Talk:Trump fake electors plot/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Image request

We have "The authentic 2020 certificate of ascertainment from the state of Oregon", but do we have an image of a fake one? --Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLDITIS

Hi @Valjean:, I'm happy with the outcome of the RM, I just think spitting out the title in the lead like that is a really strange and awkwardly worded Wikipedia-ism, for the reasons given at WP:BOLDITIS: It also gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title; in actuality, it is just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage. So, in the case of purely descriptive titles, we should not bold the article title in the introduction, and there is no need to repeat it verbatim at the beginning of the article and fit an awkwardly worded sentence around it. I'm not sure what you find problematic with this wording. Endwise (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as awkward or in violation of the BOLDITIS essay, which is not a PAG. It also eliminates the mention of "fake electors" and "plot" from the beginning of the lead, where they should both be mentioned. "Plot" is completely removed from the lead, and "fake electors" is only mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. This move seems to bury/hide the topic and is an unnecessary change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased propaganda

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The term “fake electors” is false propaganda and should not be used on Wikipedia. In 2020 due to COVID - multiple states engaged in irregular ballot handling practices in violation of their state constitutions. The US constitution requires electors to be selected in accordance with rules set by state legislatures. In 2020 this did not happen - instead governors, secretaries of state and local ejection boards invoked COVID-based procedures not legislatively approved. The controversy over whether these discrepancies were allowable under the U.S. constitution was unresolved by congress or the courts as the electoral college prepared to finalize the 2020 election.

For this reason there were two sets of possible electors available depending on how the controversy was resolved. There were no “fake electors” - simply a set of electors available on each side depending on how the controversy was settled. On January 6th 2021 congress voted to accept the electors despite these irregularities and not remit the question back to the state legislators (as the constitution allowed them to do). For this reason the electors arising from these irregular means were accepted. There were no “fake electors” any more than there were “fake candidates”

Wikipedia cannot retain its credibility as an objective source when it recognizes deceptive constructs like “fake electors” 2600:1700:2210:BDE0:242B:95E2:E40:7DB5 (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe this as a fake electors plot. Since encyclopedias simply summarize reliable sources, we will summarize it this way. The idea that these were not fake electors is a bit WP:FRINGE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
there were two sets of possible electors available depending on how the controversy was resolved is not supported by evidence in reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Are the words of the U.S. Constitution not considered a reliable source? Loltardo (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
There are countless people who insist they know what the constitution says, and some of them are even lawyers. soibangla (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
"the U.S. Constitution not considered a reliable source" By definition, the constitution is an unreliable source. "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" Neither the constitution, nor the people who wrote it have any reputation concerning fact-checking. Dimadick (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead removals

Obviously, the removals from the lead were sourced and accurate, but I've added additional references to the lead, even though we don't require them. Andre🚐 16:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


"Mr. Trump and his allies"

"the longest-running and most expansive of the multiple efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election"

"But the effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to create competing slates of electors in seven different states at once would have dramatically altered the results if it had been successful."

"Mr. Trump and his allies sought to convince Mr. Pence to count the pro-Trump slates, reject those saying Mr. Biden had won and thus unilaterally keep the former president in office"

"Mr. Trump and his allies thought Mr. Pence could choose to delay the certification of the electors count"

"Mr. Trump and his allies barreled ahead with the electors plan nonetheless"

"Mr. Trump and his allies turned to the second part of the plan"

I recommend the lead be restored to its long-standing state

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html

soibangla (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

POV Warning Attached

The entire debate around the use of alternate/fake electors precisely hinges around whether they are "alternate" and part of a standard legal procedure during contested elections or "fake," meaning illegal. Thus even the title of this page is wildly biased and requires the POV label. Additionally the article is LOADED with weasel words such as "scheme" "fake" "fraudulent" or "plot." This article needs to be MASSIVELY cleaned up before the POV label can be removed. I might suggest "2020 Electoral College Controversy" as a substitute neutral title.

I should add that User Andrevan not only removed the POV label from the main page, which was unwarranted as the page is extremely biased and pushes a fringe narrative that alternate electors are not a thing, but then went on to vandalize the talk section of this page in bad faith, and then went on to threaten me with being blocked on my own page. I reverted the vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.5.103 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No, no article-tagging by random IP editors, that has been removed. Have your say with this talk page discussion if you must, but the matter is largely a settled issue, per the reliable souces used in the article. The notion that Donald Trump's preferred slate of electors is anything but fraudulent is a WP:FRINGE point-of-view. Zaathras (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The Trump alternate electors are NOT a legitimate thing. This is fringe and the POV tag should be removed and any fringe talk posts should also be removed. Andre🚐 22:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
"Fake" is actually sourced to Jack Wilenchik, one of the plotters. Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Defendants at Michigan

At Lansing, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced felony charges against 16 Michigan residents for their role in the alleged false electors scheme following the 2020 U.S. presidential election.  

2A02:8071:B87:7F20:A1DA:3E78:49E4:1165 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

See Michigan prosecution of fake electors rootsmusic (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Citation, reliable source needed

Article says, "A senator's aide tried to pass fraudulent certificates to Pence minutes before the vice president was to certify the election."

I took a look at the following footnote, but when I went to the source, I found no such statement as above. Will the editor who wrote this assertion, please provide reliable sources for it? Thanks. (AltheaCase (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC))

I am wondering about rhe reliability of this information as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:A110:B513:F840:4022:9A79:BEAE (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

AltheaCase: fixed[1] soibangla (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

@NotJackhorkheimer and Zaathras: less edit warring, more discussion, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've asked for sources to be cited and I'm still waiting. People can have different editing styles, but to me it's poor form to re-insert contested claims without fixing their citation, or at least pointing out an existing citation in a different place. I see zero citations that state unequivocally that the electoral certificates were fraudulent. Rather, I can find on my own many, many articles that describe this as an allegation made by the US DOJ. I do at least see one reference that uses the word obstruct in the 3rd person, but again many, many sources say that obstruction is a charge made by the DOJ. If there are sources for a contentious claim, they should be immediately following when the claim was first made.
Even if there are a few sources that may use the words fraudulent or obstruct/obstruction, the overwhelming majority do not. I had replaced the terms when possible with close substitutes that conveyed roughly the same meaning, without carrying the baggage of implying that Wikipedia is objectively stating someone committed a crime of which they have yet to be convicted. I do not see why those small changes were worth objecting to. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the changes you propose, they don't appear to be improvements. Fraudulent is well sourced, particularly in light of recent guilty pleas. While we cannot state someone has been convicted of fraud or obstruction if they haven't been, it's not a BLP violation to acknowledge a fraudulent scheme did exist. Feoffer (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't say "well sourced" when the sources aren't cited. Once again, I am asking for a single source. Sydney Powell's pleas weren't related to the electors. Kenneth Chesebro pled guilty to "conspiracy to commit filing false documents"--fraud is not a necessary condition of the Georgia statute. Looking at the first page of Google News for "kenneth chesebro guilty plea" and picking out news reports from high quality sources, not a single one uses the word fraudulent except once inside a quote. CNN NYT WaPo USA Today NBC News CNBC
Even if a few sources are found for the claim, though, it seems to me that it would be undue weight to insist that "fraudulent" be the one descriptor, given that the overwhelming majority of sources use the word "fake". --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 21:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Fake and fraudulent are effectively synonyms, so they aren't competing for weight. Andre🚐 21:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
There's some wiggle room on which of two near-synonyms we use -- note "fake" is still used in title, while "fraudulent" is probably more appropriate when the talk turns legal. But a phrasing like "alleged fraudulent elector scheme" isn't appropriate. We can add "alleged" about the actions of specific defendants who have yet to face trial, but we can't deny the crime occurred. Defendant allegedly passed counterfeit money, not Defendant passed allegedly-counterfeit money. Feoffer (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

expand state details under "Events in individual states"

The state details under this page's section for "Events in individual states" are pretty paltry. Now that more details have been published in the indictments for The State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, et al. and for Michigan prosecution of fake electors, I suggest expanding that section to illustrate the plot's highly coordinated planning by Trump's Chief of Staff and by the 2020 campaign. Both state indictments detail general findings in the January 6th Committee's Final Report and the Special Counsel's indictment. rootsmusic (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The Georgia and Michigan subsections are already summaries of the descriptions in those two articles. The other states definitely need expansion though. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this article violation of NPOV? Are not a vast number of persons who claim that the issue is Election Fraud?

Is this article an NPOV violation? Do not a huge number of persons believe that the election of Biden in 2020 was the result of voting fraud? Is there not evidence of fraud, as in Fulton County with GOP watchers shut out as if counting would stop, but then Democrats stayed & did "counting", like pulling a trunk out from under a table? Is it correct as someone claims "WP:Fringe"? Are there not videos of ballot-box stuffing in the night? How can it be fringe when CNN reported: "https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html --- All told, 69% of Republicans and Republican-leaners say Biden’s win was not legitimate, up from 63% earlier this year and through last fall, ...." Is that fringe? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC))

There is no evidence of fraud. There are no videos of "ballot box stuffing in the night". Yes, believing that there was fraud in spite of the lack of any evidence is FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you utterly discount the mule videos of D'Sousa as impossible? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC))
Not me, Reuters does. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
it really is amazing how many believe the election was stolen, especially since they continue to cite examples of alleged fraud that have been decisively refuted for years. it's sorta like ... a cult, you know? soibangla (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I consider it group polarization and confirmation bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It's mass delusion largely caused by poor sources, Fox News's pushing of what it knew were lies, and believing Trump's lies. The MAGA cult is impervious to evidence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fake Electors Plot, or legitimate rump electors submission?

Did not the so-called fake electors believe that Trump in fact won for their electorship, and they in fact were the true electors? Didn't something much like this happen in Hawaii not so many years ago, & did not the rump electors end up being accepted? Does not the US Code state that the President of the Senate shall open all PURPORTED elector envelopes? So is it possible that these rump electors honestly purported to be the true electors? And did they have the freedom of speech right to say so in writing to the President of the Senate? Is there not yet a day of reckoning to occur when these issues reach the SCOTUS? Is not the principle to assume good faith? Does it make sense to criminalize a political claim that "we wuz robbed" as after a sporting event? Didn't Hillary say the same when she lost? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC))

WP:AGF refers to Wikipedia activity. It is why I am calmly replying here rather than reverting these talk page posts. Whether or not the fake electors believe Trump won or not, they did not go through the proper channels of becoming certified electors, as laid out in indictments. I have no idea what you're talking about in Hawaii, you'll have to provide some sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Most of your questions aren't aimed at Wikipedia editors.
Did not the so-called fake electors believe that Trump in fact won for their electorship, and they in fact were the true electors?
No, the fake electors knew they were not the real electors. See Michigan prosecution of fake electors, where the fake electors tried to pose as real ones and were denied entry into the state Capitol. The people who organized the plot even called them fake. Feoffer (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In reply to the question "Do you utterly discount the mule videos of D'Sousa as impossible?", we can answer, "D'Sousa and his conspiracist 2000 Mules film have been soundly debunked. He cannot be trusted. He produces political propaganda and pseudohistory. He and his books and other products lack credibility." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump_fake_electors_plot/Archive_2&oldid=1222776187"