive criticism, not an attack. You have taken the idea that your bias could be effecting you on this topic deeply personally. I am sorry you feel that way, it was not my direct intention to greatly offend you as a person. As for the "no longer engage", I stand by that because we were at that point no longer contributing to constructive conversation on that specific point of contention. I had made my points, you had made yours. We were repeating ourselves, a waste of everyone's time and a disrespect to the space we are sharing with other Users here. But I wanted to give full fairness to you (and anyone else) and ensure you had nothing else to add to that discussion as opposed to just completely shutting it down all together. Was I blunt about it? Yes I was. I'll admit partially out of annoyance with your chosen tactic of refusing to engage with the substance of my arguments and instead argue past them, but also because it was rather lengthy by that point and I wanted to ensure that I was crystal clear on the issue without outright wasting more space on fluffier language. -As explained in the edit notes, your citation was invalid to the point you were attaching it to. The authors of the citied piece are a graphic designer for the NYT, and a "Graphics Journalist" for the NYT, and the topic of their article was concerning contemporary matters of law and political science. Per WP:RS, those are not RS just because its published in NYT. Especially the section of the piece you quoted in the citation, coloring the subjective and biased issue in with an assumed air of authority which the authors do not possess. And let us not forget this is also in light of you challenging the validity of citations from Political Science Professors on the topic. This is a prime example here of why I believe you have an unaddressed bias on this subject matter, because you are passionately asserting a subjective perspective on a contemporary issue with a false layer of objectivity. There is not a "wide consensus" among subject matter experts or the general public on the topic, therefor as far as WP is concerned it is a violation of WP:NPOV to assert that their is and to speak in WikiVoice in favor or disfavor of those views. But you claim that there is, and arrive at that by "putting the cart before the horse" and asserting that there is no RS to suggest otherwise, dismissing RS that are counter to your position by ignoring the actual spirit and letter of WP:RS and WP:BALANCE. We will address this again in the next section. -Your initial disagreement was the use of "lawfare" in the lede. I still argue that descriptor is indeed due, based on the scholastic substance which defines that word, but I was accepting of your initial point on it which is why when I restored it I added quotes to distinguish it from being stated in WikiVoice. But again, we go back to the primary issue of you rejecting what is and is not WP:RS, because it was absolutely citied and you just reject the citation because you seem not to understand what exactly makes something an RS or not. Here you are, still arguing against expert opinion and conflating it with "just" an opinion. Let me be clear, the political science opinion of a Professor Emeritus of Political Science from the University of Chicago is not "just" an opinion, it is an expert opinion. That is not up for debate, because this isn't the place to do it. Your bone is with WP:RS, not with me. The rest of your argument follows the logic that none of the RS are RS and that the subjective is actually objective, and thus creates a strawman of what my argument was. Again, "cart before horse" logic which has already been addressed in this response. I provided several RS, you just don't like them and don't want them to be considered RS. So that big bold piece of your reply there is frankly disingenuous and undue. If you are unsure what does or does not constitute a RS and how to apply the RS standard in practice, please read WP:RS in full or contact an administrator or mentor to help. -I have repeatedly removed a word which was unnecessary/redundant. You don't have to say "Timmy made a false accusation, like falsely saying Susie hit him". Once is enough, especially in the same sentence, but even when discussing the same topic. It is editorializing an emphasis that was never needed in the first place. That is my response to each of the points you have tried to bring up here. I hope it was helpful at least in part, though Im sure on many points we will just not see eye to eye on for reasons already stated. To be crystal clear though, it does seem that you have only a rudimentary grasp of what does and does not constitute RS on WP. In the WP:RS page, you see a giant list in different colors. Green does NOT mean whatever is published there is always RS, and yellow does NOT mean whatever is published there is always URS/NRS, heck even red does NOT mean whatever is published there is always URS/NRS. Sources on the list which are greyed out are always URS/NRS throughout WP unless there is a WP-wide consensus change. All other sources listed there are just listed in a "generally speaking" sort of manner, but all of them can be used as RS depending on the context the RS is being used. I would HIGHLY advise you to speak with admins or a mentor to get a better understanding of the RS list itself and how it should be applied here on WP. I feel it would help you greatly, especially on WP:CTOP articles. I will end with this though: Again, I personally do not like Trump. I have a bias against him, and I am aware of that bias and try to work with that in mind. That bias even showed itself on this article at an earlier point in time, though I was unaware at the time. Previously I had been the one that extended the "indictments" section, going into all this extensive detail about each case and I even had been the one that threw in the picture of AG Garland announcing SC Smiths appointment. Meanwhile, I hardly added any information relating to George Santos or Bob Menendez and their legal troubles this cycle, and most of the information I added about Hunter was just noting when his sentencing was due to happen (before his recent pardon, of course). Upon reflection, that was my bias governing and guiding my work here. So look, it happens, even when we don't mean to or think it is happening. My point is: If the guy with an anti-Trump bias (who has even slipped up and let some of that bias effect the work here) is strongly trying to say that your edits are showing an undue anti-Trump bias, MAYBE just stop for a beat and reflect and consider if there is even the possibility of it being true. That isn't an attack, its accepting that you are human and fallible just like me and everyone else, even and especially on sensitive and contemporary topics. Its okay. What isnt okay is taking it personally and making threats when someone else calls attention to it. So I advise stepping back, calming down, and seeking a third party opinion before digging any deeper into it. Just my advice, based on personal experiences. Take it or leave it, thats your choice. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Mayors

The reformatting of the mayoral election takes away a lot of pertinent information such as party switches and which candidates were defeated. I see this has been used on other pages but it seems to take out some information that would be helpful. I wonder what others think about bringing back the initial list with all of the info Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My default opinion on nearly everything WP is "more relevant information is always the better option", so I will say I do like additional info stating who was defeated and noting party switches. However, I do think it is important that we follow precedent to be in line with predecessor and successor pages, and I feel that the more detailed information on every Mayoral race would better fit in a dedicated page rather than here on this one. That is my $0.02(USD) on it. TheRazgriz (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2024

Change "Republican +4" to "Republican +TBD" in the Senate Election inbox. This is to align with the rest of the infobox because of the ongoing recount in Pennsylvania. A-nicer-guy (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Every reporting outlet has called PA Senate race in favor of the Republican, and official count makes it a Republican victory. Initial results are to be presumed valid until proven otherwise at the conclusion of recount, recount itself does not justify contradicting initial official results.

If somehow recount changes the final results, then at that point info would be adjusted. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues - Immigration

Did somebody scrub this article for the word "immigration"? It seems weird that the word doesn't appear once. LordofChaos55 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Immigration was a big issue in this election. Not sure why it isn't included. BootsED (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I dont believe it has ever been mentioned on the page at least since I started contributing. Shamefully, it didnt even cross my mind as I was editing all this time. I was so focused on cleaning up and updating the pre-election state of the page to match the post-election reality, but we completely missed that topic. Actually embarrassing, as my own family are Mexican immigrants lol.

BootsED has already volunteered to add the topic into the page, so I wont do any editing on that front until he has a chance to finish his work. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Background

The more I read this article and compare it to other election cycle articles, the more I feel like it would be wise to add at least a 1 or 2 paragraph overview of the Biden admins public perception, note of his perceived mental decline's effect on the cycle, and his eventual drop out and replacement with VP Harris, (preferably) before the Trump indictments in this section. I feel it would be appropriate "background" for the election itself. Currently, the background is soley focused on Trumps legal issues.

I think it is fair to assume that a reader of the "Background" section would expect to have at least a brief explanation of how the top of the ticket changed before election day. I also believe it could present a potential WP:NPOV issue where a reader of the section could assume Trumps legal issues were the only important notable events in the lead up to the election. Instead of making yet another bold and brash edit, especially in greater context, Id like to first get feedback on this and see if this is shared with others or is just me. Im happy to sandbox something up if others share this view, but dont want to waste time if consensus is that it is fine as is. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Speculatoins about medical diagnosis really don't belong in the lead. In my view it's completely unencyclopaedic and shouldn't be found anywhere on Wikipedia. TarnishedPath^talk 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

in the Table of state, territorial, and federal results section, Pennsylvania's post election US House results incorrectly state that the split is 9 Republican to 8 Democrat, when it is 10 Republican to 7 Democrat. Suggest changing and fixing those numbers. Jamesmaxis22 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC Should Trump's claims of a stolen election, rigged trials, election interference, weaponization of justice and lawfare by the Democratic Party be described as "false" and "without evidence"?

Should Trump's claims of a stolen election, rigged trials, election interference, weaponization of justice and lawfare by the Democratic Party be described as "false" and "without evidence"? BootsED (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Sources

The following sources have been suggested for such an edit:

• Yourish, Karen; Smart, Charlie (May 24, 2024). "Trump's Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies in 2024". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 25, 2024. Retrieved December 2, 2024. Former President Donald J. Trump has baselessly and publicly cast doubt about the fairness of the 2024 election about once a day, on average, since he announced his candidacy for president, according to an analysis by The New York Times ... Long before announcing his candidacy, Mr. Trump and his supporters had been falsely claiming that President Biden was 'weaponizing' the Justice Department to target him. ... The Times has documented more than 500 campaign events, social media posts and interviews during the 2024 cycle in which Mr. Trump falsely accused Democrats or others of trying to "rig," "cheat," "steal" or otherwise "influence" the next election — or of having done so in 2020.
• Qiu, Linda (May 31, 2024). "Trump and Allies Assail Conviction With Faulty Claims". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 1, 2024. Retrieved December 2, 2024. After former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty, he and a number of conservative figures in the news media and lawmakers on the right have spread false and misleading claims about the Manhattan case. ... he instantly rejected the verdict and assailed the judge and criminal justice system ... His loyalists in the conservative news media and Congress quickly followed suit, echoing his baseless assertions that he had fallen victim to a politically motivated sham trial. ... This lacks evidence. To date, Mr. Trump has yet to offer proof that President Biden is personally directing the hush money case ... False. Mr. Trump has repeatedly and wrongly pointed to the timing of the case as evidence of an election-related scheme.
• Dale, Daniel (June 2, 2024). "Fact check: Trump's post-conviction monologue was filled with false claims". CNN. Retrieved December 2, 2024. There is no basis for Trump's claim. There is no evidence that President Joe Biden, his White House aides or the federal Justice Department had any role in launching or running Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution – and Bragg, a Democrat, is a locally elected official who does not report to the federal government. The indictment in the case was approved by a grand jury of ordinary citizens.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Jalonick, Mary Claire (May 30, 2024). "Republican lawmakers react with fury to Trump verdict and rally to his defense". The Associated Press. Retrieved December 2, 2024. There is no evidence that the trial was rigged{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Swan, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie; Savage, Charlie (June 5, 2024). "The G.O.P. Push for Post-Verdict Payback: 'Fight Fire With Fire'". The New York Times. Retrieved December 2, 2024. A central tenet of their argument is that the four criminal cases in four different jurisdictions against Mr. Trump are illegitimate and nothing more than political weaponization of the justice system. They continue to put forward the theory, without evidence, that all four cases are the result of a conspiracy by Mr. Biden — implicitly or explicitly rejecting the notion that Mr. Trump has been charged with crimes based on evidence. But based on their premise that the charges — and now convictions in the fraudulent business records case — are baseless and were invented for political reasons, they are arguing that Republican prosecutors not only should but can do the same thing to Democrats. In short, having accused Democrats of "lawfare" — or using the law to wage war against political opponents — Republicans are saying they should respond in kind.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Mueller, Chris (November 1, 2024). "False, misleading claims about Donald Trump surge as election nears - Fact check roundup". USA Today. Retrieved December 2, 2024. Trump has made false claims too, including his oft-repeated assertion that he lost to Joe Biden in 2020 due to election fraud. Multiple recounts, reviews and audits confirmed the 2020 presidential election results were legitimate.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Support

• Support A majority of sources have described Trump's claims as false. Using weasel words to variously say that "some have called them false", removing the word "false" from claims of fraud or election interference, and other edits that suggest that such a consensus is disputed is original research. BootsED (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - A wide swathe of RS's use "false" in narrative tone. I'm not familiar with any RS's that call the claims true. We should reflect the majority of the sources and use "false" in narrative tone. NickCT (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support, there is, and continues to be a scholarly consensus that the claims of mass electoral fraud are false. Presenting these debunking statements in anything other than full WP:WIKIVOICE presents a WP:FALSEBALANCE. TheSavageNorwegian 18:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your explanation of your choice to support. You have brought to my attention that @BootsED has merged "election fraud" into this topic. There is no opposition to referring to claims or assertions around the 2020 or 2024 elections and supposed fraud as "false". That has long been settled by, goodness, how many court cases? It is objectively settled as a falsehood. I have no idea why the User chose to add that into this separate, unsettled, contemporary issue. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Because you removed the word "false" from claims of election fraud saying you were removing editorializing per NPOV. BootsED (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is very obviously under the "lawfare" subject matter and not under actual "election fraud" such as what every rational person would assume you are making reference to. This feels like a purposeful conflating of the issues, and seems to have already had the desired effect at least in this initial response where they have stated their support directly in reference to the issue of "mass electoral fraud", which is not a point of argument here.

  And you should already know that is not a point of contention because Ive left that (justified) descriptor elsewhere on the page, removing only its unneeded repetition.

  Whatever the actual consensus of the actual issue becomes, I'll have my obvious opinion but will move on with my life like a normal person should. It isnt personal and I dont own anything here.

  Every ounce of my good faith is telling me no, but this really feels like an attempt to conflate the issue in favor of your stance by telling others a false perception of what each "side" is defending/asserting. When I and obviously others read this topic, it would seem that the "oppose" side is basically rehashing the 2020 election denial nonsense all over again despite it being long settled as a falsehood. TheRazgriz (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  The diff does show exactly what Boots is saying though. There's no previous mention within the section (or within the article, for that matter. The mention under indictments is indeed about lawfare, but the edit shown in the diff under the Democracy section is not). If you agree that "false" should now remain in front of "claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him", I'm glad we could resolve this issue. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot): Per the metric fucktonne of reliable sources saying exactly that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support We follow RS, call a spade a WP:SPADE, and do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support (Summoned by bot): per the WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• Retracting Opposition, as RfC is hyper-focused on the (non) issue of "false" applied to 2020 election. No opposition to that. Still believe Yourish & Smart is a subpar source for its intended application when better sources are already presented, but my opposition is not strong enough to justify further argument. (prior discussion linked to former opposition has been moved to "Discussion" for preservation of content) Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

• Abstain On issue of "false" applied to 2024 claims of "lawfare" and similar. Current consensus on this seems to not accept current opposing RS on the issue, namely the use of NYP to give Republican perspective on issue, and the use of expert opinions from various RS. As investigations into these claims of "lawfare" have been announced, this issue will be revisited in near future when more evidence and RS will likely be available, if not by me then by other users. A new RfC focused solely on the issue of "lawfare" should hash it out at the appropriate time. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @TheRazgriz are you seriously trying to push WP:NYPOST as a reliable source? TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  As it pertains to giving the Republican perspective on a partisan topic, I would think that is an obvious yes. Are you seriously trying to suggest they are not right-leaning partisans? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Can you provide the particular NYP story which you think is reliable for another's opinion? There's a lot of discussoin here and it would take me a long time to locate it. TarnishedPath^talk 05:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Can you rephrase your question? I do not think I am properly understanding "...is reliable for another's opinion". I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm only saying I do not think I am processing that request correctly. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  You've stated that NYPOST is reliable for the Republican perspective. I presume you are referring to a specific article which quotes a Republican poltician or official? TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Will answer in "Discussion" section, to try and keep this section tidy. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Am I correct in assuming the RfcBefore is just this discussion above between the nominator and another editor, 2 editors in total? Aaron Liu (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That is correct. I am hoping to get more feedback on this topic from a wider number of users. This has also been something I've noticed on other pages as well with people repeatedly removing the word "false" or editing the page in ways that suggest they are not, so I figured this RfC would serve to somewhat gauge the opinions of the community. BootsED (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

For the third time: "Yourish, Karen; Smart, Charlie (May 24, 2024). "Trump's Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies in 2024". The New York Times." is not RS on this topic per WP:RS, much less in line with WP:BLP. Authors are a Graphics Journalist and a Graphics Designer/Editor, and the topic of their piece is a subject of political science and law, and they write with an authority which neither author actually posses on the matter. You still have not made any attempt to defend how you see it as a RS here. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Because a graphics artist contributed to making graphics for an article does not mean the source cannot be used. Saying so is ridiculous. BootsED (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Carter, but Raz’s claim was that all authors in the byline were unqualified; the graphics featured in the article are made by different people. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that was my point. I take no such issue with any of the other cited sources as the authors and publishers are RS in their respective pieces. In my opinion, this other piece by Yourish & Smart is an example of the NYT continued slipping as a RS since their decision in 2018 to slash their Editorial staff and merge several once separate and dedicated Editor jobs into a shared role among a much smaller group of people. The authors do not match the subject matter of the piece they have authored any more than I am qualified to speak as an authority about why Napoleon lost at the Battle of Waterloo. The whole piece is basically an argument from authority they don't even have, but are adjacent to. TheRazgriz (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

See what Carter said. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Dismissing Karen Yourish as a "graphics journalist" and thus not WP:RS is disingenuous. She's spent 20 years at The Washington Post and The New York Times, and as an award-winning data journalist her expertise involves taking large sets of information, finding the patterns present, and explaining them, just like beat reporters will filter agendas, minutes, reports, and other documents when reporting on an incident. There's nothing inherent in her background or the reporting that seems inconsistent with RS standards. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally I blame myself for doing this and my irl job at once, but I am just now noticing you have merged 2 very separate subjects into one here, and I do not see why you have done so.

Why have you merged the subject of "election fraud" (something settled via several court trials and other objective means) with the topic of "lawfare" (something not settled by objective means, and instead still being hashed out in public discourse as a WP:CTOP subject)? There was no debate or disagreement in relation to the former. This seems highly irregular and unfair to any other participant in this discussion who will obviously conflate the two issues as being a single shared issue, when one was never an issue here in the first place. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Because you removed the word "false" from claims of election fraud saying you were removing editorializing per NPOV. BootsED (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Obvious conflating of "lawfare" subject matter under a more general "election fraud" banner. See above response under "Support" section. TheRazgriz (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation organized under the section above to avoid splitting it in two. And again, I'm glad you now agree that the word false should be put in front of claims of election fraud. BootsED (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Please dispense with the passive aggressive absurdity. It was never in dispute. Or are we collectively ignoring the diff plainly showing the reinforcement of the "big lie" link right there in the spot now supposedly in question? If this was an issue, would that link have not been broken too?

I have taken great offense to this particular slight of hand, as it has painted me under the brush of defending "election denialism" and defending proven partisan fringe conspiracy theories, when I have done no such thing. Retract your passive aggressive assertions here which have depreciated my character over an issue which was never a real issue to begin with, and tarnishes your own character in the process of alleging. Will you acknowledge that this was never a serious point of contention, and retract your statements to that effect? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Please respond to the section above to keep the conversation organized. You will see my and other people's responses to your claims there. BootsED (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

(Former OPPOSE statement, moving to keep attached discussion) It is a WP:NPOV issue. No one here is disputing that there is a perspective that sees these claims as "false". The contention comes in 2 parts: 1) Ignoring all evidence of RS presented from the "other side" of this view by asserting those RS are not RS at all, for example - by asserting that the published views of Professors of Political Science are "just opinions"...on a subject of Political Science, and; 2) Using "1" to then assert that because there is not "real" RS to say these claims are not false, then there is a (false) "consensus" saying it is false. The logic used obviously have a conclusion in mind and seek to justify that conclusion, rather than letting the the reader decide, in line with WP:BALANCE. Considering it is a matter of WP:CTOP and WP:BLP, playing fast and loose with the logic and guidelines is just not wise. We should not be editorializing for one or the other side. TheRazgriz (talk contribs) 14:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

(Edited for added clarification: There is no opposition to referring to claims of election fraud or interference in 2020 or 2024 as "false" or "misleading" or similar. Not sure why it is present in this topic) TheRazgriz (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE to say opinion articles should be used over the consensus of reliable secondary sources. There are scientists who say the Earth is flat. We do not include their opinions on a page about Earth to "present their side for balance". Opinions that Trump's trials are rigged are already mentioned in this article. What is an issue is you repeatedly removing sources and edits that state such claims are false and without evidence, and using opinion articles to say that this cannot be said because some people disagree. BootsED (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If you mean by "a perspective" that it's the perspective of the vast majority of RS then you're absolutely right. And that's the perspective Wikipedia should reflect. Can you present a single RS that asserts the claims are explicitly true? NickCT (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. WP:ONUS is on BootsED to argue that there is an authoritative consensus to objectively refer to them in WikiVoice as "false", not on me to argue that their is a "vast majority" who say it is true.

My objection is raised because while I agree there are RS to show support for their assertion, there are other RS who do not agree and argue either a less drastic or (more common) the opposite perspective on the matter.

Furthermore, this is not something settled like "flat earth" theories or the result of a trial, this is a matter of highly WP:CTOP subject matter, and insisting that all other sources are either not RS or are simply WP:FRINGE is just being dense and disingenuous towards the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are written by experts, opinions are subject to much lower editorial and fact-checking standards and aren’t RSes. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Editorial and opinion commentary. Boots has already supplied a plethora of sources that say it’s false; he’s already handled his onus. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have read WP:RS, and as stated within the section referenced: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

The opinions subject matter experts are RS, per WP:RS. This is true until and unless a new consensus can be reached on the relevant WPNB's.

My point of WP:ONUS was to correct the other user over who bears that burden in the discussion, not to state if that burden has or has not been met. That is not for me or any individual to decide., that is a matter of consensus to decide. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

As said in the section, such commentary is rarely reliable, and the identity only may help determine reliability. That is far from the near-absolute reliability you claim from it. Look at the footnote: extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. A few opinion pieces claiming the justice department is extra-persecuting political opponents vs. a kapillion of solid sources’ consensus claiming the contrary is not such sourcing. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked you for a single RS and all you say is "there are other RS who .... argue ... the opposite perspective". Where!?!? Where? Give us one. NickCT (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

#c-TheRazgriz-20241122035200-TheRazgriz-20241114215000. He believes that opinions written by qualified authors are RS. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu While we obviously have two different views on this particular issue and on this specific point of it, I do appreciate your continuing effort to actually understand my position, as opposed to mischaracterizing or misconstruing it. It is noted, and greatly appreciated. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, I think Nick simply didn’t read the Before. He may have simply been accustomed to RfCs that have a summary of prior debate. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! Did not read. I have now. If User:TheRazgriz thinks Op/Eds are RS, then there's pretty simple answer to this entire thing; WP:NEWSOPED. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NEWSOPED is indeed a simple answer to this entire thing: "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

That this bit of the guideline is being outright ignored by some, and dismissed out of hand by others, is what the core issue actually seemed to be around this particular point of contention. There are those who reject the idea that an OPED is ever a RS, and that is in direct opposition to the guideline itself.

If the OPED was being used to prove an assertion: "there is consensus it is lawfare", that would be improper use and a higher level of RS would be required to justify the argument. However, using the expert opinions in an OPED to disprove an assertion: "there is consensus among experts that it is not lawfare" is absolutely valid use and RS. That was my argument, fully in line with WP:NEWSOPED and WP:RS more broadly, and especially in line with WP:CTOP where it is always wise to not make authoritative, broad assertions that an opinion is a fact when it is indeed just a perspective (widely held or otherwise). Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If your point is that Op-Eds may, in some limited cases be considered an RS for some things, then sure. That's true.

But the problem is you're picking a few questionably legitimate Op-Eds and trying to claim they represent a counter-balance to a slew of more legitimate RS's.

Let me offer an analogy. There are probably 2 or 3 climate scientists who think global warming isn't real. There are hundreds of thousands who think it is. If those 2 or 3 scientists wrote Op-eds, it would be totally inappropriate to hold up those Op-Eds as some kind of counterbalance to the broad, broad range of reliable sources who say otherwise. NickCT (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is false to claim the authors legitimacy is in question, not sure why you would state that it is, and I find it fallacious to compare humanitarian sciences to actual sciences (which forms no small part of the issue many other sciences have with the various Humanities labeling themselves as "sciences" as they do not follow the same rigorous scientific method standards, and instead follow a dramatically relaxed and simplified sort of "scientific method"). "Apples to oranges" and all that.

Anywhere else outside of a contemporary, polarizing contentious topic, there would be no serious objection raised to the point that a cited RS is not RS as the attributed authors present no credentials to be considered authorities to represent an authoritative stance on the issue, and that an OPED from a Professor Emeritus from the University of Chicago specializing on the exact subject itself would absolutely be RS to the topic, so long as that RS would be used to present a particular view on the subject (how I've used it here) and not trying to assert that it is a consensus view in and of itself (which not how I've used it). Too many do not bother understanding the difference between RS, PS, and SS, and instead default to "journalistic piece published in green-listed publication" and care not for any other aspect of the source, even going so far as to gawk in awe at the idea that such can even have its assumed RS status challenged in any context.

I will not win a one man crusade on this, I accepted that, which is why I revoked my opposition and took the stance of abstention. Actual investigations focused on this issue have already been announced, so there will be fact-finding, there will be further opposing RS written and recorded, and while there will no doubt be questions about the legitimacy of the investigators (just like there was doubt about the J6 committee's objectivity as investigators) what will not be in doubt is the RS that will be gathered for and against the view of "lawfare". Those that rushed to assert and defend a subjective stance in WV based on little or no actual authority to do so will be challenged then, likely not even by me, and it will be hashed out better than what I can do myself here today.

So I believe that my further discussion on the issue (at least at this time) does nothing constructive and has become rather disruptive (especially as I am, obviously, terrible at being concise...something I have been trying to work on irl). So out of consideration for everyone else, now and in future, I would like to stop contributing to this particular discussion. I want to be clear that I do recognize your good faith attempt at presenting what you believe to be a good point with your previous reply. I just disagree that it is a good point, for the reasons I stated at the top. Im sure others may have their own opinion. That is fine. I just dont want to be disruptive by voicing mine when I have clarified that I am no longer trying to take an active role in this discussion vis a vis revoking my opposition and standing in abstention. Thank you, and have a good day. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Further clarification: As stated in other sections, you have removed the word false from claims of 2020 fraud, unrelated to claims of lawfare in an entirely separate section as the edit summary has proven. You have also removed "misleading" from claims of interference in 2024. This is why it is present in this topic. BootsED (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

As you have demonstrated in this response that you have no desire to engage in an honest and entirely good faith discussion of the issue, at least with me, and would prefer to peddle in mischaracterizations by asserting that an edit to better present the point you were trying to crudely make in the article as if it was instead a direct challenge to the point itself (done by ignoring my reinforcement of the WikiLink there to the "big lie" page which is dedicated to calling it a falsehood), obviously in an attempt to fluff up your side of the actual issue with non-issues, I will refrain from wasting my time engaging in this farce further. In line with WP guidelines, I will not raise further challenge to this consensus and seek to undermine it through EW or other means. I will let it rest. Investigations into the assertions of "lawfare" during this cycle have already been announced, and I will let future Users challenge this UNDUE bias you are so passionate in reinforcing. What you certainly wont find is any edits authored by me challenging if the 2020 election conspiracy assertions are false. Do try not to get offended if I or other users have the audacity to once again improve issues with your grammar and sentence structure, Your Majesty. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You have not responded above around how an edit that removes “false” from “ claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him” only “better present”s the point. The edit that Boots just referred to also converts “false and misleading claims” to “claims widely denounced as false”, which gives undue prominence to the viewpoint that such claims are true. If you stand behind those edits, especially the first one, then I think the characterization that you want “false” removed from the election claims is correct. Please pay heed to WP:Civility. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

-I stand by those edits as being a better way to present the overall point attempting to be made, as what I believed to be an improvement over how they were initially made. I cannot simultaneously be removing a specific word in reference to something and not removing that same specific word in reference to that same specific thing, at the same time. In plain speak, I am being accused of attempting to whitewash the idea of the 2020 election conspiracy as a falsehood. That is a plainly untrue accusation, relying on mischaracterizing the contents of a diff while ignoring other portions of that same (and other) diffs by me. It is a cherrypick.

-And I stand by my previous reply. I have added this out of respect for you specifically for taking the time to do your best to understand my positions within and without this RfC, despite your firm views on this issue being opposite of mine. But civility is a two way street. I went out of my way, twice (once on this page, and once on their user talk page) to ensure this other user received an apology from me when it was made clear to me that I had caused them some level of offense, because that is the right and civil and respectful thing to do, and I wanted to ensure they immediately got from me an explanation which explicitly made it clear I meant no direct offense to their person. When I clearly have taken a great offense from what they have done here, all that can be offered is a chance to stroke egos with a passive aggressive flaunt which only reinforces the offense as being intended. That is not civil, and deserves no civility in return, which is why I said what I said and intend to simply not engage further. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This is why I created an RfC, posted a notice on the original sources noticeboard, and posted a talk page section so other editors could provide their opinions on this disagreement. I have done everything I can do to promote civil, reasoned discussions.

I have provided backing for my claims, which you have simply said are not relevant, engaged in ad hominem attacks against myself, and now have refused for a second time to even engage in any debate with me, declaring your position correct, mine false, and arguing with everyone who presents a differing opinion of your interpretation of OR and RS policies. You have still not presented any reliable sources for your claims that lawfare are in fact true, and have stated you do not need to because the ONUS is on me. I have provided backing for my claims, and you still claim that you do not need to provide any sources at all for your positions, and have proceeded to attack the RS and the journalists behind my sources with claims that all other editors have concluded are misrepresentations and based on an inaccurate understanding of policy.

You now claim you are being intentionally misrepresented by myself in a smear campaign despite my provision of edit histories that directly backs up my concerns and reasoning for bringing this forwards, which other editors have said have merit. You did provide an apology on my page, but since then have continued to engage in ad hominem attacks against myself, including accusing me of engaging in I don't like it. Your other claims against me include that I am a biased, emotional editor, am engaging in borderline vandalism, and am acting in bad faith with intentional malice towards yourself. I have done nothing of the sort and categorically reject your interpretation of my actions. I really don't know what I'm supposed to do at this point.

I have nothing against you, but disagree with your edits and have sought to do everything to explain my position, which others editors, including on the original research noticeboard have noted have merit. BootsED (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

−

Trump also continued to repeat [[False claims of fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election|false claims]] that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him.

+

Trump also continued to [[Big lie#Donald Trump's false claims of a stolen election|repeat claims]] that his failed 2020 re-election effort was "stolen" through "election interference".

I've been trying to understand how anything before "that" is just a clarification here, but I haven't succeeded so far. Could you elaborate? I don't see any previous context in which the word "false" was already repeated with respect to claims of election fraud. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CLAIM and WP:SCAREQUOTE, using such language and tools when referring to anything already discredits whatever is being referred to as a claim or being scarequoted, which is why it is discouraged in the first place. This much is something the other user has themselves already pushed elsewhere, so they are fully aware of the fact that WP views referring to something as a "claim" is inherently lending credit to its opposing view, which discredits whatever is being referred to as a "claim". As far as WP is concerned, stating that something is a "false claim" is itself a redundancy in practice. And to use scarequotes to say something was "stolen" as opposed to stolen, implies the same principle.

Add to this my reinforcing of the WikiLink to the "Big Lie", and I fail to understand how we leap to "Razgriz does not want the 2020 election conspiracy referred to as a falsehood" when Razgriz has referred to these things as claims, used multiple scarequotes, WIkiLinked to pages dedicating to bold face calling it a falsehood...seriously, it just plainly does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

The word "false" is not sacred, and neither is "misleading". If the reader gets the point that something is false or doubtful or disproven, what point or purpose is served repeatedly asserting as much in three different ways? Those edits specific to this subject matter were done in good faith to present the reader the same content in a manner that seemed of a more appropriate quality. Cherrypicking a diff and misconstruing it to try and assert that I am opposed to calling the 2020 election conspiracy a falsehood, in light of all of these facts, in light of the greater context, is just not honest. I do not see how it possibly could be. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

“Claim” only emphasizes potential contradiction. It does not obviously and definitely tell that it is false. A claim may very well be true. And scarequoting is awful and expressly forbidden style that unnecessarily raises POV questions.
And Boots didn’t mean you were engaging in bad faith. In my opinion, he has accurately represented these diffs as editorializing and only said that you think the word “false” should be removed. Using words to watch and scarequoting are extremely cautioned against for being editorializing, and they are editorializing, and the diffs provided are in fact editorializing. That you evidently do not believe in Trump’s claims doesn’t make it not editorializing. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath - I am glad I asked you to rephrase, as I definitely did not think that is what you were asking. No, I am not referring in this case to a specific politician or official. If that were the case, an actual RS would be preferred anyway. I am speaking generally, as reading the RfC which depreciated NYP show that a significant number of those in favor of depreciation stated the Post's right-leaning & Republican bias as their reasons, with several citations posted validating that assertion of said bias in reporting. The NYP is thus depreciated as a source of factual reporting, but on the matter of partisan reporting I would assume they would be a RS in reference to reporting aspects from the perspective of the right. Do you disagree? If so, could you explain why? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheRazgriz, per WP:NYTIMES (which reflects the RFC and other discussion since) "[t]here is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics" (emphasis mine). So no it is not reliable for generalised usage in WP to put forth the overall position of the Republican party. The only carve outs in the current consensus is for "entertainment coverage" and a broadsheet which had the same name and between 1801 and 1942.

The only exception that I can think would be covering the opinion of a specific person, where it is WP:DUE, per WP:RSOPINION. However I can't really see that happening much, because if a specific's person's opinion is DUE I imagine it would be covered in other sources which aren't considered generally unreliable.

So in brief, no we can't use it for covering the general perspective of Republicans, even anything to do with general politics reporting, because consensus is that it has a "lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication". TarnishedPath^talk 08:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Addressing biased language in the economy section

I have previously raised concerns over biased language in the "Economy" section of the article. My issues in particular were the use of the New York Post as a source, the use of multiple scarequotes, calling Democratic messaging "Democrat messaging", and an undue focus on the Democratic Party in language I perceive as loaded in its sentence structure and word choice. I also believe it is very long, and could be more concise.

I had proposed an edit to address these concerns and reduce the total size of the section, but that edit was reverted twice by TheRazgiz who falsely claimed that a consensus was reached in the Undue weight in "Issues" section of the talk page above. To be clear, there was no consensus in that discussion. The economy was only one of several sections that were discussed. No agreement on a "final" version of the section was reached. After talking with Raz, Raz has said in his response in my discussion with him in the "Issues - Economy" talk page section that there were no issues, that the New York Post is not an unreliable source, and that they were not scarequotes but direct quotations.

I am hoping for greater editor input on this section. BootsED (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

-I will let the prior consensus building section speak for itself. If new consensus is reached for a revision/rewrite, that is of course valid and accepted, as I have maintained from the beginning.

-I see no issue raised by you over the same language used to describe Republican messaging as "Republican messaging". Why? And what precisely is the perceived issue with referring to campaign messaging as such? What is the perceived offense from such a term, and why is that offense only when applied to Democrats but not Republicans within the same section?

-You also have not addressed your concern with the use of NYP. Do you object to its use outright by default? If so, that is not in violation of WP:RS as there is no consensus that NYP is an unreliable source. Does it validate what it is being cited for? Is there higher quality sources for the same information?

-Finally, it is a shame that you persist in the assertion of "scarequotes" (these). The quotes are quotes, attributed to Kamala Harris directly, verified by cited RS, in a sentence which is directly stating what she said. If the quotes are scary, that's something you will have to address with Madam Harris. But you are basically asking for support to override WP:QUOTE from what seems like nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKE.

Please address these issues for other Users to consider. Considering the plethora of topics you have chosen to open across the site centered on me and this page, I will graciously refrain from cluttering yet another topic. If someone wishes for more input from me on this, they are welcome to ping me directly in responding below. Otherwise, I will let well enough alone. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

1. You cannot use false claims of consensus to revert edits you don't like.

2. See the page Democrat Party (epithet).

3. NYP is considered generally unreliable per WP:NYPOST.

4. You have used multiple scarequotes in the economy section, beyond your focus on Kamala Harris' statement on affordability. For instance, I take particular issue with your sentence … with President Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi often remarking they "inherited" economic problems from Trumps first-term, claiming it was now "strong" under their leadership. This also breaks WP:CLAIM. Using quotations around a single word is a scarequote.

5. My proposed edit you reverted resolved all these issues and also shortened the section and refocused it to be about the 2024 election more broadly, not the presidential election.

6. Do not accuse me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BootsED (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Made changes in light of this reply, thus it warrants a response to explain.

1-I don't like people ignoring WP:CON. You do not decide that a consensus isn't reached.

2-As someone who comes from multiple generations of people who have directly called themselves "Democrats" and their party the "Democrat Party", this actually blows my mind. Politics can be petty, but this is scrapping the barrel. To the actual point, you were not clear what exactly your issue was on this. I was left to assume you took issue with the use of "messaging". Thats why I made one of the more recent edits and removed one of the uses of that word. If the issue is actually the use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic", then there is no issue henceforth.

3-I will accept I was incorrect on this point. The last time I checked, I recall NYP was listed as Generally Reliable on most subjects, and the notation was that there was no consensus on if it was reliable on the topic of politics. I distinctly recall reading (not participating in) a discussion on a NB where a central point of the discussion was that specific point. Either way, as it stands today, you are correct that it is GUR.

4-Change "claim" to "state" or similar, per WP:CLAIM that is valid. "inherited" should not be in quotes, but "strong" is a direct attribution specific to Biden, confirmed by RS. Id advise reading WP:SCAREQUOTE. It is false to claim that using quotations around a single word is what qualifies something as an example of "scarequotes". Regardless of single word or several, a quote is a WP:QUOTE

5-This is largely the reason your edit was reverted. THE central topic of the prior consensus building (which you still refuse to acknowledge) was that as the Economy is cited in RS as being the number one issue during the election cycle, the Economy section should be expanded. The section was expanded, consensus was reached accepting of that length, and then you unilaterally reduced the section. That action is what I refer to when I previously stated your actions were borderline WP:VD.

6-If it quacks like a duck...i.e., when you present an argument that appears to try and challenge WP guidelines because you do not like a particular application of it, that sounds like quacking. That is part of the danger when you choose to use broad, sweeping, imprecise language like "the use of multiple scarequotes" instead of being specific and stating what exactly you have a problem with ("The use of "scarequotes" around the words "inherited" and "strong"...", for example). You might look like you are trying to make a bigger point than what you are actually trying to make of it. I recommend being specific about what exactly your issues are with something in the future, to avoid this preventable miscommunication. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I was clear and specific. Other than on the use of NYP which other editors have challenged you on, every single one of your responses is saying that I am wrong, you are right, and that I am being petty and using I don't like it. Every single one of your interpretations of Wikipedia policy has been challenged by other editors in other sections. Maybe show some humility and admit the fact you are a new editor and only have roughly 200 main page edits on Wikipedia? BootsED (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

In the prior reply alone, there are at least 3 different instances of me acknowledging you had valid points and that I was incorrect about those points. Not to mention several points throughout this nonsense up and down this page/article where I've either clearly differed by saying as much, or obviously differed by not challenging one of the many edits you made which I had previously mentioned an issue with (go ahead, check the diffs. Believe or not, I've not hit UNDO to every bold edit you have made, even when I've noted a disagreement). But sure, "every single one of my responses is saying you are wrong and I am right". Smh. Lets set the record straight on your dramatic assertions you've pushed here in this reply:

-As I've already noted you used language to take a very specific issue you had and made it seem like it was some huge issue. The issue in question? 3 different uses of quotations which you found problematic. I acknowledged your arguments on 2 of the 3 (because "I'm always right and you're always wrong", yea?) and noted you could have just highlighted those 3 specific quotations instead of just alluding to it as "multiple scarequotes" with zero specifics or elaboration. So you were about as clear as a brick wall.

-You yourself have recently had your opinions on OR and RS challenged elsewhere on WP. So what? That is half the point of WP, to bring as many people together who will interpret things often completely differently. Don't throw stones in a glass house.

-You trying to lecture me about humility is richer than Elon Musk, especially when the evidence shows that up until you got actively involved here, I had constantly differed to everyone else's concerns, criticisms, issues, suggestions, etc. and bent over backwards to seek further community involvement in the various edits I was involved in. Meanwhile, which one of us is trying to stroke their egos by trying to insult the perception of an experience difference? Yea, I can see which one of us needs to work on being humble, Your Majesty. Perhaps its less an issue of "my humility" and more an issue of "your arrogance".

And then to top it all off, you then engage in yet more bad faith BS by making a not-so-veiled accusation that I am lying about myself on my userpage. Combine that with the outright lie (evidence of which confirms it as a lie in the very message you replied to), and that is 2 outright bad faith actions in a single message, impressive. So as this marks the 3rd uncivil action (at least) which you have displayed towards me, in addition to repeated blatant bad faith arguments (continuing to reject there was ever a consensus because you obviously didn't agree with it, as the biggest and most consistent example), I am left with no choice but to make it clear this is your final warning.

You have 3 options:

1) Choose to engage in a civil manner, and expect I will do the same; I will accept the olive branch and will forgive you for your prior actions. We don't have to like each other, or think highly of each other, but we can behave like adults.

2) Choose to not engage with me further, and let sleeping dogs lie and move on with your life; Im not all that important anyway, and you've gotten consensus on most of your edits anyway, so why bother trying to play nice now? We go our separate ways, and if for some reason we cross paths again, we expect the other party will be civil under the assumption that time healed wounds and cooled heads.

3) Continue to to engage in petty, uncivil behavior; Such behavior will be escalated for review.

This is your chance to reset towards good faith if you can stomach that, back off and move on with life if you can't, or take it beyond reason and let the chips fall where they will. You decide what happens next. I would rather not escalate and waste admins times over this nonsense, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. So in the "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" mindset I am willing to accept that up until now you think you have been a saint and a victim defending yourself, that you will not acknowledge that you did anything wrong, that you do not think you have anything to apologize for, etc. I will forgive you for it all, and accept an olive branch for the sake of trying to be an adult and not waste further time on bad faith tit-for-tats. We can resolve this dispute right here and right now. Shake hands and move on, walk out and go our separate ways, or throw another punch. Your choice, not mine. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so if I make edits to the economy section, will you promise not to immediately revert it claiming consensus was made? BootsED (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That will depend on what you change in this hypothetical edit. Good faith does not mean "blank check". If you are choosing option 1, then I will engage in good faith, which will mean good faith opposition where I see reason to do so.

There was a consensus building involving (among other aspects of the section) the Economy issue. That issue was in fact the central point which sparked the consensus building, and it was not until that issue had been dealt with that the consensus building was concluded as all parties which had voiced concerns had those concerns addressed and the previous tag of UNDUE WEIGHT was removed (not by me) as a result of this discussion. You are the only person who is arguing against that. So as you do not have a consensus to override prior consensus, if you wish to perform a bold edit, then I will have to oppose that. I had already previously incorporated changes to the section which were both minor and due per our discussion within this topic, so I imagine you would like to revert it all to your rather bold previous edit, or something similarly bold.

COMPROMISE SUGGESTION:

As this topic obviously became derailed, effected by our history elsewhere outside of it, I propose we agree to close/archive/collapse/etc this specific topic, and you start a new topic focused entirely on achieving a simple majority consensus on your proposed re-write/re-structure you would like to do to the section. Considering the number of people involved in the prior consensus building, I will have no major opposition if at least 3 editors (yourself and two others) agree to the new changes. My opposition (if any} will be in respect to the content of the proposed re-write itself. As you will not be trying to go around the previous consensus, that will not formulate any part of my opposition (again, if I even do stand opposed to it). In all honesty, I do not imagine it will be exactly difficult to get at least 2 others to agree to support your re-write, and I would be surprised to see any major opposition to it. Lets say we keep the topic live for, say, 1 weeks time (approx) and then consider the matter closed (unless it is still an active discussion, of course), and we can even close it earlier after 3 or 4 days if it is painfully obvious one "side" will have a majority with no chance for opposition to possibly overcome it.

If you get the simple majority with yourself and at least 2 others at the end of this, you make the change and as I maintained from the outset, I will not undo it. If you (surprisingly) fail, then the changes are not made. Finally, if it comes down to a tie, then for my part I promise that I will retract my vote if that will break the tie (unless its literally just you and me voting).

I think this is fair and in good faith all around. Would you be willing to accept this suggestion? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

So your answer is yes unless I open an RfC? BootsED (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not my answer. I really do wish you would not take the most uncharitable, least good faith interpretations of my text. I even end there by ASKING if that is something you would be willing to do, which your answer could have been a simple "No" or offering an alternative compromise solution. It was a suggestion to offer a clear and objective solution which no one could misunderstand or misapply or mischaracterize. I understand you do not recognize that prior topic discussion as being a valid consensus, but on this issue there have been no other editors who agree with your assertion. So to move past this personal disagreement over if the prior conversation was or was not a consensus, I offered you to give yourself the opportunity to gain support for your proposed changes with a topic which we both could agree was indeed a consensus.

I wanted to move forward in good faith towards solving our disagreement. That is what my answer was. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion on the No Original Research Noticeboard about a claim made in this article that may be of interest to editors. The link to the relevant discussion can be found here. BootsED (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Democracy and economy sections

I've removed the original research from the democracy section, including:

1. language which stated that "conservatives" (implying as a group) were concerned about ... when the sourcing stated some republicans or more specifically Trump's allies, and
2. language which implied that Trump went ahead in the poles compared to Harris as consequence of legal proceedings, when the sources talked about Trump compared to other Republican candidates in the primaries.

Consequently I've removed the OR and NPOV templates as it's my read that they were placed in regards to mostly this content. Side note, I've removed a WP:NYPOST reference from the economy section as consensus is that it is generally unreliable, particularly in regards to politics coverage. Reliable source/s will need to be found covering that material and it will probably need to be rewritten as per whatever reliable source/s say. If no reliable source/s can be found it will need to be removed. If the OR and NPOV templates need to be placed back for other reasons, please feel free to do so and just advise what those issues are so that they can be remedied. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The overall content of the diffs themselves I see no major issue with at this time. I do, however, disagree with your edit note and point 2 here, as it characterizes that the polling related statements were presented "as though polling for Trump had increased against Harris." The prior version's statement made no mention of Harris directly or indirectly, but did specifically mention his first indictment (long before Harris was the top of the ticket) and his conviction (again, several months before Harris was ToT). I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion you have stated on this point. Can you explain what about the prior version read to you as "having increased against Harris"? The statement was written to inform the reader about 2 events which happened to Trump personally while campaigning which (according to multiple RS) effected his polling numbers, both of which happened prior to Harris starting her campaign, so I fail to understand where you or the reader would infer an assumption that it "increased against Harris" or "compared to Harris". Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I arrived at that conclusion because of the content of the material around it. Sentences in English language, as you would be quite aware, derive meaning from the other sentences in proximity. The sentence directly before the sentence on the polling read "Conservatives were concerned about the numerous prosecutions against Trump in what they claimed was "weaponizing the justice system" or "lawfare" by Democrats in federal and state government positions" and the sentence on the polling did not mention that it was referring to the primaries at all. In that context an ordinary reader who didn't read the references would quite understandably come away with the impression that what is being said is that Trump polled better vis a vis Democrats, which is not what the sources said. Therefore original research. TarnishedPath^talk 00:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In the section "assassination attempt" use of title President Trump seems contentious

At the time of the regretable assassination attempt in Butler Pa, Donald Trump is described as President Trump, this seems contentious and could be changed to read either ex-president or presidential candidate Trump as being more accurate. 67.210.40.165 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I've update it to President-elect which is the correct terminology at present. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

At the time he was former president or simply candidate, not president-elect. Is there a reason to include any title in the section and not to simply say "Trump"? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Another editor has done that now. TarnishedPath^talk 00:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)