Talk:Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election

NPOV tag

Editor 169.233.113.51 has placed the NPOV language tag at the top of the page. I see the editor added the tag on a specific passage which I believe has been resolved here

169.233.113.51, please cite any other NPOV issues you perceive so they might be swiftly resolved and the NPOV language tag can be removed. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

169.233.113.51 previously tagged the words unprecedented efforts as buzzword[1]. if there is no followup on this within 24 hours, I will conclude this NPOV tag was a specious drive-by and remove it, per 2 and 3:[2] soibangla (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Essay

Added Template:Essay-like to this page because the tone is un-encyclopedic. It is unstructured and reads more like a story being told than a Wikipedia article, with several sweeping, nonspecific, and weasel-word statements (e.g. "Republicans have for decades sought evidence of what they allege is rampant voting fraud", "A notable quote that has been used as evidence of bad faith efforts to address voter fraud...") Additionally, the overwhelming majority of edits on this page are from one user, User:Soibangla. This page should be cleaned up to better reflect Wikipedia's tone.

Myconix (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I encourage others to contribute to the article to eliminate any perception that it reads like an essay reflecting personal feelings, as the article includes copious reliable sources that fully support its content and I have made deliberate efforts to write in a flat and neutral tone. I invite Myconix to contribute to ameliorate their specific concerns. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Myconix I'm having some trouble understanding what you mean by "sweeping, nonspecific, and weasel-word statements" with the examples you cite.

Republicans have for decades sought evidence of what they allege is rampant voting fraud is supported by Time magazine with Republicans have spent decades searching for and cataloging purported cases of voter fraud. That Time story is entitled "How Republicans Are Selling the Myth of Rampant Voter Fraud." I don't see your other example is "sweeping, nonspecific, and weasel-word," as it quickly leads to a salient direct quote.

The reason I'm pretty much all alone on this article so far is similar to why I was pretty much all alone on Project 2025 for months: not many were talking about it, then a couple things happened and suddenly everybody was talking about it. I wasn't writing a personal essay about my feelings, then or now. As the NYT reported here, the efforts had "been quietly playing out in courts, statehouses and county boards for months, and is concentrated in critical battlegrounds." This week some of those efforts, in Georgia, got wide coverage in NYT, WaPo, CNN and AP. This story is now coming into wider view, just as P25 eventually did.

In previous articles I've created, in the early days I've focused on getting content into the article, and other editors have helped with structure by creating subsections, moving parapraphs, copyediting text, and adding content. Maybe others will participate as the topic comes into wider view.

I am not making up anything here, I am not presenting my opinions, I am not expressing my feelings, I am not using weak sources. I encourage you to thoroughly examine the copious reliable sources to confirm the article text faithfully portrays them.

This is a brief synopsis of why I believe the Essay tag should be removed. It essentially says "this entire article is one person's opinion and should be ignored, and ultimately removed." I don't see a reasonable basis for such a sweeping dismissal of the article. soibangla (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not with the sources or the facts presented in them, it's with the fact that you're presenting barely-edited quotes from op-eds, something you just admitted to doing in justifying your Time Magazine citation, and not even making note of it - forget tone, that's plagiarism. Wikipedia is not an op-ed, and it is not your personal soapbox.

If I must point out the issues with those two lines in particular:

"Republicans have for decades sought evidence of what they allege is rampant voting fraud" - Which Republicans? How many decades? This line is vague and doesn't address any specific instance of Republicans accusing others of voting fraud. I'm sure the Time Magazine article has a particular example - that's what should go here, not an expository statement that vaguely references something else.

"A notable quote that has been used as evidence of bad faith efforts to address voter fraud..." - Notable to whom? Used as evidence where? "A notable quote" is obvious weasel wording. Cite the person you're trying to quote, and don't try to give it greater implications than that unless you can back them up - and even then, don't just say "well a lot of people think it's notable," provide names.

I don't have the time or energy to go through and nitpick this entire article. Again, I don't take issue with the facts in this article, just how they are being presented.

Myconix (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

you're presenting barely-edited quotes from op-eds is simply false, it's a news article.

that's plagiarism no it is adequately distanced paraphrasing.

Which Republicans? How many decades? it has been a persistent and pervasive theme of the Republican Party, Using data going back to 1982.[3] at least.

if you have problems with specific phrases, then editing them or using or is better than making a blanket assertion that the whole thing is an opinion piece, which suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT. if you don't have the time or energy to go through and nitpick this entire article, then I suggest you should not place a tag atop the article declaring it an opinion piece. soibangla (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see where this is going. I'm going to request a third opinion on this real quick.

Myconix (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you to soibangla (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if my opinion on the subject is worth anything but the only problem I see is 'wall-of-textness'; it would be easier to read if it was broken up into more sections/subsections. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I found your comments on a different recent discussion to be particularly perceptive, so I think your view here counts for a lot. but yeah, it's a wall o'text and I will take a shot at segmenting it, though I dread this kinda work because I'm just not very good at it soibangla (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is currently a soapbox, and does not even begin to approach NPOV. Just10A (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

if the article is currently perceived as non-compliant with NPOV, I recommend others contribute to the article to mitigate such concerns. one might begin by closely examining the many reliable sources and seek to demonstrate that the article text does not accurately depict them, either in content or tone. alternately, one might take the article to AfD. if an AfD were to succeed, that's fine, I can deal with it. soibangla (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Very biased

I agree that this page is written like an essay written by someone who hates the Republican Party and believes Trump is Hitler. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a chronology of all the things that people think the Republicans have done. There are other sites to do that. I hope my fellow wiki editors will agree with me in saying that there is no place for bias in a public encyclopedia. Wikiwriter2.0bytheomorg (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikiwriter2.0bytheomorg If you perceive a passage, sentence, phrase or word that indicates bias, I strongly encourage you to edit the article to eliminate such bias, or at least cite it here. oftentimes, I have seen editors come to Talk pages and allege POV but don't make any effort to identify it, let alone fix it, which tends to suggest that the content simply does not comport with their POV. many such editors also make their vague POV allegation and simply walk away. please don't do that. soibangla (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Facts are not forms of "bias". Evidence and data is not an example of "POV". Reality exists. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Poll watchers, registration challenges and election law attorneys are present in every single election. They are not evidence of "disruption", the democrats utilize poll watchers and challenge registrations across the country. They challenged various petitions and registrations of voters to eliminate various third party candidates over the past couple of months alone.XavierGreen (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If you perceive a passage, sentence, phrase or word that indicates bias, I strongly encourage you to edit the article to eliminate such bias, or at least cite it here. oftentimes, I have seen editors come to Talk pages and allege POV but don't make any effort to identify it, let alone fix it, which tends to suggest that the content simply does not comport with their POV. many such editors also make their vague POV allegation and simply walk away. please don't do that. 68.102.154.86 (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I previously wrote that verbatim, but not here. just sayin' soibangla (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Essay tag

Three editors have variously characterized this article as:

• un-encyclopedic. It is unstructured and reads more like a story being told than a Wikipedia article, with several sweeping, nonspecific, and weasel-word statements using op-eds, though there are no op-eds, only many reliable sources reporting specifics that support the article. I have since added sections to provide structure.

• currently a soapbox, and does not even begin to approach NPOV, without further elaboration for substantiation

• written by someone who hates the Republican Party and believes Trump is Hitler

Despite my efforts to engage the editors in further discussion, there has been no subsequent response.

Consequently, I will remove the Essay tag within 48 hours unless there is further discussion to justify it. As I noted, WP:AFD remains an option that I do not oppose.

Myconix Wikiwriter2.0bytheomorg Just10A soibangla (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is engaging in further discussion with you about it because you're engaging in plainly bad-faith argumentation over it. If two other editors have had issues with WP:NPOV, that's all the more reason to keep the tag. Do what you want, I don't particularly care, just don't tag me. Myconix (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits to rectify Bias

Hello all. I took a stab at rectifying some bias in the first sections of the article. I hope it is clear that I am coming at this from a constructive perspective. Gintowe (talk) 5:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you Gintowe, I'll take a look. in the meantime, please would you elaborate a bit on the general nature of the bias you identified and corrected, and cite specific examples illustrating it? soibangla (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Gintowe, I don't see how your revised lead reflects the article title at all, and I find your edit to be too sweeping to easily digest, so I will revert it and encourage you to make smaller, incremental edits that are easier to follow and discuss. soibangla (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Title change?

I feel like the title is very openly interpreted in a good or bad way. “Republican Party” is a very broad term to describe this situation. Why can’t it just be efforts to disrupt the election? The label is unneeded. It doesn’t matter if supposedly only one side is doing a certain thing. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

new tags for tone/style and synth

I look forward to QuicoleJR opening a discussion about them here. soibangla (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Tone: The article is worded similarly to a persuasive essay. For example, "falsely" or a synonym shows up in every other sentence. I agree that the claims are false but this seems excessive.

Synthesis: The sources used in the article seem to mostly focus on individual activities. The article does not seem to contain many sources talking about the efforts in general.

If you disagree with these assessments, please feel free to explain why. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

QuicoleJR please provide specific examples of how something shows up in every other sentence, and how sources that mostly focus on individual activities do not reflect what the lead says, as the article sources show there are efforts by many

please do not seek to place the onus on me to explain your rationales. you placed the tags, it is incumbent on you to provide specific examples why. soibangla (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

QuicoleJR if a substantive response is not soon forthcoming, I will be inclined to conclude the tags constitute WP:IDONTLIKEIT drive-bys and I will swiftly remove them. I encourage others to participate with specifics to justify the tags. Bad vibes don't count. soibangla (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was sleeping. The tone of the article is similar to the tone used by many of the news sources in the article, which is not the tone an encyclopedia should use. I will be making a few edits to fix this. As for the synthesis, this article is about the efforts as a group. Most of the sources only deal with individual efforts, and are not about the whole group. I was not able to find any sources in the list that are about the efforts as a whole, although I might have missed something. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

QuicoleJR please advise when you have made sufficient changes to ameliorate your concerns such that the tags you added might be removed.

I note that in one instance you (dubiously) objected to repeated use of the term false, but then oddly changed the term baseless to the term false in a subheading, though this article is not about proven false allegations of the past, but rather baseless allegations of the future. we cannot yet determine that events of the future are false, but only that they are baseless with current information. soibangla (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

QuicoleJR do you have further contributions to make, or should we conclude your concerns have been addressed so the tags you placed can be removed? soibangla (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You also have included massive sections in the article on things you allege to be "disruption" that are done by both parties in every single election and thus are not "disruption". For example having ballot access challenges, poll watchers and teams of lawyers. Every presidential election, senate election, and many congressional races do this. One merely needs to look at the Bush v. Gore election to see a good example of how lawyers and poll challengers have been used in the past. Indeed, the Democrats themselves this election have huge numbers of poll watchers and attorneys helping them this year and organized an entire PAC solely dedicated to denying third party candidates ballot access. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, this article is plainly a giant NPOV and SNYTH violation.XavierGreen (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

XavierGreen I am fully aware that both parties engage in maneuvering in advance of elections. I encourage you to present sources to demonstrate that current Republican Party efforts are typical, rather than unprecedented, as the article includes numerous reliable sources reporting about these Republican Party efforts, rather than any comparable Democratic Party efforts. Closely examine the sources. There is abundant reliably-sourced reason why the Republican Party is being reported as engaged in disruption rather than the Democratic Party, even without needing to consider Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. soibangla (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is a source from the last election that states both parties were recruiting thousands of poll watchers. [4] It happens every single election. As noted in said article, the democrats usually have a great many more poll watchers than republicans do. The only thing different this year is that Republicans are making a concerted effort to recruit poll watchers, which is something that usually only the democrats do heavily. Thus, your entire section on same is one giant NPOV violation. XavierGreen (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't seek a conflict with you, but your edit gives me little confidence that you have thoroughly and carefully read and understood this article. the article and its subject are complicated and do not lend themselves to easy understanding, especially by those who have not taken a deep dive into the subject, or at least slowly and carefully examined the article text and sources.

previously you said a sentence was unsourced and you removed it, rather than simply tagging it with , then I promptly showed the sentence was sourced in sentence 2 of reference 1.[5] this also did not give me confidence that you have carefully read the article. soibangla (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

XavierGreen if you maintain this article is plainly a giant NPOV and SNYTH violation but decline to nominate it for deletion, but instead make sweeping removals of content, I am inclined to wonder if, as self-declared reactionary[6], you simply do not like the article, and I intend to remove the tags within days. still, I encourage you to open an AfD so we can find a consensus. I am eager to see a lively discussion and fully accept its outcome. soibangla (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

XavierGreen I hasten to add, as I have here before, amid a dearth of efforts to amend the article to mitigate its perceived failings, I encourage the article be nominated for deletion. If amending the article or an AFD are not soon forthcoming, I intend to remove the tags. soibangla (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

XavierGreen, I have repeatedly asked editors to amend the article to mitigate any of the concerns they have voiced, but no significant changes have been made. apart from two edits you made to gut the article[7], then walked away without taking it to Talk, the only edit you have made since was easily shown to be incorrect with existing sources within minutes.

if you insist this article is plainly a giant NPOV and SNYTH violation, I suggest it is imperative that you nominate it for deletion. certainly, a plainly giant NPOV and SNYTH article should not survive another moment. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

article vandalized

this article has been vandalized. recent changes should be reverted Warpfrz (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Partisan

Very biased, partisan article. Democrat propaganda. Should be deleted entirely. JDiala (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Facts and objective reality exist. Enumerating them is not evidence of bias. If you see any factual inaccuracies, please go ahead and correct them. There is no case for deletion because this is a relevant article about an important event. MadScientist (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Page preparations for Election Day and post-election litigation

I would like to suggest a few things:

1. Enacting indefinite semi-protection to the page owing to consistent vandalism from IP addresses and new users, the lack of constructive edits from new users, and for being on an extremely controversial topic.

2. Renaming the page post-Election Day to Republican preparations to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election if Trump loses.

3. The creation of a separate Republican attempts to overturn the 2024 United States presidential election page that will cover post-Election Day developments and will link to this page in the background section.

I believe this renaming and creation of a separate page will be important to prevent this page from becoming too big and having content trimmed owing to length concerns once Trump contests and attempts to overturn the 2024 election if he loses.

Furthermore, I believe Republican works better than saying Republican Party. It would also follow the naming convention in Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. However, this is not a major sticking point to me. BootsED (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on all suggestions, including renaming to exclude 'Party' Superb Owl (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on all suggestions. The existence of so many Republicans supporting the Democratic candidate suggests these efforts are not an official, united course of action. Maykiwi (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Why no sister page?

If the author is so adamant that the page is non-biased, why is there not an equal page created discussing Democratic Party attempts; "Democratic Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election"? 203.221.42.249 (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Find sufficient reliable sources and start one. Noone is stopping you. Or consider that maybe Democrats do not want to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election and you are just disinformed? YBSOne (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)