→RfC: New title proposal: using standard formatting for RfC. Hope you don't mind. Feel free to change. |
Closer will still get the point |
||
Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
:* Your suggested title hasn't gotten any traction either, whereas the suggested titles in this RfC have support. As mentioned above, the exact number of Google hits is not the only factor, so it comes down to personal preference. Which is the better title than the one we have? "Alternate" has to go as it is a deliberately misleading propaganda term used by the plotters. "Controversy" has to go as well, because there is no controversy in RS. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 14:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
:* Your suggested title hasn't gotten any traction either, whereas the suggested titles in this RfC have support. As mentioned above, the exact number of Google hits is not the only factor, so it comes down to personal preference. Which is the better title than the one we have? "Alternate" has to go as it is a deliberately misleading propaganda term used by the plotters. "Controversy" has to go as well, because there is no controversy in RS. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 14:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment:''' Google's initial count is generally wrong. If I scroll to the last page of results on Google News, I get around [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fake+electors+plan%22&tbm=nws&start=170 ~175 articles for "fake electors plan"], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fake+electors+plot%22&tbm=nws&start=220 ~224 articles for "fake electors plot"], and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fake+electors+scheme%22&tbm=nws&start=210 ~218 articles for "fake electors scheme"]. You may get different numbers if you click those links. There's no point arguing for a title based on which of those numbers are bigger, as these numbers are similar, all generally wrong, and there's 20 different ways you can try and generate them. The only thing you can gather from this is that those three phrases are used a similar amount in sources, so your argument should be based on something else, I think. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 06:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Comment:''' Google's initial count is generally wrong. If I scroll to the last page of results on Google News, I get around [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fake+electors+plan%22&tbm=nws&start=170 ~175 articles for "fake electors plan"], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fake+electors+plot%22&tbm=nws&start=220 ~224 articles for "fake electors plot"], and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fake+electors+scheme%22&tbm=nws&start=210 ~218 articles for "fake electors scheme"]. You may get different numbers if you click those links. There's no point arguing for a title based on which of those numbers are bigger, as these numbers are similar, all generally wrong, and there's 20 different ways you can try and generate them. The only thing you can gather from this is that those three phrases are used a similar amount in sources, so your argument should be based on something else, I think. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 06:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
* |
*Gonna go with "fake electors '''scheme'''" here. Seems to be the language used in more encyclopedia-style reporting in the media (which is what Wikipedia should go for), e.g. "explainers" like: [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html The Fake Electors Scheme, Explained] (NY Times), [https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html What to know about the Trump 'fake electors' scheme] (CNN). Additionally, "plot" sounds a bit judgemental in tone, and we should strive to use [[WP:VOICE|clinical, non-judgemental language]] where possible. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Plot.''' I guess I better voice my view. I tend to favor "plot" as it more accurately implies the secrecy involved. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/fake-trump-electors-ga-told-shroud-plans-secrecy-email-shows/ Fake Trump electors in Ga. told to shroud plans in ‘secrecy,’ email shows] -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 14:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Plot.''' I guess I better voice my view. I tend to favor "plot" as it more accurately implies the secrecy involved. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/fake-trump-electors-ga-told-shroud-plans-secrecy-email-shows/ Fake Trump electors in Ga. told to shroud plans in ‘secrecy,’ email shows] -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 14:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:40, 3 August 2022
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Archive set up
I set up an archive for this page, just to move the first thread out of the way. If either of you want to undo archiving of the thread, I have no objection and will perform the task on request. But I thought it would best help get back on track to do it this way. YMMV. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- ... that Donald Trump and his attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani spoke to some 300 Republican state legislators in an effort to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/willard-trump-eastman-giuliani-bannon/2021/10/23/c45bd2d4-3281-11ec-9241-aad8e48f01ff_story.html
- Reviewed: None needed
Created by Soibangla (talk). Nominated by FormalDude (talk) at 23:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC).
ALT1: ... that Donald Trump and his attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani spoke to some 300 Republican state legislators to convince them to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election by approving alternate electoral slates?Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
* ALT1 has a better wikilink target; however, there is some preliminary discussion about the article title. I don't know the procedures for DYK nominations (especially if there are deadlines), but ideally the title discussion will wrap up expeditiously, one way or the other, before a DYK goes active. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)- Antony-22, ALT1 is interesting but is too long. Hooks need to be 200 characters at most, yours is 219. The main hook, or the shortened ALT1, may be considered for review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
ALT2a: ... that Donald Trump and his attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani spoke to some 300 Republican state legislators to convince them to approve alternative electoral slates in the 2020 U.S. election?ALT2b: ... that Donald Trump and his attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani spoke to some 300 Republican state legislators to convince them to approve fake electors in the 2020 U.S. election?
There's discussion going on about whether "alternative" or "falsified" is better, so I'm providing both options at this time. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- ALT3:
....(195 characters of readable prose, I think)... that Donald Trump's allies John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani tried to convince more than 300 Republican state legislators to ignore the vote and instead send fake electors to the electoral college in the 2020 US presidential election?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since "fake electors" blows away every other "(adjective) electors" that I have researched, I kinda think the article title should be changed per WP:COMMONNAME NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- That one is even worse, because my character counter shows 230 characters (ALT2a/b have 195 characters, though they may benefit from making the hook shorter). Also, please resolve the alternate/fake elector issue before proceding further. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks for catching that. I didn't realize my version of Word counts characters with... and without spaces. I used the without number.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude and Szmenderowiecki: Where are we with this nomination? Are there any outstanding concerns? Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Both ALT2s pass formal criteria but IDK if they are going to be in DYK. I'm not the one who decides here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude and Szmenderowiecki: Where are we with this nomination? Are there any outstanding concerns? Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks for catching that. I didn't realize my version of Word counts characters with... and without spaces. I used the without number.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Full review needed, including the hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
With the RM now completed, I'm proposing an additional hook. ––FormalDude talk 03:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that Trump's fake electors plot saw his personal attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani speak to some 300 Republican state legislators in an effort to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election?
- I want to point out that calling it "Trump's plot", which is different than the actual article title, is potentially a WP:BLPCRIME issue. It's a fact that the fake electors were voting for Trump, but due to the strictness of BLPCRIME there needs to be at least an indictment and preferably a conviction to give someone "ownership" of a conspiracy. ALT2b does not have these issues. I'll leave it up to the promoter to decide. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Approving original hook --evrik (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Evrik: Can you please explain why you declined ALT2b and ALT4? ––FormalDude talk 20:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Title
This thread is intended as preliminary discussion not a proposal to rename. A lot of RSs say "fake electors". The Jan 6 committee's 7-part plan uses the phrase fake alternate electors with alternate in scarequotes. I'm concerned that "alternate electors" (without the scarequotes) is too imprecise and unintentionally feeds oxygen to the forces that tried to pull this off. Same with "controversy". What about Trump allies' attempt to use fake electors? .... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was thinking about starting this article myself, and was going to use the title Falsified electoral slates in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. "Fake electors" strikes me as being informal and possibly imprecise: the electors were real people; the documents were what were falsified. I agree that reliable sources support using "falsified" or a similar word instead of "alternate" because the people producing the documents were objectively not electors according to the law; if they had been approved by a governor or state legislature then a case could be made that "alternate" would have been more neutral, but that's not the case here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I wrestled with the title quite a bit. What I came down with is that subsequent events would likely lead us to "fraudulent electors controversy" and thence to "fraudulent electors scandal," but for the time being to hedge on that. But with Trump being specifically named as a subject of the DOJ investigation yesterday, we may have crossed the threshold to go that way. soibangla (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Controversy" unintentionally injects a WP:FALSEBALANCE as though there was a wisp of skunk odor from a million miles away that it might have been a legitimate gambit. Most RSs I have seen use "scheme". While not definitive, someone could do a google hits count as I did below for "(adjective) electors".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I wrestled with the title quite a bit. What I came down with is that subsequent events would likely lead us to "fraudulent electors controversy" and thence to "fraudulent electors scandal," but for the time being to hedge on that. But with Trump being specifically named as a subject of the DOJ investigation yesterday, we may have crossed the threshold to go that way. soibangla (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI per WP:COMMONNAME I did a quick GoogleNews search on eight possible phrases. Maybe these weren't the phrases that matter most, so by all means add some more if you like. Short story........ "Fake electors" returned more than 3x the combined number of hits for every other phrase I searched. Overall hits from my searches (rounded to nearest thousand) are....
"(adjective) electors"
- "fake electors" = 96,000
- "alternate electors" = 6,000
- "false electors"=6,000
- "falsified electors"= 3,000
"(adjective) slate"
- "fake slate"=1,000
- "alternate slate"=6,000
- "false slate"=zero (246 rounded down)
- "falsified slate"= 5,000
And it bears repeating that the Jan 6 committee uses
fake "alternate" electors
with alternate in scare quotes... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
How about Trump's fake electors scandal? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Although I like it, note that the Jan 6 committee in their 7partplan describes this component as something done by Trumps allies rather than Trump himself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- We can get around a lot of these issues by excluding words like controversy or scandal, and identifying it by the year rather than having to decide whether Trump or his allies were mainly responsible, something that is under investigation and not even clearly known at this time. The main question now is, should we use "fake electors" (more common) or "falsified electoral slates" (more precise and formal)? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- The fake electors were created to aid Trump, and their fraudulent electoral votes had his name on them as they were for him, hence they can rightly be described as his fake electors. We have several possible elements we could include in a title:
- Who were they for? Trump. The beneficiary should be named.
- The election year. 2020.
- The type of electors. Fake ones.
- The nature of their electoral votes. Fraudulent.
- Result: 2020 fake Trump electoral vote fraud
- How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of these suggestions are unwieldy and not consistent with how articles are typically named on Wikipedia. It seems that the "fake electors" terminology is preferred by most commenters here, and given that there are a lot of existing Wikipedia articles that use the similar term Fake news, I'm going to prefer Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. I'll likely set up an RM soon. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a need for something so wordy. The naming conventions prefer concision when there is no loss of fidelity.
- Trump fake electors scheme, per the NYT (or "plan" if there is any doubt of neutrality) meets the naming criteria. "Scheme" should be sufficient based on how we currently use it in the opening sentence, i.e., instead of saying the controversy is a scheme, just say the subject itself is a scheme. As for the current name, "alternate" is a euphemism that reliable sources do not use nearly as often and the subject of the article is the scheme/plan itself, not the ensuing controversy or the scandal. We also have many reasons to avoid using "controversy" in titles. czar 06:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's been some discussion above as to whether it's appropriate to assert whether Trump himself or Trump's allies were responsible; it's best to avoid that issue by using a year. Most existing related articles do spell out the election: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, Pre-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election, Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election, 2020–21 United States election protests. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)]]
- Czar, I agree that concision is a good thing to remember. I'd also like to address the legitimate concerns of Antony-22. How about Fake Trump electors scheme? Moving "Trump" ensures there is no ambiguity about "who" is "responsible" for the scheme. It makes no difference whether Trump or some underlings were the architects of the scheme. The use of fake Trump electors is the scheme. It's a very concise title that still includes Trump. He must be mentioned as this is a totally unique and new situation, all for him. Nothing done by his underlings is done without his approval or knowledge. The year is unnecessary as this is the only time this has ever happened, and the first sentence provides that information.
- There are no "fake Biden electors", only "fake Trump electors". A section should also be included in the United States Electoral College article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:10, 28 July 2022
- IMO, "fake" is too casual, "false" suggests it could just be a mistake. "Fraudulent" is best. soibangla (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- So Fraudulent Trump electors scheme or Trump fraudulent electors scheme? They don't mean exactly the same thing. The scheme was fraudulent, and the electors were fraudulent. Both are true, but the first covers both, so it's preferable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Wikipedia's guidelines are strict about reflecting reliable sources, especially since this topic involves accusations of criminal activity (like fraud) by living persons. At this time, there not yet been indictments. Also, the investigations are ongoing and there actually is ambiguity about the responsibility and criminal liability of various persons. The fact that there are no Biden fake electors itself means that disambiguation is not needed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- The term "fraud" raises WP:BLPCRIME issues. No one has been indicted yet, let alone convicted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- This subject is far and away more associated with "Trump" than with "2020 U.S. presidential election" in reliable sources. It's also far more often described as "fake electors" than even "false electors". We could quibble about the word order but the most obvious name still appears to be Trump fake electors scheme, with "Trump" as the natural disambiguation from any general "fake electors scheme" (i.e., it is not known as "the fake electors scheme"). Also what part of that title accuses criminal activity? The source material clearly discusses Trump allies as the source of a scheme about "fake electors". It's association between two known entities, not presumption of wrongdoing. czar 00:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- So Fraudulent Trump electors scheme or Trump fraudulent electors scheme? They don't mean exactly the same thing. The scheme was fraudulent, and the electors were fraudulent. Both are true, but the first covers both, so it's preferable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- IMO, "fake" is too casual, "false" suggests it could just be a mistake. "Fraudulent" is best. soibangla (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's been some discussion above as to whether it's appropriate to assert whether Trump himself or Trump's allies were responsible; it's best to avoid that issue by using a year. Most existing related articles do spell out the election: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, Pre-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election, Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election, 2020–21 United States election protests. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)]]
- A lot of these suggestions are unwieldy and not consistent with how articles are typically named on Wikipedia. It seems that the "fake electors" terminology is preferred by most commenters here, and given that there are a lot of existing Wikipedia articles that use the similar term Fake news, I'm going to prefer Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. I'll likely set up an RM soon. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Antony-22, I see your point, so let's wait with the "fraudulent" until there are convictions or until it is the word of choice by RS (we follow RS regardless of BLP, which only forbids "unsourced" negative content). So far "fake" seems the most common description. So now we're back to these two:
Shall we make an RfC to see which one people prefer? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not see "Trump" as a disambiguator, but as an accurate description. They were literally only used for Trump. The Trump electors were fake, hence fake Trump electors scheme. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
We could also use "plot", rather than "scheme", as it's the more commonly used word:
- Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results)
- Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results)
Should we do that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- These sorts of words all have nuanced connotations that make them inadvisable for article titles. They also lead to a lot of wasted effort in discussing them: recall how long it took to decide whether Jan. 6 was an attack, storming, insurrection, or riot. My preference is to avoid these words completely and focus on "fake electors" as the core noun phrase. If we are to use such phrases, there would need to be a strong WP:COMMONNAME argument, but I doubt that any such phrase is dominant enough that it could be considered part of the name itself rather than as a descriptor.
- For consistency reasons, I looked at existing usage of these terms in Wikipedia article titles. I can't find any article titles that use "scheme" for a specific illicit action, only for general classes like Pyramid scheme and Get-rich-quick scheme. Some articles do have "plot", but they all seem to be assassination attempts, predominantly in England: Gunpowder Plot, 20 July plot, Throckmorton Plot, Popish Plot, Babington Plot, Main Plot, Bojinka plot, Doctors' plot, Lithgow Plot. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- ??? I just provided abundant evidence of usage above: Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results) and Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results). That's impressive enough for us to follow per common name, especially the last search phrase justifies a title of Trump fake electors plot. We follow what RS say, no matter what other things exist here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, 79k vs. 55k is not that big of a difference, especially since those are not the only terms in use. A slim plurality doesn't mean it's the common name, it means that there is no common name. Also, people (even experienced editors) often forget that WP:COMMONNAME is just one of several title WP:CRITERIA: consistency is explicitly one of these criteria, that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", so it can't be dismissed as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not enough of a difference to be the sole determinative factor. We're just discussing switching two words in the current title, and there are compelling reasons why the two words HAVE to go:
- "Alternate" has to go because it is the misleading word chosen by the perpetrators. It's literal propaganda.
- "Controversy" has to go as there is no controversy in RS. All RS agree these electors were fake and part of a fraudulent election scheme/plot to steal the election.
- Current: Trump
alternateelectorscontroversy - Proposed: Trump fake electors plot/scheme
- "Fake" and "plot" or "scheme" enjoy massive usage in RS.
- No, 79k vs. 55k is not that big of a difference, especially since those are not the only terms in use. A slim plurality doesn't mean it's the common name, it means that there is no common name. Also, people (even experienced editors) often forget that WP:COMMONNAME is just one of several title WP:CRITERIA: consistency is explicitly one of these criteria, that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", so it can't be dismissed as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- ??? I just provided abundant evidence of usage above: Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results) and Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results). That's impressive enough for us to follow per common name, especially the last search phrase justifies a title of Trump fake electors plot. We follow what RS say, no matter what other things exist here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The proposed changes are not a big deal. We should have gotten this done hours ago. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Trump fake electors plot is better than the current title. I don't object to making that move now. I'm not convinced it's the best title or that it's really in line with policy, and there could still potentially be an RfC or RM in the future. I think we've both made our points, and I'd like to hear from others so that we don't monopolize the discussion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, going back to the Google News search: "fake electors" has 105k hits, "fake electors plot" has 25k, "fake electors dispute" has 16k, "fake electors scheme" has 7k, and other terms like conspiracy, fraud, and controversy have fewer than 200 each. Clearly, "fake electors" alone is much more common than any alternative. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Trump fake electors scheme seems like the best option presented so far. ––FormalDude talk 07:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it's an improvement. FormalDude, is there any particular reason you lean more toward "scheme" than the more commonly used "plot"? Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results) vs Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results). Plot implies secrecy more than scheme, and there is clear evidence that many of the involved tried to keep it secret and used misleading words to describe what they were doing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with either one I suppose. ––FormalDude talk 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it's an improvement. FormalDude, is there any particular reason you lean more toward "scheme" than the more commonly used "plot"? Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results) vs Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results). Plot implies secrecy more than scheme, and there is clear evidence that many of the involved tried to keep it secret and used misleading words to describe what they were doing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- The proposed changes are not a big deal. We should have gotten this done hours ago. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Video (18:49): "Inside Trump's Election Plot" on YouTube (MSNBC News); July 29, 2022 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 28 July 2022
RM paused by nominator to allow time for more unstructured discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
{{requested move/dated|Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidential election}} Trump alternate electors controversy → Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidential election – Several reasons:
Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
|
RfC: New title proposal
A good discussion about a better title exists above, and we seem to have boiled it down to two options that are widely used, with "plot" being used 45% more than "scheme". While search results are an important consideration, other factors may be seen as more important, so please provide reasons for your choice:
- Trump fake electors scheme Search: Trump "fake electors scheme" (54,800 results)
- Trump fake electors plot Search: Trump "fake electors plot" (79,400 results)
Which one do you prefer? Please !vote Scheme or Plot and explain why. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Plot. I feel both portray essentially the same meaning, and therefore it seems logical to choose the one that more people will be searching for, which appears to be "plot". ––FormalDude talk 22:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Scheme I agree that both present essentially the same meaning, but I would encourage looking through the results to see at what page you stop getting consistent RS's. Excluding what it felt are duplicates, Google found 101 results for "scheme" and 69 for "plot". Including duplicates, I found that scheme resulted in significantly more pages of RS results. BrigadierG (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidental election for several reasons:
- "Fake electors" alone appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. In a Google News search, "fake electors" has 105k hits, "fake electors plot" has 25k, "fake electors dispute" has 16k, "fake electors scheme" has 7k, and other terms like conspiracy, fraud, and controversy have fewer than 200 each. Clearly, "fake electors" alone is much more common than any alternative.
- There is no grammatical or disambiguation reason for adding a descriptive term such as "plot" or "scheme".
- While the proposed terms are not as bad as some others, they are in a grey area for WP:BLPCRIME issues, especially since there have been no criminal indictments as of yet, let alone convictions. The lead of the Conspiracy article describes "plot" as a synonym for "conspiracy", which is a crime, and existing article titles using the term "plot" all seem to be assassination attempts and occasionally kidnapping attempts: Gunpowder Plot, 20 July plot, Throckmorton Plot, Popish Plot, Babington Plot, Main Plot, Bojinka plot, Doctors' plot, Lithgow Plot. Additionally, there has been some discussion above about whether Donald Trump himself or Trump's allies were responsible for the scheme, something which has not yet been tested in a court of law.
- Consistency with existing article titles is explicitly part of the article naming WP:CRITERIA. Most existing related articles make reference to the relevant election: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, Pre-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election. (Note that this criterion is explicitly part of the article title policy, so it is not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.) However, I suppose those who prefer concision may support simply Fake electors as the article title; it is similar to a series of existing titles containing the term "Fake news".
- Antony-22, you're repeating what you already wrote above and it got no traction, so it's a waste of time here. Your method of searching is totally flawed. To illustrate, you're essentially saying the title of the Ford Mustang article should be Ford because "Ford" is more frequently found in searches than Ford Mustang.
- Concision is preferable. This is all about Trump, and only Trump, so use his name. The nitty-gritty of who, among those who were doing all of this for him and with his knowledge and consent, came up with and developed the plan, is explained. The reason plot and scheme are good terms is because this was a secret operation.
- RS, not BLP crime, rule here. We describe and use the terminology used by RS. Note that we are not suggesting adding the word "treasonous" to the title as that is used by few RS.
- Your suggested title hasn't gotten any traction either, whereas the suggested titles in this RfC have support. As mentioned above, the exact number of Google hits is not the only factor, so it comes down to personal preference. Which is the better title than the one we have? "Alternate" has to go as it is a deliberately misleading propaganda term used by the plotters. "Controversy" has to go as well, because there is no controversy in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Google's initial count is generally wrong. If I scroll to the last page of results on Google News, I get around ~175 articles for "fake electors plan", ~224 articles for "fake electors plot", and ~218 articles for "fake electors scheme". You may get different numbers if you click those links. There's no point arguing for a title based on which of those numbers are bigger, as these numbers are similar, all generally wrong, and there's 20 different ways you can try and generate them. The only thing you can gather from this is that those three phrases are used a similar amount in sources, so your argument should be based on something else, I think. Endwise (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Gonna go with "fake electors scheme" here. Seems to be the language used in more encyclopedia-style reporting in the media (which is what Wikipedia should go for), e.g. "explainers" like: The Fake Electors Scheme, Explained (NY Times), What to know about the Trump 'fake electors' scheme (CNN). Additionally, "plot" sounds a bit judgemental in tone, and we should strive to use clinical, non-judgemental language where possible. Endwise (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Plot. I guess I better voice my view. I tend to favor "plot" as it more accurately implies the secrecy involved. Fake Trump electors in Ga. told to shroud plans in ‘secrecy,’ email shows -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)