Talk:Trump fake electors plot

Potential BLP-Crime issues

From the article it looks like only one(?) person involved in this has been convicted. Therefore I think the wording needs to perhaps be more careful so as not to give the impression that someone has been found to have committed a crime, when there is not a conviction, per WP:BLPCRIME. This could be done, for instance, by the use of the word "allegedly" or with some kind of attribution in parts Tristario (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The Georgia election racketeering prosecution has thus far resulted in four guilty pleas: Hall, Chesebro, Powell, and Ellis. Other charges are though still pending. Where does wording need to be changed to make that clear? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This article says three of those guilty pleas were for charges not relating to the fake electors though? But that does seem like a fairly key detail to include in the lede, which it doesn't seem to be currently

In terms of where the wording needs to be changed - it's a bit tricky to answer that as I'm not completely sure the right way to approach this. If we say the scheme was to commit fraud, and we say someone devised the scheme, that could be reasonably interpreted as saying that person commited a criminal act, which we can't really say without a conviction.

One option could be to tone down the use of the word "fraudulent" and rather say there have been prosecutions, investigations, and guilty pleas for fraud, and use other words like "illegitimate certificates". Or alternatively make use of words like "alleged" and "according to" Tristario (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe all four guilty pleas relate to this, as all 18 indictments in Georgia stemmed from the fake electors probe. Georgia election racketeering prosecution#Guilty pleas shows the pleas were for "Conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties", "Conspiracy to commit filing false documents", and "Aiding and abetting false statements and writings". I didn't see what this article says about it yet. I did briefly check the article when replying to your post and did see that the words "alleged" and "allegations" are in use. Maybe they're not used in enough places. I can look more closely later, and hopefully others will as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidental election" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidental election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 9 § Fake electors in the 2020 U.S. presidental election until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about Bias

The article uses “plot” and “fake electors,” which may violate WP:NPOV. “Fraudulent” is common in sources (e.g., CNN), but the overall tone feels one-sided and biased. Additionally there is at least one reference that violates WP:RS.Cajundome24 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Plot and fake electors are also common in the sources. They consider it a plot using fake electors, so Wikipedia describes it as a plot using fake electors. I'd be open to a more formal word than plot, but it's not an NPOV issue if it generally aligns with the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe that a word like "Strategy", sound less biased then "Plot". Cajundome24 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Is strategy used as frequently or more frequently than plot in reliable sources to describe this? They decide the wording, not us. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by biased. Because plot in this context is used to describe when something is done unlawfully. So it seems they’re using it correctly and without bias. If anything “strategy” is biased because it’s vague and passive; “plot” gets it right to the point. 24.184.110.182 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I think there is an issue (as someone who agrees 100% with the factual content of the article) with the overuse of variations of the words "false/fake/fraudulent" throughout the article. By inserting it so repeatedly everywhere it honestly undermines the message, unnecessarily adding an air of desperation. —Megiddo1013 14:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)