Talk:Stop the Steal

GOP Schism #restoreourgop

Not trying to provoke anything, just curious about this: I'm seeing a #restoreourgop being led by Anti-Trump members of the GOP. This movement is gaining noticeable traction in recent days, with Adam Kinzinger and Greg Howell making some noticeable statements that have reached national attention.

My question is: should this be investigated further and mentioned on this page, or be its own page? Feel free to disagree, but be civil. Pikazilla (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Certainly outside of the scope of this page, I'd say. Better suited on the GOP page. However, regardless of where it is, I think this is WP:TOOSOON to include anywhere: as far as I can see we just have some tweets and no establishment of notability. — Czello 15:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kinzinger is a member of Congress, but "Greg Howell" is just a guy with a Twitter account with 75 folowers. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory"

I suspect there's a section on this that would preferably not have been archived. Could that be brought back to the current talk page so that there aren't multiple discussions on the same subject, with imaginable repetition and possible confusion? If so we can delete the new section and my comment here, which could then be appended to the former thread, possibly with modification in response to the former thread's content.

The note I found while looking over this article was "<!--Please see talk page before changing this descriptor-->". I looked at the talk page and there was nothing regarding the use of "conspiracy theory" at the beginning of the article. Since "conspiracy theory" was wrong, I revised it as best I could. I would have put "movement" myself, but when I looked at the sources cited I saw that "campaign" was more common and so I put that instead. The resulting "conspiracy campaign" expression may appear to be novel, but Google gives an estimated 74,100 finds on it, so it exists and may be used.

I copy from my edit summary here. "theory > campaign per cited references [...] Triomphe: campaign, Romm: campaign, Ghaffary: campaign, TechCrunch: group, NPR: group/'Stop the Steal' protest[s], Sullivan: group/movement, Beckett: group, Doerer: campaign (NO cited source calls it a 'conspiracy theory')"

Anyone can go looking in these sources for "conspiracy theory" as a descriptor of the group, but they won't find it and I advise them not to waste their time. There is literally no reference to Stop the Steal as a conspiracy theory in the cited sources, and thus no sensible reason for leaving it. Having now seen prior use of "conspiracy campaign", I consider it sufficiently appropriate (which is to say if "conspiracy" is an absolutely must-have word, which I would ordinarily contest). Another possibility, however, would be: "Stop the Steal is a right-wing campaign in the United States promoting the conspiracy theory that widespread electoral fraud took place during the 2020 presidential election". How's that? Any problem with that one? –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The talk page archives are linked at the top of the page. There have been multiple discussions in the past on the use of "conspiracy theory" or whether it should be replaced with some other term, which is why I reverted your change which was made without consensus. If you achieve consensus for your suggested change, I have no objection to it being reinserted, though "conspiracy campaign" is an unusual term that I think we should avoid since it is unclear what that even means. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to plead to correct a misplaced comma or misspelled word, and I'm not going to beg on my hands and knees plead to correct this obvious error either. What I may do is go through the archives and bring a complaint against the whole bunch of you. A lot of good it will do me, but all of this current nonsense has really gone too far.

I repeat the question to you and to everyone else. Do you have any problem with "Stop the Steal is a right-wing campaign in the United States promoting the conspiracy theory that widespread electoral fraud took place during the 2020 presidential election"? –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I would be okay with that wording, though I'd like to hear what some of the people who actually regularly edit this page have to think about it first. This suggested wording was different from the wording I reverted, which I was more concerned with: Stop the Steal is a right-wing conspiracy campaign in the United States that falsely posits...

Regarding the other part of your comment, I don't think the hyperbole about "begging on hands and knees" and "this current nonsense has really gone too far" is helpful. It is not asking much to request that you discuss changes to wording that has already been heavily discussed on the talk page before, something which was noted in an inline comment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with GorillaWarfare that this "begging on hands and knees" language you're using is not constructive or helpful in any way. It distracts from you greater point, of which there is one. "Stop the Steal" isn't a conspiracy theory, as it isn't a theory. It's a movement borne from a conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I had "plead" a second time and was mostly wanting to avoid the repetition. So how about forgetting me and making the correction? As much as I can prefer anything involving dubious aspersions, I prefer "conspiracy campaign", I guess I'd say because I find it comprehensible, fresh and maybe less wordy than the other one. But I offered the other as an alternative and so obviously find it acceptable as well. Just correct the embarrassing "conspiracy theory", please. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem calling it a "conspiracy campaign" if a preponderance of reliable sources refer to it that way. We would simply link the term to conspiracy theory. I didn't revert Roy's edit because of that; I reverted it because the rearrangement of citations reduced rather than enhanced clarity of the lead. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources do not say "conspiracy campaign". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I've shown that "campaign" is the preferred term of the RS sources, both in an edit summary and above here. I agree with Anachronist and GorillaWarfare that "conspiracy campaign" might best be avoided if it doesn't directly conform to the sources and may not be immediately comprehensible. This just seemed to be one way to handle it, and I hadn't yet thought of the alternative. After my last post I thought that this newer version perhaps wasn't wordier as I'd suspected, since "falsely" was rendered unnecessary by the repositioned "conspiracy theory". And when they're put one after the other and compared, the literal lengths are almost identical: the original "conspiracy campaign" variant is 107 characters, while the "campaign"/"conspiracy theory" one is 108. I therefore suggest we agree on "Stop the Steal is a right-wing campaign in the United States promoting the conspiracy theory that widespread electoral fraud took place during the 2020 presidential election". I still don't agree with the content, but this form is an improvement over what's there now. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, "Stop the Steal is a right-wing campaign promoting the conspiracy theory that...." is better wording. I disagree that "falsely" is redundant, though. A conspiracy theory can be true or false. With that in mind, I inserted the word "campaign" into the lead. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Anachronist. I disagree on the nonredundancy of "falsely", but not enough to make another case out of it. The only real justification I can imagine for the overly widespread application of "conspiracy theory/theorist" on Wikipedia and in the main media generally is that it helps maintain the official narrative by (crudely, and often in remarkably inappropriate cases) suggesting that everything else is insane fantasy. "Conspiracy" is supposed to be pejorative, as several have observed. See in particular Philip Cross's edit summary here, when I tried to change "conspiracy theory" to "conjecture" at Georgia Guidestones: as the term "conspiracy theorists" is used below, "conjecture" (which assumes possibility) is a misleading change to the summary. "Conspiracy theory", thus, denies possibility. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Roy McCoy, pretty much all you say about is accurate but I fail to seethe problem. Yes, the implication is that it is "insane fantasy". That is an apt description of conspiracy theories in general, and of the whole "rigged elections" conspiracy theory we are dealing with here. It's a fact that it has no basis in reality, and that is already well sourced in the article. Reading through all your arguments here, they seem to constitute a long case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and nothing more. Jeppiz (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: I don't feel strongly about including "falsely" either, but this was my reasoning to include it:

While any given conspiracy theory is often nothing more than crackpottery, it is possible for a conspiracy theory to be true in the same sense that sufficiently many random dart throws may include some that actually hit the bullseye. Given a sufficient population of conspiracy theories, some of them may hit the mark, in line with "if you must predict, predict often" as Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson once said. Indeed, several conspiracy theories in history have turned out to be true, at least in part (for example, this search result includes some reasonably reliable sources). The nature of a conspiracy theory is that it isn't falsifiable (cannot be proven false), thereby falling into the realm of pseudoscience: cherry-picked, incomplete, circumstantial, or unreliable evidence combined with faith, instilling a blind religious fervor among adherents to the point where they are immune to rational argument and facts.

Such is the case with Stop the Steal. What it promotes is a conspiracy theory in that it cannot be proven false, while the actual fact of the integrity of the election, like scientific theories, can never be proven true but only corroborated, as has now happened numerous times with multiple election recounts and even prominent Republicans (some of them Trump appointees) affirming the election's integrity. With enough corroboration of the facts, we can be comfortable using the word "falsely" to describe this conspiracy theory in Wikipedia's voice. It isn't one of those conspiracy theories that might turn out to be true some day. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist wrote: it is possible for a conspiracy theory to be true in the same sense that sufficiently many random dart throws may include some that actually hit the bullseye. Precisely (in the approved view here, at least). This is the same as saying that it is extremely unlikely that a conspiracy theory is true, which renders "falsely" at least unnecessary if not completely redundant. With the reference following, it also causes the reader to stumble – which is largely why I moved the references to the end of the sentence, as is normal.

I hear what you're saying, though I disagree with it. I have other objections to "conspiracy theory" (mainly that there is a mountain of evidence proving massive electoral fraud, such that it's a matter of conspiracy but not theory), but the intention here was simply not to have the term applied in such a grossly incorrect way to the campaign. It amounted to that, Jeppiz, and the issue appears to have been resolved. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

there is a mountain of evidence proving massive electoral fraud^{[citation needed]} GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Reminder: If you want to change "is a conspiracy theory" you must start on Talk

Seeing a lot of edit warring on the status quo text saying Stop the Steal "is a conspiracy theory". Compared to others, I'm relatively agnostic on the change, but it's clearly controversial and will not be instated by edit-warring. That's not how Wikipedia works. Feoffer (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: I already started on Talk

Okay Aquillion, you said "extensively sourced." Let's see it. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There are eight sources for that statement in the article, which is extensive by our usual standards. You'll have to start by saying what you object to about those and what sort of sources you would prefer. I can find even more sources if necessary, but in order to know what to look for, I'd need to know what problems you have with the existing ones, or what other sources you feel should be included that currently aren't there. For reference, here they are: --Aquillion (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

@Aquillion: You reverted "campaign" to "conspiracy theory", arguing that the latter was "extensively sourced". It was obviously this to which I was referring, and I was clear about the sources as well, individually citing all of them. I now see your list, which is only the original list unmodified. I suspect you didn't read what I originally posted. Rather than again repeating what I've already pointed out twice, I suggest you go back, finally read it, and then perhaps come back here and tell us where in any of these eight sources it says that Stop the Steal is a conspiracy theory. I've already documented what they do call it. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Evidence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

hereistheevidence.com provides a comprehensive and exhaustive list of mostly factually true evidence of verified election fraud which occurred during the 2020 Presidential Election. Many of the reported cases of fraud have been used in court cases, which were mostly throw out due to issues of procedure, not the actual case. Haerdt (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Mostly factually true". It's just an aggregation of the same old lies from the past two months. The site isn't notable itself, and is of no value here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"mostly factually true" lol, didn't your 8th grade teacher explain that if part of a statement is false, then the entire statement should have an "F" in front of it? The Daily Mail is mostly factually true also, but nobody gets to cite it on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

CNN may claim to be mostly factually true when they deliberately misstate or misreport political news. You must be very careful when creating encyclopedia entries about politicized events. Your personal understanding may need to be widened. Haerdt (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

== Leftist Bias ==

This page suffers from a poor case of Leftist Bias. To the editors out there who would dispute or attempt to censor — this is an open and free encyclopedia. It is a project that aims to be neutral, objective, and balnced, in the best interest of preserving knowledge. I strongly encourage you not to repress perspectives because of your particular political views, beliefs, or ideologies. Repressing dissent is a fascist political technique. Haerdt (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Haerdt. Why not start with suggesting some edits to the article? Just keep in mind that you need to cite a reliable source for changes to statements of fact. This page is intended for discussions, not accusations. Editors are within their rights to remove this post, but have left it here to invite comment... Your turn.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech. It is a project to build a free-content (that is, available to the public for free) encyclopedia based upon reliable sources. If you have material supported by a reliable source which should be considered for this article, you're welcome to present it here. If, on the other hand, your complaint is that reliable sources are all biased against you and that you instead want us to consider some random YouTube video or a Parler post... then you're welcome to find and contribute to another encyclopedia project more suited to your personal ideology, such as Conservapedia or Metapedia. That you believe all reliable sources are biased and that we should instead rely upon utter nonsense peddled by charlatans and dupes is... not a problem we can solve here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a farce put on by Wikipedia’s controlling interests. I have posted content before that has been accurately sourced, but it has been censored. You might call it “moderation”, but when you delete content because you don’t like it regardless of the factuality or accuracy, that is censorship. You should cease and desist with such practices immediately as they are destructive to the spirit of this encyclopedia’s founding. Haerdt (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're not going to suggest any changes and you're not going to provide any sources, you're in the wrong place. Talk pages are not a forum to discuss your thoughts about the subject of the article or your opinions on Wikipedia in general, they are for suggesting specific, sourced changes to the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refusal to acknowledge evidence disputing sources and the scope and legitimacy of the movement.

This is an educational forum, with the sole purpose of education and information. Unfortunately, "fact", especially in politics is not always concrete and undisputed. Sources used in this article have credibility that is disputed, and their claims are disputed by other sources. Many of the sources used are not experts in election security and are political opinion writers or journalists, who by the close observance of previous writings have a clear bias towards a political side. If there were no other sources that disputed these claims, disallowing differing alterations to this article would be valid, but sources do dispute certain, generic mind you, evidence presented in this article. This is why I hold the belief that there should be reasonable alterations to this article, allowing fact-based observances by both sides. This article simply dismisses all evidence of voter fraud, failing to recognize the scope of the movement. Conspiracy theories are not based in fact and are simply speculation or guesswork. Stop the steal represents supported claims of election interference that is being observed and acknowledged by elected state officials. As of now, hearings and consideration are taking place in the respective state legislatures with testimony by sworn affidavits, presenting clear evidence of voter fraud. I would please like you to take this into consideration, this article should be objective and present both sides. (RMRC1332 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

Please be specific in what changes you'd like to see: which current sources do you think are unacceptable, and what new sources you'd prefer to see in their place. — Czello 16:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to review WP:RSP when making your suggestions. It's a useful reference to determine which of the more commonly-suggested sources are generally considered reliable by the Wikipedia editing community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is an educational forum, with the sole purpose of education and information. Actually, see WP:NOTFORUM. Beyond that, the sources cited are high-quality news outlets from organizations with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you don't think they're reliable you will have to be more specific about which and why, and if you think there's reliable sources that aren't included you will have to say which ones. Based on the sources available, though, reliable coverage seems unanimous. --Aquillion (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Added link to evidence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is probably a good idea for the evidence to be linked and mentioned, considering how widespread it is. At this point the information suppression is painfully obvious to any astute obsevrer of the US 2020 Elections

Evidence was collected and circulated widely via the Internet, with efforts spearheaded by Trump’s legal team. Haerdt (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Evidence was collected and circulated widely via the Internet, with efforts spearheaded by Trump’s legal team. Haerdt (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The Gateway Pundit is a scam grift which has repeatedly published complete fabrications and falsehoods in order to dupe its readership. By clear community consensus, the site is categorically prohibited from use as a source on Wikipedia. That you may not like that fact is irrelevant. You must comply with the community consensus decision until and unless that consensus is changed. If you wish to attempt to changeit, you are welcome to start a thread on WP:RSN. If you choose to continue to ignore community consensus on this issue, your editing privileges on this topic (at least) will likely be removed.

Wikipedia is not a free speech platform, and the fact that you don't like what we publish about this scam conspiracy theory is utterly unimportant. To use a turn of phrase, facts don't care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

TheGatewayPundit is a right wing news website. If you don’t like right wing news, that’s not my problem. You should be considering news from all sides of the political spectrum, not attempting to censor legitimately reported information. Haerdt (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, the community disagrees with you and has already declared the site unreliable and unacceptable for use as a source for Wikipedia content. You're welcome to attempt to change that community consensus. You're not welcome to ignore that community consensus. Doing so will lead to the revocation of your Wikipedia editing privileges. We're a project to build a free-content Internet encyclopedia, and if you don't like our standards, you will be invited to go somewhere else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBerenof - You do not speak on behalf of the community. You speak on behalf of yourself and yourself alone. You have been bullying multiple contirbutors on this oage over the past weeks. It is not a welcomed attitude. Cease and desist your campaign of information suppression immediately. Haerdt (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is mistaken. NorthBySouthBerenof correctly articulates the thinking of our community. Feoffer (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m requesting the assistance of another administrator or editor here. Would someone please take a long look at NorthBySouthBerenof’s contributions to this website in the past two weeks? This user is acting like a political hack and claiming to be legitimate, while bullying other contributors. Haerdt (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not the sole arbiter of the community, that is correct. But I have repeatedly linked you to the discussion in which the community clearly deprecated The Gateway Pundit. Again, for full clarity, you should click here to read that discussion. After reading that discussion, if you have any questions, I'm happy to help clarify the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ample evidence has been collected that voter fraud occurred. "A Running Compendium of Fruad Charges in Election 2020". RealClearPolitics.<\ref> Haerdt (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the update on which websites are considered acceptable, NorthBySouth. Thanks. I’m trying again here with RealClearPolitics. Haerdt (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That link doesn't say there is "ample evidence of voter fraud." It is instead titled A Running Compendium of Challenges to Election 2020 - of which, of course, there are many. It makes no claims that there is "evidence" of fraud or that said purported fraud affected the election outcome. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: if you want to include material suggesting electoral fraud, ,you'll need to generate a strong consensus for that change. Lately the article has had a two folks trying to edit-war to reinsert fringe claims without first establishing a consensus. That's not how this works. Feoffer (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

These are not fringe claims. There is massive media blackout surrohnding this topic front the political left and centre left. You can see that. The entire newscapre of the political right is reporting fraud. Haerdt (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fraud with massive evidence. Haerdt (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Every court of law has rejected such claims. If your response is that all American courts of law, including a fair number of judges appointed by Trump, are part of this massive liberal conspiracy which somehow didn't steal the Senate and almost lost the House, then I'm afraid you're beyond help, and you're in places Wikipedia, by foundational policy, will never go. You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but you're not welcome to put whatever you want in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia reflects the world as reliable sources describe it, and that world is one in which there was no significant voter fraud, in which the Electoral College has voted 306-232 to elect Joseph R. Biden as the 46th President of the United States, and in which Biden will be inaugurated at noon on January 20, 2021. Those are facts, and facts famously do not care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

References

“Reliable” is here subjective. Significant is dependent on your own ability to understand what is happening in our world. Ample evidence exists whether you like it or not, AND it has been wodely circulated and reported. Legal challenges were made and disputed, while for various reasons none of them have yet favored Trump. I am not disputing the election. What I am disputing is your harsh censorship towards the right. See my thread on RealClearPolitics. Haerdt (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it's "subjective." Again, if you disagree with Wikipedia's subjective definition of reliable sources and how to identify them, you're welcome to try to change that definition through accepted community processes. What you're not free to do is ignore or reject them in your editing of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ll use RealClearPolitics tomorrow. Haerdt (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

== RealClearPolitics ==

What is 3RR? Provide a link.

Charges of fraud include lefal proof of fraud.

Ample evidence of voter fraud has been reported and collected. Haerdt (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:3RR. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary US high school GOVERNMENT teachers use RealClearPolitics in their classrooms. This is not a fringe website Haerdt (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the 3RR update Haerdt (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The source simply shows there are ample allegations of fraud, not ample evidence. Haerdt, in my estimation you're about 1 edit away from getting blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

False. There is evidence. You need to look into each link closely and see for yourself. An affadavit is evidence in a court of law. Haerdt (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Your Honor, we've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Affidavits are indeed evidence, tending to make some point of fact more or less likely to be true. But the existence of one or more affidavits is not, in and of itself, proof of any given fact until weighed in context and against any countervailing evidence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That is enough to remove the disgusting spin from this article on Stop the Steal. If Wikipedia is trying to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a leftist tool of information control, then we should continue to censor this article. I like to think that since it is a free encyclopedia, it supports freedom in the world. Freedom of expression for all, which includes allowing others to freely express their opinions. Not censoring them. Haerdt (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a set of rules and basic epistemological tenets to which it adheres; Wikipedia is not censored, but neither is it a free speech platform which treats all views as equal. Does this mean Wikipedia is sometimes wrong? Absolutely. But for those of us who believe in it, I think we'd say it's the worst system except for all the other possibilities. We reflect reliable sources here--and as far as I see it, they don't reflect your favored view. Maybe you can convince me or others that they do. Good luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My favored view is that of reality. Not some politicized media narrative. It takes some amount of effort to see through smoke and spin to that reality. Wikipedia also attempts to provide encyclopedic knowledge of reality. This is not rocket science. Haerdt (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Alas, some of us are woefully mistaken in what we believe to be reality. I try to remember that that person might be me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Stop the Steal is a America Patriotic Movement in the United States[1] that shows several widespread electoral fraud took place during the 2020 presidential election to deny the rightful winner President Donald Trump victory over former vice president Joe Biden. Trump and his supporters have asserted with evidence[3][4] that he is the winner of the election, and that large-scale voter and vote counting fraud took place in several swing states.[4] The Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Decision Desk HQ, NBC News, The New York Times, and Fox News inaccurately under false pretense lied and projected Biden as the president having surpassed more the 270 fraudulent illegal Illegitimate ballot votes needed to claim fake victory.[5][6] A New York Times survey of state election officials found several instances of significant widespread evidence voter fraud, As such did the United States Justice Department, and dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump and his proxies to challenge voting results in several states Biden has failed to concede and accept Republican nominee Donald J Trump , for 4 more years in the White House . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.165.95 (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - No sources cited, much less reliable ones. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This proposed edit is complete nonsense, and just constitutes partisan ranting. Wikipedia isn't the place for this. Builder018 (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)