This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
When you examine the raw numbers from the 2024 election and compare them to previous elections it’s becoming more apparent that 2020 had some very distinct anomalies. 11 million democrats from 2020 just suddenly decided not to vote in what was called “the most important election in our lives” ? I think calling the claims of election fraud FALSE is misleading at prejudging. Empirical Evidence would seem to indicate that SOMETHING happened that is deserving of further scrutiny. If you disagree with this you’re simply not being objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.27.96.10 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you spout the leftist mantra that 2020 election fraud claims have been proven false? By whom? Lawsuits are still pending, and the ones in Arizona and Wisconsin have proven fraud. 150,000 fraudulent ballots were cast in Wisconsin. Signatures on file did not match ones on ballots and should have been thrown out. Just because it is unclear and difficult to know if and how election results can be overturned doesn't mean there isn't ongoing litigation and in at least 2 states fraud has been proven. The Arizona governor's election results are still being challenged as well. 108.16.23.228 (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me as if almost every article dealing with Trump, or election integrity, or Republican policy positions violates NPOV. I stopped bothering to correct them to wording that doesn't advocate for a particular political view of the because so many admins who can block edits share the article's point of view (and that's fine, everyone can have their own point of view -- it's just poor editorial policy, and shoddy journalistic technique, and violates Wikipedia's own policies. But I give a Chicago shrug here--yes it's corrupt but whaddya gonna do?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oculus Dexter (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs to scrutinize articles for phrases such as "election fraud", "election deniers", "conspiracy theorists", etc. and demand the writers either abandon such assertions or that they cite sources that support their views as well as the opposing view. These phrases are subjective and have no place in a news article. Any article which disparages any person or groups of people by suggesting that election fraud doesn't exist needs to retract their article until they do their homework. There are non-profit citizen groups all over the U.S. that are uncovering hundreds of thousands of instances of election fraud, including algorithms embedded in some state's voter rolls that apparently have no purpose other than to locate imbedded fake and duplicate voter IDs in order to use them to alter voting results. Check out auditny.com in New York State for one such group that has spent countless hours and their own funds doing research and analysis that New York State should be doing for its voters. All they are asking for is an end- to-end audit of the New York State voter rolls so people can be assured that elections are accurate and secure. These folks stand to gain nothing by exposing these discrepancies. Infact, they have been demonized and defamed by some New York State officials, the very people they elected to serve them. These election integrity groups are trying to get to the truth... something that seems to be very threatening to certain legislators and powerful others. Why? This is a far more interesting story than asserting we look away from the possibility of election fraud; that we ignore the claims of dead people voting and registered voters whose addresses are vacant lots; people under 18 and over 115 years old voting, etc. Where are the truth seekers? What happened to journalistic integrity? Come on Wikipedia! Get on the right side of this very important issue! Voting is the one most important avenue available to United States citizens to voice their opinions on how their government should be run. It is the crux of our constitutional democracy. Without safe and secure elections we might as well be living under a totalitarian or communistic system of government. It appears this is exactly what the purveyors of false statements are hoping for. They certainly don't seem to be concerned about truth, justice and freedom. 23.175.80.191 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any proof for all these extraordinary claims on elections? I read through your essay and I can't find any reliable sources to improve our article on Scott Presler. This includes that website you linked on NY state elections. Bridget(talk)23:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here are often articles, as it's a journalistic resource, but the Articles themselves have "valid" sources for Wikimedia.
Yes, many factual documented pieces of evidence detailed in Documentaries:”Absolute Proof “ and “2000 Mules”. Absolute Proof documents video and testimonies as well as voting machine expert testimony to address the capabilities and weaknesses of the Dominion/Smartmatic voting systems for fraud and hacking. The algorithms of the votes do not compute rationally. 2000 Miles uses cellphone tracking evidence as well as testimonies to prove the widespread ballot harvesting committed in the swing states. Just today and in the last 2 weeks evidence has come in citing proof of fraudulent ballots in Pennsylvania as well as Georgia. Zuckerburg himself has recently admitted censoring posts per government order to do so leading up to 2020 election. There was fraud, likely enough to change the election outcomes, but there has been resistance to launch any comprehensive and impartial investigation. Therefore, saying “false” claims regarding the 2020 election being stolen are not “factual” but reflect bias. PermeliaPatron (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11 million Democrat votes that just “disappeared” between 2020 and 2024 would seem to be empirical evidence that an anomaly took place in 2020 that deserves further investigation before all claims can be summarily dismissed as “False”.
Since the claim of election fraud has not been published as true or false by the government or courts I do not believe it should be dubbed “false claim” can it be edited to say allegations of election fraud. To state it is false is an grand assumption with no backing. Jsmith119 (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
