Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Joe Biden isn't Catholic

He has been banned from getting Communion from the Catholic Church. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17catholics.html?bl&ex=1221883200&en=1e3acb5115249581&ei=5087%0A Blueshocker (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueshocker, he's still a Catholic.[1][2] Cardinal Dolan has said he would give Biden communion.[3] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Gross, he still supports abortion Blueshocker (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueshocker, your opinion is noted, but not relevant. Stick with discussing the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC Awaiting Closure ("Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(here following a request at WP:AN/RFC (permalink)) Participants at this RfC were divided between those who supported the addition of "and sexual assault" ("supports") and those who prefer the status quo ("opposes").

Supports argue that including "and sexual assault" more accurately describes the section (because it contains an allegation of sexual assault), that reliable sources refer to the Reade allegation as an allegation of "sexual assault", wording that we should echo, and that alternatives are too euphemistic.

Opposes argue that reliable secondary sources have "given [] little credence" to the allegation, that "inappropriate physical contact" broadly encompasses all of the allegations, that the proposed wording misleadingly implies more than one allegation of sexual assault (because of the plurality of the word "Allegations"), that inclusion of the term "sexual assault" in the header gives that allegation undue weight because the Reade allegation has received much less backing in reliable sources compared with the other allegations presented in that section, and that these flaws constitute BLP problems for the proposed change.

In response, the supports argue that it is undisputed and well sourced that there is an allegation of sexual assault, and the header does not state in Wikipedia's voice that an assault occurred, avoiding NPOV problems.

In closing this discussion, I also incorporated the comments of the previous archived discussion as if they were voiced in this discussion due to how recent that discussion was when this RfC was opened.

Overall, there is no consensus in favor of the proposed change and rough consensus that using the words "sexual assault" in the header, and especially any implication that there were multiple accusations of sexual assault, gives undue weight to the Reade allegation and should therefore not be included. And, as a general matter, in the absence of rough affirmative consensus for the inclusion of a potentially sensitive term on a BLP, principles of caution should apply and we should err on the side of presenting content responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Questions about this close are always welcome. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header (request made here on 24 August.) petrarchan47คุก 16:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this RfC is still open. Feel free to uncollapse to leave new comments. petrarchan47คุก 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the header "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" be changed to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault"?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes (as proposer)- the current heading is misleading as it downplays the sexual assualy allegation made by Tara Reade. The alleged act goes beyond just inappropriate physical contact.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation. If in doubt, sacrifice conciseness for precision. The current version in unacceptable, so I would also support Rusf10's proposal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To be precise, the heading would have to read "Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and one 2020 allegation of sexual assault in 1993." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• No The sexual assault allegation is not that significant overall because mainstream media has given it little credence. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL that predicts what will become big news stories. Ethically that would be wrong, because it would mean that Wikipedia was pushing what editors found important, rather than what the body of reliable sources found important. TFD (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Moved to Discussion. userdude 11:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• No - Mentioning sexual assault in the heading of a section surely requires extraordinary proof, otherwise the subject of the article would suffer guilt by association. To me, that's a BLP violation. I really don't know why we are having this discussion yet again. It seems pointlessly distruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We have proof that the allegation exists; nothing in policy says we need more proof than that.  There is no consensus for the current version, so we must continue to seek consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, you seem determined to make sure Joe Biden's article has "sexual assault" in a section heading, even though there is no proof a sexual assault occurred. Surely that is a BLP violation? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes because that's what the sources call it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per all of the reasons laid out by the majority of editors who did not want "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" in the previous discussion. There should especially be no insinuation that there are multiple allegations of sexual assault; we must exercise caution on a BLP topic. And let me again echo the point first raised by SelfieCity: a link to the sexual assault allegation page already immediately follows the header, and thus this change seems neither necessary nor warranted. RedHotPear (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per the reasons given by TFD and Scjessey.Smeat75 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes #MeToo! 2A00:1370:812C:1186:1D5F:664B:1B27:845C (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)— 2A00:1370:812C:1186:1D5F:664B:1B27:845C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• No (and this ↑ one is a WP:SPA) - This is bad idea for so many reasons as I have stated in previous discussions. This relentless effort to add sexual assault to a heading in a biography that spans decades or a public servant's life and career is contrary to several Wikipedia policies, not the least of which is WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 02:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think all you said in the previous discussion was that "allegations" implies there was more than one sexual assault allegation, and you felt the current heading was appropriate to encompass all incidents.[4] The first concern is addressed by using Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and allegation of sexual assault. Your WP:UNDUE argument has nothing to do with the heading. Reade's allegation is in the article, therefore the heading must reflect that. If you believe sticking fingers in a vagina is described as "inappropriate physical contact", you're going to have to provide sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not how headings work. - MrX 🖋 14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• No There has only been one allegation of sexual assault, and it appears to be very questionable. Putting anything about sexual assault in the section heading violates WP:UNDUE. Samboy (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to us (or the New York Times) to decide whether the allegation is true. Reliable sources have reported it.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It very much is up to reliable sources to guide us in knowing how much weight is due weight. Just because the NYT has an article on flat Earth theories does not mean we have to edit Earth to give it a section on allegations that it is flat, since the NYT article makes it clear flat Earth theories are not true. Likewise, just because the New York Times has articles on the allegations does not mean we need to imply the allegations are reliable or have a section header about them. The New York Times is a reliable source, as is Politico, and they show strong evidence placing doubt on the allegation, which makes putting the allegation in the header a WP:UNDUE violation.  Samboy (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about the specific sexual assault allegation matters except that it exists in the article, and the subheading must encompass that.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, how reliable the allegations are matter when determining whether to give them due weight. There are allegations that the Earth is flat, The New York Times have talked about them, yet Earth doesn’t have a section on “allegations the Earth is flat”—because the allegations are unreliable. Likewise, we shouldn’t have a big section header about the sex assault allegation (singluar, very singular indeed) because it’s not a particularly reliable allegation. Samboy (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Flat Earth has a whole article of it's own and the Earth page directly links to it. Shadess (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t have its own section, and this discussion was (is?) about a section header. Samboy (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Samboy WP:UNDUE doesn’t work that way. A great many RS chose to take it seriously enough to print it. It is WP:DUE a prominence in proportion to its coverage. And to convey whatever they said about it - again, in proportion to the coverage. You would have to look at more than just NYT to get a more general view of what things were said, in what proportion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Markbassett, is there any new news about this allegation? This discussion is from two months ago. Samboy (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In particular, the only recent reliable discussion about this allegation is from an opinion piece published by The Hill, which states that this a “discredited allegation by a former staffer that more than a quarter century ago Biden sexually assaulted her in the public hallways of a Senate office building.” Is there any recent reliable discussion about this discredited allegation I am missing? Samboy (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Samboy Sure, there’s a number of other mentions this month in addition to the zillion over months prior that made it DUE, although there seems not much change this month. They don’t generally call it discredited. Maybe you didn’t try the right search terms or had some unstated filter. Googling just Tara Reade within the last month gets hits, and some examples follow in rough order and chosen to show that it’s remembered/mentioned in diverse places.

a few samples, Cheers Markbassett

8 July Fox talking head mentioning her gofundme page and alleging NYT reporter misconduct 30 June Boston Herald column, ranting on Bidens flubs 9 July Lawsuit filed against University of Delaware witholding access his papers about this. 8 July Same topic 15 July On a photo of Biden and Zoe Baird gone viral as mistaken for Tara Reade 19 July Commentator on why he discounted but now believes her 11 July CBS on effect to his campaign 28 June Politico on Bernie’s student army learning to live with Biden, despite allegations etc 9 July The Independent, that ‘Creepy Trump’ attack ads follow Biden allegations 4 July PBS, what Biden staffers think about it 2 July ABCnews.go Tammy Duckworth, potential running mate, addresses the allegations 16 July Bari Weiss was too good for NYT - commentary makes side mention of Tara Reade Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, that is the weakest collection of references I have ever seen put up for a prominent American Politics article. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Specs, that seems pretty silly. First, you’re misguided - they were not a reference they were answering a question that several months later it’s still being put in print. Second, your claim seems absurd - you are calling The Independent, Fox, CBS, PBS, ChicagoSun, BostonHerald, Politico, etcetera “the weakest” makes no sense. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Back atcha, my friend. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• No per previous discussion, accuracy and the need to maintain NPOV. Volunteer Marek 08:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - I agree with what MrX & Scjessey wrote. We should be careful not to violate BLP, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - As a reminder, section headings are meant to conform to the same rules as article titles. Per WP:NDESC they should be neutral and non judgmental. Words like "allegation" are meant to be avoided, except where the entire article (or in this case, section) is about a criminal allegation, which this is clearly not. On that basis, "allegation of sexual assault" (or a variation of same) would violate Wikipedia's WP:AT policy, and hence WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire section is about accusations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation. The entire section is about those things collectively. Sexual assault is a criminal allegation. Tara Reade did file a police report, not that that would be necessary for it to be a criminal allegation. It doesn't matter that the statue of limitations is past. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "1993 sexual assault allegation," and there is no "criminal sexual assault" allegation because Reade never filed any such thing in 1993 or any other time. In fact, there isn't even a 2019 sexual assault allegation. There is an allegation that began in March 2020 alleging sexual assault where reliable sources report that Reade made zero mention of sexual assault, or Joe Biden, or criminal sexual assault in any filed complaint in 1993. So, as of right now, reliable sources have reported an allegation that, according to 5/23/2020 Washington Post [5], has many "inconsistencies" in it. Scjessey is correct as per WP:NDESC headings should be neutral and we should also be very careful not to violate WP:BLP. As a food-for-thought: since April 2017 reliable sources have reported that Donald Trump accuses President Obama of illegally wiretapping; and yet there is no heading that says, "allegations of criminal wiretapping" in Obama's wp page. The point is, just because reliable sources report an allegation of crime against a public figure, does not mean WP editors should violate WP:BLP, WP:NDESC, or WP:NPOV. BetsyRMadison (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and allegation of sexual assault" then. The allegation is already in the article, so there is no new BLP issue created by adding "allegation of sexual assault" to the header. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)  

• Yes that's what the allegation of Tara is, it is an allegation of sexual assault.- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• No I appreciate the rationale for this suggestion and I'd generally agree, and at one point I did agree. However as the circumstances of this accusation have unfolded I've come to agree with editors MrX and TFD who both sum up very well why no changes should be made. Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• No and this seems to be a good idea why this wikipedia should take more time in editing current events, as haste to cover a current event leads to too much backtracking down the road. The "assault" portion of Reade's claim has been effectively debunked. Zaathras (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• No This was just settled after extensive discusssion. The proposed wording, and similar alternatives eagerly put forth, falsely imply that there has been more than the lone allegation of assault. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Note to closer: Betsy Madison is an SPA and last I checked, has only edited this topic. The RfC question is whether we should actually say what is in the section. Yes, of course. The section includes In March 2020, Tara Reade, who had formerly accused Biden of inappropriate physical contact, accused Biden of sexual assault. The section heading is about allegations, not the result of any investigations finding any party guilty. There has been no formal investigation although Reade has offered to testify under oath and to undergo cross examination, as well as take a lie detector test if Biden does also. For now all we have is media doing a one-sided "investigation" about things that have nothing to do with 1993. Realize that when her lawyer quit representing her, he added that he does believe her allegation to be true. While not providing a reason for leaving, Mr. Wigdor said his decision was “by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” adding that he was among the 55 percent of Americans who believe her, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll.* Whether he actually committed the crime or not, the section we are naming is about allegations, that's it. An allegation is not a "judgement". Biden was accused of sexual assault, that is a verifiable fact. WE ARE NOT SAYING HE IS GUILTY, or that she is not an insane fabulist whose been telling a version of the same untrue story for decades and got a bunch of people to lie for her. We do not know this yet, and it is not in our purview as editors to evaluate. But it wouldn't change the fact that the allegation was made, new facts from an independent investigation would simply be added to the article(s), they wouldn't change the fact that the allegation was made. Avoiding use of the term "sexual assault" in the header only diminishes our reliability as a neutral source. It looks like we're trying to whitewash. petrarchan47คุก 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47:That was well said, the header is supposed to actually represent what is in the section which is a sexual assault allegation. We are not making a judgement on whether Biden did it or not. Also I attempted to tag Betsy Madison as an SPA but was reverted three times. First by user:SPECIFICO and then twice by user:Zaathras who also heavily edits Joe Biden articles. If we're going to tag SPAs here (which someone already has) then all SPAs should be tagged, not just ones we disagree with. --Rusf10 (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually it was at this talk page where I learned SPAs are tagged as a rule. I found it strange to see that is always the case with one exception, and was surprised when my pointing out their SPA history was seen as rude. I thought I was following protocol. petrarchan47คุก 05:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your wrongful tagging, gladly. The user you seem intent on harassing may have a focus on this topic area it seems, but they also have over 300 edits in a month's time. Per the description at the template's page, you were misusing it. It would be in your best interests, I'd say, to focus on the arguments being made and stop trying to score points by Scarlet-Lettering your wiki-opponents. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you are completely clueless as to what an SPA is. 258 of that user's 359 edits were to pages with Joe Biden in the title. That's unquestionably an SPA which by the way still doesn't prove that they did anything wrong, but they should be tagged as such so that the closer takes it into consideration when accessing consensus. The proper thing to do is to tag all SPAs regardless of whether they agree with you or not. Since an SPA that agrees with me is already tagged, it is only appropriate. To be clear I want all SPAs tagged in this discussion, whether they agree with me or not. And falsely accusing me of harassment is itself harassment (see:WP:AOHA) so I suggest that you stop.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am quite aware of what the acronym means, your condescension is unnecessary. Anyway, per Template:Spa, "Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead." So, why don't you give that a go, Rufs; speak to the user, don't attack. Zaathras (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To petrarchan47 & Rusf10 - For the record, I am not an "SPA." & Petra's statement about me is disingenuous & misleading. On May 26 Petra wrote, "Betsy Maddison is an SPA and last I checked, has only edited this topic." That is false & misleading and the facts show that when Petra wrote that, I had not "only edited this topic." As of May 26, I'd been a volunteer at WP for 32 days. In those 32 days I rarely do any actual "editing" but rather I primarily discuss "current events" on talk pages. If me discussing current events classifies me, in your mind, as SPA, then; nothing I can do about that.

As to Rusf10's comment inferring that the number of contributions to article topics classifies a person as a "SPA," then, ironically Petra is an SPA too. Since April 24, the number of contributions I've made: 250 (not 258) current event articles that mention Biden, out of 357 total contributions. That means 70% of my volunteer time is to current events with "Biden" in the title. During the same period, April 24-May 26, Petra has devoted 79% of her comments toward Biden stories (with 161 comments about Biden out of 204 total comments). So, under Rusf10's theory: Petra is an SPA too.

I feel that if anyone actually takes the time to read wp:spa will clearly see that I am not an SPA in any way, shape, or form. My contributions to WP have been thoughtful, honest, and solely focusing on relaying facts for the WP reader. My contributions show I have no conflict of interest, I am clearly not a sock puppet, and I do not advocate for anything other that truth & facts. I do my best to follow all WP guidelines and I am volunteering my time here just like all other WP editors, and so far, I choose to volunteer my time discussing current events. And until I choose otherwise, that is what I will continue to do in my spare time here, no matter what label anyone tries to on pin me for whatever reason they may have. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. BetsyRMadison's account does not have the typical characteristics associated with an SPA. I see no evidence whatsoever that this editor exhibits "a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia," as described at WP:SPA. Therefore, tagging BetsyRMadison's account as an SPA is inappropriate. In fact, I would argue that in this case the act is designed to unduly influence a potential closer of this discussion, which is WORSE than being a niche editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - I thought this was already settled in a prior RFC?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 07:07, May 26, 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I voted below, and did not realize I voted here because my sig was different and I didn't spot it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per my reasoning when this issue was discussed 3 weeks ago. I am not sure why that discussion was allowed to automatically archive without being closed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes-Tara Reade alleged sexual assault and her accusations have received sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion in the section title. Display name 99 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• No. Violates NPOV and BLP. There was one allegation of sexual assault, not several as the title would imply. The allegation was made by an accuser whose credibility is highly questionable ([6]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

*No The allegations are unclear and by saying that Biden sexually assaulted someone Wikipedia is taking a stance. If there was universal agreement that Biden did sexually assault someone then it would be ok but that's not the case. Smith0124 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Rusf10 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - we include what the sources say, and that is exactly what was alleged. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Atsme: You do understand that we are talking about the section heading, not the text in the article, right? The article already includes the sourced material you refer to. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do (haven't said those words in decades) but I would also agree with Inappropriate sexual assault and physical contact allegations to make it a tad shorter. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What is an "appropriate sexual assault" may one ask? Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• No , the proposed addition to the heading is almost longer than the text it covers. This seems like an attempt to 'point to' an allegation which has not been taken very seriously and for which few details exist. Not everything in an article needs to be mentioned in headings.Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• No per previous discussion, undue weight; also ungrammatical and misleading per Space4Time3Continuum2x. Neutrality^talk 19:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - by WP:WEIGHT of Google count is Joe Biden and “sexual assault” 19.5 million; “touching” 14.1 million; and “inappropriate touching” only 44,600. Sexual assault doesn’t fit as “touching” anyway. Alternatively, do something else such as a separate section for it or use some other title like “sexual allegations” that can cover both. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Markbassett: That's a stupid justification, Mark. For example, in the Donald Trump article we use "sexual misconduct" (6.9 million hits), rather than "sexual assault" (39.5 million). Are you suggesting we should change the Trump article? I'm guessing that will be no. Try again. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Scjessey I think one cannot ignore that WEIGHT of coverage is overwhelmingly using “sexual assault” and not “inappropriate touching”, and this article should take note of the cites. (Alternatively find a third phrase or separate into two sections.) If you wish some other article change to better follow WEIGHT, both naming and proportion of content, go ahead and propose it with my blessings. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Markbassett: But we are talking about a section heading, which is supposed to follow WP:NDESC and be neutral and non-judgmental. The alleged assault is highly dubious and unproven, so it is unreasonable to use a section heading that suggests it because it would essentially be a BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • User:Scjessey NDESC actually supports using the COMMONNAAME of “sexual assault”, see

However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's complete nonsense. Boston Massacre is not a WP:BLP. Everything in WP:BLP trumps ALL OTHER POLICIES and guidelines for good reason. It means that the section heading in question must ALSO conform to WP:WEIGHT, and given that the allegation against Biden is dubious and unproven, as noted by a preponderance of reliable sources, it would be a WP:BLPVIO to attempt to use a section header to suggest Biden is even associated with an assault. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• In 2016, you "strongly opposed" the title "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations" and supported the title "Donald Trump's sexual misconduct allegations".[7] Your [bizarre] rationale at the time was that for something to qualify as a sexual assault, the perpetrator had to be alleged to use drugs and weapons, and there had to be "sexual intercourse". Have you changed your opinion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• User:Snooganssnoogans mmm my are you really unable to debate this one without red herrings? But I’ll play because in addition to WEIGHT all the actual facts relate and show a nuance as to why the RS use the terms of ‘sexual assault’ here and ‘sexual misconduct’ there. Factually Tara Reade has filed with the police about “sexual assault”. And yes, legally that requires force or incapacitation by drugs or threat of weapons. It would be as inappropriate to title the other claims here as “sexual assault” as it would be to label Tara Reade as “inappropriate touching”. And while it’s otherstuff, it would similarly be inappropriate to phrase ‘sexual assault’ for things Donald Trump was alleged to do that did not involve drugging the woman or weapons or force. Of course, the RS already did these determinations so we *could* just follow DUE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• The police took no action, Mark. The claim was dubious. It is properly covered in the BODY of the section, and it does not need to be in the title. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant, the police couldn't do anything even if they wanted to, the statute of limitations has expired. [8]--Rusf10 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - as it's been sourced. Why wouldn't it be alright here in this article, when something similar is allowed at the Brett Kavanaugh article. Are we gonna follow the lead of CNN & MSNBC news & practice a double standard here? or does the Me Too movement 'only' apply to certain individuals. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No - Inappropriate contact and sexual assault are 2 very radically different concepts. Better group them under a Controversies section. Alexceltare2 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I am starting a formal RFC because even though the previous discussion seemed to come to a consensus, at least two editors don't accept it. A formal RFC will solve that problem. I am pinging all participation in that discussion: @Levivich, Scjessey, PackMecEng, CoffeeWithMarkets, Muboshgu, Kolya Butternut, UserDude, RedHotPear, Hrodvarsson, SelfieCity, Atsme, Petrarchan47, SPECIFICO, and SharabSalam: Note:For transparency, I am disclosing that I intentionally did not ping MrX as per his demands that I not do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We just got done with this crap. This is just disruptive and WP:POINT. See also WP:SPIDERMAN. Volunteer Marek 02:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:I thought we were done too, but even though the majority plurality of people went with #3 in the last discussion, it has not been accepted. So I encourage you to contribute to this discussion so we can get it right this time, rather than make snarky comments.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how anyone reads "majority," let alone "consensus," from the discussion you linked. There are also many strong concerns about precision and BLP that editors have raised there. And as Selfie City noted, there is a link to the sexual assault allegation page immediately after the heading. Not sure why this is the hill you choose to die on. RedHotPear (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the current version, so this discussion should continue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Its longstanding existence in the article is evidence of consensus. Consensus can change, but so far that hasn't happened. - MrX 🖋 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a bad faith argument. First of all, the headers "long-standing existence" means nothing because there was a new allegation made recently, which had been added to the section. Since then, the "long-standing existence" is due to you and others reverting every change to it. This is at least the third talk page thread about this section header, and each time shows no consensus for the existing header. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's an argument based on how Wikipedia works. I've made arguments previously about why we should not highlight this sexual assault allegation in a heading, when the existing heading already encompasses the concept. As Volunteer Marek correctly points out, "we just got done with this crap." This is just a WP:REHASH, which you appear to admit by acknowledging that this is "at least the third talk page thread about this section header." - MrX 🖋 02:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The first discussion was like 8-3 in favor of this heading, but you reverted my change, now you're saying that discussion following your revert is a "rehash". This is why I say you're not acting in good faith. You won't accept the consensus of the first discussion, you revert the change, then you won't accept any further discussion. This is no way to reach consensus on an article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I dispute that there was like 8-3 support in favor of this awful heading, let alone consensus. - MrX 🖋 02:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I listed the 8 and 3 editors when I implemented the change. [9] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not even aware of the first discussion. Let's see what those people have to say too @SharabSalam, Cbs527, Guy Macon, MelanieN, Samboy, and BeŻet:--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I unwatched this page because I was unwilling to be fight over such a clear case of whitewashing in an attempt to get Biden elected. There was a recent allegation of sexual assault as well as the older allegations of inappropriate physical contact. The section heading should reflect this instead of pretending that only the earlier allegations exist. We had extensive discussion about what to call this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden sexual assault allegation That's all I have to say, and I am once again unwatching this page. I hope that I don't get pinged about this again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, the status quo never had consensus, so enforcing a version that only three people supported in the last discussion is not acceptable. I created the RFC to get more participation.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Per your insistence on this RfC, I have added my comment. I did notice that you changed your claim from "majority" to "plurality," but I have to note that "plurality" is not true either. RedHotPear (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a plurality, 6 people wanted this change as either their first or second choice, only 3 wanted to keep things the way it was, that's twice as many people!--Rusf10 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I still cannot conceive how you are (mis)counting here. RedHotPear (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is my last comment regarding your evolving characterizations of the previous discussion. Whether your current flavor is "consensus," "majority," or "plurality," your description is disputed and is not an accurate reflection of that discussion. RedHotPear (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Then please enlighten me, what method of counting do you use? I really would like to know.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To Rusf10 - I cannot speak for RedHotPear, but when I count the votes on the discussion you linked to (above), a plurality of people did not go with #3, but rather, a plurality of people voting went with option #1. The vote tally, using the Rusf10 for the option with the most first-preference votes from those who voted are: 4 votes for option #1, 3 votes for option #2, 3 votes for option #3, 2 votes for option #3, and 3 votes for option #4. I should note here that in that discussion, SPECIFICO did not vote, so the vote tally does not include any vote from SPECIFICO. In the "Plurality Method" of determining the winner, the choice with the most first-preference votes is declared the winner. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Since there is not clear majority, you cannot just ignore people's second votes. A consensus should be what is acceptable to the greatest number of people and 6 people found #3 to be acceptable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To Rusf10 - You are not correct. It's not our jobs as WP editors to reinvent how "Plurality Method" [10] is used to determine a winner. In mathematics, "Plurality Method" of determining the winner, the choice with the most first-preference votes is declared the winner (not second, third or fourth preference, but first-preference). Since, Option #1 got the most votes for first-preference; option #1 is the winner. That means, options #1 is the most favored option for first-preference. And, since only 2 people voted for option #3 as their first-preference, option #3 the absolute least favored option, not most favored. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Gaining a consensus in wikipedia is not the same thing as voting in an election. People's comments and willingness to compromise must be considered. If someone has a second choice vote, that's a compromise. see WP:NOTAVOTE--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To Rusf10 - No worries. I was just answering your question above when you asked RedHotPear why the vote in the other discussion is not a plurality for option #3 but, instead, the plurality of voters picked option #1. So, if it's the plurality you were looking for, then option #1 won that vote. As for this current vote count (in the survey above), it still looks like option #1 is the winner with 8 votes to keep "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and 3 votes for including additional language. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I will again propose what I (and SharabSalam) proposed in the previous discussion: a level-four heading "Sexual assault allegation" covering Tara Reade's allegation within the level-three heading "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact". If this were the case, a {{main}} template could be used under the level-four heading as opposed to the current {{see also}} template. userdude 08:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC); edited 08:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

But that would still be inappropriately categorizing assault allegations as merely inappropriate contact.  No sources do this.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Assault is technically inappropriate contact. I acknowledge the concern that it may be viewed as euphemistic, but I do not think that it is realistic for a reader to be deceived by "inappropriate contact" if there's a level-four header with the words Sexual assault and a {{main}} wikilink to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation shortly below the level-three header. userdude 10:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You must provide an RS which categorizes sexual assault as inappropriate physical contact.  It's WP:OR for us to decide to categorize it that way when no RS do.  Strangling someone is"inappropriate physical contact too".  We must use the words the sources use.  The wikilink is irrelevant; it has no impact on heading policy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying sexual assault is "inappropriate physical contact" in the same sense that you said strangling is inappropriate physical contact; based purely on the definition "inappropriate" and "[physical] contact". It's inappropriate and it's physical contact. The issue at hand is if "inappropriate physical contact" is euphemistic, and I believe that as long as clarification is quickly provided (in the form of a level-four header, for example) readers will not be mislead. (Compare, for example, Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, wherein a rape allegation and sexual assault allegation are lumped together under "sexual misconduct", but clarified in the lede.) userdude 23:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Re The Four Deuces: Even if, arguendo, all reliable sources decided Reade's allegation is untrue, is it not still as notable as the allegations of inappropriate physical contact based on the sheer level of coverage it's received? userdude 08:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• No it has received relatively little coverage in mainstream media compared with coverage overall and that is the complaint voiced in alternative media. In fact it took them a full month to mention the case at all after it had become featured in alternative media. Some editors however have confirmation bias. They will pay more attention to negative stories than positive or neutral ones or vice versa. Also, if you want to argue it is better to use the discussion section below. TFD (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• What exactly would meet your criteria of significant mainstream coverage? A rough search shows (currently): 67 NY Times articles, 114 WaPo articles, 49 USA Today articles, 30 WSJ articles. I just took a sample of mainstream RS that had quote search functionality, so I'm confident that these results are representative of most English-language US-based mainstream RS. Sure, mainstream RS were slow in reporting the accusation, but they have certainly given it significant coverage by now. userdude 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC); ce 10:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, would you add this RfC to Biographies?  I'm not sure how to do that now that it's underway.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• USA Today ran over 5,000 articles about Biden in the same approx. 6 wk period[11] and of course ran nothing about Tara Reade before. It is difficult to determine what events have lasting significance when they occur. Trump's Access Hollywood tape is perhaps an exception, but it got wall to wall coverage and threatened his nomination and was thought to have ruined his election chances. If there are no consequences to Reade's complaint, then it will always be a trivial detail. If it threatens Biden's nomination or election, then it will be significant. We have to wait and see. No one btw talk's about "Jennifer with a J" which came up during Bush's 1992 run. But it got mentioned at the time. TFD (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to have been done. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, it's not listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

“Mentioning sexual assault in the heading of a section surely requires extraordinary proof, otherwise the subject of the article would suffer guilt by association.”

Have you read Brett Kavanaugh’s page? It has a sexual assault allegations header. There is as much proof that his sexual assault allegation was accurate as there is with Joe Biden. Using the excuse that mainstream media isn’t covering the story is horribly disingenuous and honestly sad. Wikipedia should use better standards than the mainstream media. It’s funny that in other subjects the community decides, but in others the mainstream media gets to. WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:WhowinsIwins It looks like sensationalism somewhat overrules that — the *most* hits by Google count goes to Joe biden and “sexual assault”, not “inappropriate touching”. (Caveat lots of mishits there.) Though there is some nuance about like what you say — NYTimes.com seems to not use the phrase in title versus foxnews includes it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 16 July 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.

Lead sentences

I noticed what I thought was a good copyedit to the lead was reverted by User:JLo-Watson on the grounds that is was the "longstanding" version. Before the revert, the lead sentences read:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. He served as a U.S. senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009. A Democrat, Biden is his party's presidential nominee for the 2020 election, running against the incumbent, Donald Trump.

Sources

To me, this is a better use of language, as it avoids repeating the term "Democratic" twice. It also makes the sentence about his senate career more readable. I don't think that the previous version's "longstanding" status matters, if the same information is being conveyed with better prose. What do folks think? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the original version that says "member of the Democratic party" rather than the short form "Democrat" you used. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey; hence why I reverted to the superior long-standing usage. Indeed, for example, Obama and Bush and other politicians use "A member of the ____ Party". JLo-Watson (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that "member of the _ Party" is more consistent with WP:TONE. RedHotPear (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden threatened Germany and France to not give asylum to Edward Snowden

During a segment on "The 11th Hour with Brian Williams" on MSNBC [the same on CNN], Snowden said both Biden and then-Secretary of State John Kerry blocked him from getting asylum. There are articles from 2013 even. https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2019/09/17/snowden-biden-blocked-former-nsa-contractor-getting-asylum/2350070001/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/joe-biden-edward-snowdens-case/313769/ "VP Joe Biden threatened several countries like Germany and France that "if you protect Edward Snowden, if you let this guy out of Russia, there will be consequences". Trump is going to pardon Snowden, that is why the case pending in court for 10 years finaly ended, condemning NSA. Now, that is not an argument -- WP:NOTCENSORED, if it is going to demage Biden, so be it. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion for improving the article. This seems to be nothing more than a statement about something biographically insignificant. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, information about Biden-Snowden should be added to the artcle! 91.78.221.238 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This is still not a suggestion for improvement. It's just a vague statement. It's hard to imagine how Biden's views of Snowden are of any significance to a biography of Biden's entire life. Perhaps on the Snowden article? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And even if Biden did convey such a message to Germany and France back in 2013, he would have been doing so per Obama Administration policy. It says nothing about him either good or bad. It does not belong in his biography. Maybe if he were to make a statement of some kind about Snowden NOW, that might be includable, depending how much coverage it gets. (What makes you think that this information would "damage" Biden? Is there some huge groundswell of popular opinion in favor of Snowden? Trump only said, when asked about Snowden, that he would "look into" it. And Snowden himself said in an interview just yesterday that he has not had any contact with American sources or heard anything about a pardon, and that all he wants as a condition to return is to be permitted to defend himself in court - something not currently permitted for trials related to secret information.) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Critique

I came across this critical write up https://www.jns.org/opinion/joe-biden-courts-islam-not-muslims/ by Mark Durie. Wikipedians have too many rules and views, I don't know if Mark Durie views would have any scope, I leave it to wisdom of Wikipedians working on Joe Biden related articles. Bookku (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is fringe theories: "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Since this article has limited space, there's no reason to include islamophobic critiques of Biden. TFD (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As your wisdom!, Sir! :)

Bookku (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Part 4 of Poroshenko-Biden calls

I will remind you that part 3 showed that Biden was covering for Poroshenko trying a terrorist ecological act against Crimea's russians. Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-_YKFAjvn0 (and others) Biden about Trump: "you know, bad dog will chase, chase the car down the road ..." Ahahaha. He is talking about Flynn, lol lol lol. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:8DE5:FC71:C61B:5344 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Content on the Biden-Poroshenko calls belongs on Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, not here. Even Fox News points out that Andrii Derkach, who releases these edited calls, has been sanctioned by the Treasury department for being a Russian agent. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And Biden modified embassy docs that Shokin is corrupt at least according to Shokin. It is not Derkach talking on the audio, it is Biden. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:8DE5:FC71:C61B:5344 (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Shokin is corrupt and has an ax to grind, so we won't take his word on any accusations he makes against Biden. Derkach has selectively edited the tapes that he has released. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Shokin arrested Burisma assets in Ukraine after its money was arrested by UK in Cyprus. Shokin also sued Biden. It is a lie that Shokin is corrupt and you know it. Google what selective editing means. It is not cutting the conversation on only important part NOT missing any context. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:CC7B:D052:9E06:EB83 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also untrue, I believe. The international community wanted Shokin out because the Burisma investigation was dormant under his watch. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You do understand that Burisma is an Cyprus offshore right? What does it mean untrue? UK courts lied you mean? Do you understand how preposterious this sounds? Oh that Burisma assets were arrested by Shokin? It is pubic info. https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807 Or that Zlochevskiy was under arrest warrant after arrest of his company? Or that Hunter Biden travelled with Zlochevskiy to Monako as we learned in impeachment trial in the Senate? What is a lie? And again. Do you believe the tapes are AI generated? Really? Because that is even more laughable. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:CC7B:D052:9E06:EB83 (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that's laughable here is the attempt to turn this into "Hillary's emails". There's nothing here that's biographical about Joe Biden that isn't already covered in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were finished with But her emails! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, youtube just removed their channel. Hahaha, Streisand effect again? Lol. 2A00:1FA0:42D4:AB9:7896:A82B:BFB9:C657 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

2A00:1FA0:42D4:AB9:7896:A82B:BFB9:C657, except that nobody cares but dead enders. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh MelanieN, there's still another forty something days to turn Burisma into "but her emails". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There are already some theories that Chris Wray talking about russian interference from today was about this youtube channel "Nabu leaks" that youtube banned and Twitter account with that content was deleted. It looks like doing so Wray put an end to his carrier, do you think Trump will fire Wray tomorrow or later? Even Sidney Powell is on the list of FBI directors. Now, I dunno what they were trying to do. I mean it is not like it is the only copy, and there is text https://nabu-leaks.com/new-facts-of-international-corruption-and-external-governance-of-ukraine-3/ and actual video on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/derkach.al/videos/2774973406158318 91.78.221.238 (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

Add content----2020 presidential campaign----Biden claims 200 million people have died from COVID-19
Biden had another gaffe on 21 Sept 2020 when he said an estimated 200 million people have already died from the coronavirus, even though the number of American casualties is closer to 200,000. An unimportant person (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

 Not done - This is a biographical article covering Joe Biden's entire life. It is inconceivable that a slip of the tongue of this nature would have any lifetime significance whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

The first sentence in this section currently reads:

Biden was a longtime member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

I propose:

Biden served on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1975 to 2009.

Specific information is more informative than a generalized statement. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. An obvious improvement. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's better written. ~ HAL333 05:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject

Page watchers may be interested in joining WikiProject Joe Biden. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Change "relied on Biden's relationship with McConnell" in the "Vice presidency (2009–2017)" section to "relied on Biden's relationship with Mitch McConnell" (note the link) QoopyQoopy (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for the suggestion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - first paragraph

For the first paragraph of the article, can we add "President" in front of the link "Donald Trump"?

Biden is the Democratic presidential nominee for the 2020 election, running against the incumbent, President Donald Trump.

That "President" (highlighted in bold) is the edit request I am seeking (as that looks more formal and professional). Thanks.

Golfpecks256 (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Either that, or remove the word 'presidential' from his description of being the Democratic presidential candidate. 2600:6C5A:657F:F417:740A:7BF7:46B6:F763 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done I suppose it could be said that "President" is redundant when we are calling him the incumbent, but it is our usual practice to include their title the first time someone is mentioned. (And just "Trump" thereafter.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

why is the 1994 crime bill not in this article

One of Biden's biggest accomplishments was the 1994 Crime Bill, but it is stated as one of his legislative accomplishments in the infobox and in the footnotes. Can it be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

SailedtheSeas, it is in the article. It's not called the "1994 Crime Bill", it's the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That articles says, "commonly referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill." We should add that to this article because it is better known by that name. 02:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thank you. i did a search after scanning the article (unfort lots of stuff in 47 years) and only found the two hits i mentioned above. after watching the debate it made me want to read more about the bill. thx. SailedtheSeas (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

change "[[[RAVE Act|Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act]]" to "Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act" (fix link by removing first left bracket) Futurechromex3x (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Done.Crboyer (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Deaths of family

Do we care that he lied about it for years ? Said the trucker was drunk. That It was his wife’s fault wasn’t as good of a story on the campaign trail. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/18/joe-bidens-false-claim-about-drunken-driver-draws-/

So, should it be included in the section regarding the accident that he falsely and publicly claimed the trucker was drunk but those claims have been refuted ? F. L. (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You will need a reliable source for something like this. The Washington Times isn't a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/driver-in-biden-crash-wanted-name-cleared/ F. L. (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether we care. Rightly or wrongly, the story has received little attention in mainstream media and hence fails weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It should be included. Here are more sources:

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

There is clear coverage from the mainstream media. Include it.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

None of these articles are about these alleged lies, except for the hit pieces by the two ultra conservative writers. There's no "lying" narrative in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you even bother to actually check the sources? The Atlantic says "The family of the truck driver has labored to correct the record, but Biden made the reference to drunkenness as recently as 2007, needlessly resurrecting a false and painful accusation." Politico says "The problem was it wasn’t true. The driver of the truck, Curtis C. Dunn of Pennsylvania, was not charged with drunk driving." Yahoo finance says that Biden has been "falsely claiming for years that his first wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver." I can go on. I can rely on left or centre-left sources if you would like me to. Let's rely on what the sources say, not what you believe.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding the issue here. There's very little coverage in mainstream sources, and in none of them is this the main story (except in the ultra conservative hit pieces). This article is meant to cover things significant to the subject and, whether or not the facts as you present them are true, it does not appear to be significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence from reliable sources that Biden "lied". Reports show that he repeated an erroneous claim, but there is no evidence of deliberate deceit; claims of lying appear to be politically motivated, almost certainly in an attempt to draw false equivalency between an error last repeated 13 years ago and the relentless untruthfulness of Biden's current opponent. In the absence of substantive mainstream reports of the discrepancy, this is WP:UNDUE. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Then I guess that The Atlantic and Politico aren't reliable sources. Should we move to deprecate them? And what word would you use to describe a "false accusation", something that isn't true, or a "false claim". Is it an untruth? And thanks for linking to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. There you'll find equally false claims that the President made a single time much longer ago than 2007. I assume I'll see you removing the reliably sourced bits of that article that don't confirm to your very high standards. Simply put, falsely claiming that someone killed your family is notable, and as it is reliable sourced, there is no valid reason to not include it. Scapegoat (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Editing Scapegoat: I'm going to explain it for you one last time. This will be my THIRD time in this thread. There will not be another. When adding something controversial, the usual standard is to seek reliable sources where the thing you are adding is the primary focus of the source. This, coupled with its appearance in a preponderance of reliable sources is usually a good indicator of whether or not something is significant enough for inclusion. This does not meet that standard. Ergo, we exclude it. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Who is this "ergo" you're talking to? EEng 05:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think she's Cogito's cousin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa! Forgive my impromptu use of the Latin I like to sprinkle, inter alia, on an ad hoc basis, rather than the pro forma examples more compos mentis editors might employ. I hope this doesn't make me persona non grata on this talk page? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, sum say so, yes Guy (help! - typo?) 19:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Some things that are wrong in the article

" Biden attended the Archmere Academy in Claymont,[9]:27, 32 where he was a standout halfback and wide receiver on the high school football team; he helped lead a perennially losing team to an undefeated season in his senior year.[18][21] He played on the baseball team as well.[18] Academically, he was a poor student but was considered a natural leader among the students and elected class president during his junior and senior years,[9]:40–41[22]:99 and graduated in 1961.[9]:40–41

He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965 from the University of Delaware in Newark, with a double major in history and political science and a minor in English.[23][22]:98 He graduated with a "C" average, ranked 506th of 688 in his graduating class.[24][25] Biden played halfback for the Fightin' Blue Hens freshman football team, and defensive back for the varsity.[21][26] While on spring break in the Bahamas in 1964, he met his future wife Neilia Hunter, a student at Syracuse University.[18][27] "

OK. Biden did NOT play varsity football at U of Delaware. Biden did NOT graduate with a double major. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.254.161 (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC) — 71.179.254.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC 10:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC).

@71.179.254.161: You're going to need sources to back those claims up, and even then, those are sourced parts and are unlikely to be removed. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I love the part where you included no sources. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Fact-checked the OP. They are 50% right. We got the double major right in our article, but Biden never seems to have played varsity football at Delaware, according to HuffPost & NBC who both contacted the school's sports information department, so I removed that bit. --Distelfinck (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you read all the way to the end of the NBC citation? There is a quote from the coach and from the director of Sports Information clarifying that Biden was on the team earlier in the year. ValarianB (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It says that he played on the freshman team. That's different from varsity. Cf. eg. this part from the NBC article, where they make the distinction: "freshman football or varsity". --Distelfinck (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are not reading the source, particularly the updates at the end. Biden played on the JV his freshman year then made the varsity team in the spring of his junior year, and attended practices, but ended up not playing in the fall. So, if we want to be anally technical, he was not "on the team" in the fall during the incident at Ohio U., but by all accounts he traveled with them as one of the guys and took part in the events. ValarianB (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You say Biden "made the varsity team in the spring of his junior year". Where do you get this from, quote? Biden says in his memoirs, quoted by NBC: "After the annual spring game that April [1963], it looked like I had a shot to start at starting defensive back." If, later on, he would have made it on the team, he woul surely have mentioned that in his memoirs. He didn't though. --Distelfinck (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it's well known that every single person on the team gets to play? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't keep pointing you to the same text over and over, sir. Either you're going to read it or you're not. ValarianB (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I did read it. I don't see the coach or the director of Sports Information saying that Biden was on the varsity team. Could you maybe quote the exaxt sentence(s) where they say it? Let's say Biden was on the varsity team, would that make us write our article differently? -Distelfinck (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

Joe Biden said at a 10/15/2020 town hall he vowed to end anti transgender law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlZOXtv5Sm8 source ABC news TheRealJavon (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

In section 3.2, please add the below somewhere in the paragraph that begins "Biden became ranking minority member..."

On March 24, 1983, Biden introduced the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act, later included in the CCCA introduced by Strom Thurmond on August 4, 1983. Biden's bill established the Equitable Sharing Program, which allows state and local law enforcement to retain up to 80% of the proceeds from seizures made in collaboration with federal agencies and from assets turned over to the federal government that the federal government chooses to adopt because the activity that prompted the seizure was against federal law. This program allows state and local law enforcement to circumvent state forfeiture laws, allowing law enforcement in some states to retain more seized assets than they otherwise could. In 2014, a report by The Washington Post found that $2.5 billion had been seized through the Equitable Sharing Program since 2001 without search warrants or indictments. GiraffeRustler (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Beginning in 2019, President Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired...

Falsely accused? How is it false? Biden admitted that he pressured to have Shokin fired - and Shokin was investigating Burisma!!! 158.123.57.220 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources supporting this. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 14:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This reliable enough for you? https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story 158.123.57.220 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Then what about this: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/hsgac-finance-report 158.123.57.220 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This may also be relevant: https://tennesseestar.com/2019/10/08/commentary-it-was-the-ukraine-that-reopened-the-burisma-biden-probe-in-2018-and-asked-the-united-states-for-mutual-legal-assistance/ 158.123.57.220 (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinion columns are not relevant at all. Time to move on. ValarianB (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

John Solomon, an opinion contributor, is not reliable. In fact, he spread most of the disinformation about Burisma prior to impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Per @Muboshgu. No Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 15:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You left out the second half of the sentence: "...because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden." Yes Biden threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless the prosecutor was fired but no, according to reliable sources, it was not because he was investigating Burisma. TFD (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

other than the FoxNews watching editors (all nine of them), we in the Wiki majority of editors won't stand for mud on a Democrat's page --and the more important the Democrat, the stronger we resist mud by any means. go start your own wiki, Repubs. our names will change and our reasons will vary but the outcome will never vary: no Democrat national candidate's article will retain mud thrown at it be those on the political right --truth. stop wasting your time and ours. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Cramyourspam, Please remember to assume good faith and adhere to the neutral point of view policy. While I agree with you here its important to remember that we aren't refusing it because of an candidates party but because of a lack of reliable sources. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 14:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Son of a bitch got fired!"

YOU LOVELY PEOPLE will have to work out what it means:

"..and so I got Ukraine and I remember going over convincing our team our others to convincing us that we should be providing for loan guarantees and I went over I guess the 12th 13th time to Kiev and and I was going supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee and I had gotten a commitment from poroshenko and from yachts and hook that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't so they said they had it they were walking out to Prescott said no I said I'm not gonna or we're not going to give you the billion dollars they said you have no authority you're not the president the president said I said call him I said I'm telling you're not getting a billion dollars I said you're not getting a billion I'm gonna be leaving here I think it was about six hours I look at him leaving in six hours if the prosecutors not fired you're not getting the money Oh son of a bitch got fired!"

[Joe Biden, Council on Foreign Relations, 2018] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.22.83 (talk) 14:35, October 21, 2020 (UTC)

Us "lovely people" already know what this quote means. He got Poroshenko to fire Shokin because Shokin was corrupt and not investigating Bursima as he was supposed to. Biden had the backing of the developed world in doing this. Firing Shokin put Burisma, and therefore Hunter Biden, at greater danger. We went over this when Trump was impeached. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahem. We lovely people. Jeesh! EEng 18:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

EEng, my apologies to the Grammar Gods for that fail. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We'll let it pass this time. EEng 20:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"Trump and his allies falsely accused"

Present para:

Beginning in 2019, President Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden. Biden was accused of withholding $1 billion in aid from Ukraine in this effort. In 2015, then-Vice President Biden pressured the Ukrainian parliament to remove Shokin because the United States, the European Union and other international organizations considered Shokin corrupt and ineffective, and in particular Shokin was not assertively investigating Burisma. The withholding of the $1 billion in aid was part of this official policy.

References

This is a magnet for indignant Fox viewers, largely because it lacks nuance. It also really doesn't belong in the campaign section. I suggest a subsection on "Burisma" along these lines:

Some conservatives have promoted a series of narratives centred on the discredited idea that 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. These claims specifically relate to the firing of the corrupt former Chief Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin. Reporting since at least 2019 has noted that US demands for Shokin's firing were bipartisan, and were also supported by the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Shokin was removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016.

Sources that back this include:

• Politi, James; Sevastopulo, Demetri; Peels, Michael; Olearchyk, Roman (October 4, 2019). "Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden". Financial Times. Retrieved October 15, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Blake, Aaron (January 27, 2020). "The Bidens, Burisma and impeachment, explained". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 18, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Olearchyk, Roman; Chaffin, Joshua (2020-03-18). "Ukrainegate: Rudy Giuliani's new campaign against Joe Biden". Financial Times. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
• McLaughlin, Daniel (March 29, 2016). "EU hails sacking of Ukraine's prosecutor Viktor Shokin". The Irish Times. Retrieved October 15, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Using the Financial Times escapes the endless debate about the "liberal media" - the FT is owned by Nikkei and is as small-c conservative as you get. It's also a secondary source where some of the above are primary. Finally it moves away from the relentless Trump focus. While Trump may well be the most prominent promoter of this nonsense, there's pretty solid evidence it originates with Russia.

What do people think about this? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mostly fine with me. "Some conservatives" sounds like WP:WEASEL wording, so it'd probably better to keep the "Trump and his allies" part. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, maybe. It's unfortunate that some readers will see "Trump" and immediately think it's bullshit just because he said it, and others will think it true just because he said it. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Such is the difficulty of American politics in 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The sadder thing is this crap is apparently an effective electoral strategy. Re "Some conservatives", who is mainly peddling, or started, the story? The campaign, particular hosts, etc? Name them ideally, or a specific group. The rhetoric these days makes me question any ambiguously-attributed claims I read, personally, so anything vague reads less credibly in my eyes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"This is a magnet for indignant Fox viewers, largely because" they are Fox viewers. I submit that it doesn't matter WHAT the Wikipedia page says, if it's not the Trump party line they'll accuse Wikipedia of being "bought by Biden" or some other phrase along that line https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=984077757. Making writing decisions by trying to prognosticate what Fox viewers will scream about 24-48 hours from now is heckler's veto territory and an exercise in futility, because the moment a change is made to appease them the goalposts will be moved. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Are discussions of the Biden family's business dealings allowed on this "talk" page? If so, is it okay to post a headline from the Wall Street Journal on this topic? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you are just going to different articles, trying to find a place to post the same information rather than seeking to improve articles that have nothing at all to do with Hunter Biden. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

So you're assuming that I'm acting in bad faith? I have never been successful in getting my edits on to article pages for anything but the most mundane of facts. I post my links in hopes that perhaps just one of them will be of use to someone with more editing clout than myself. I hardly think that that's bad faith.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

And why?

Despite legitimate concerns about the origin and credibility of this information, President Trump and Republican Members of Congress have seized on the story and are pressuring law enforcement to publicly act to advance their partisan interests. President Trump himself stated that “[w]e’ve got to get the Attorney General to act and to act fast,” pushing for a public investigation of the former Vice President and his son just two weeks before the election. [17]

BTW, WSJ op-eds don't count for nuthin'. soibangla (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Michael-Ridgway: "I post my links in hopes that perhaps just one of them will be of use to someone with more editing clout than myself." This is an admission that your purpose is to get coverage of what's behind the links into Wikipedia. That's basically agenda-driven editing, which is antithetical to the Wikipedia project. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I hardly think so.

It seems to me that he is in good faith providing resources of some sort.

No matter how misguided, if he feels he does not have the personal capacity, it is commendable. SkynetPR (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sources that were deemed insufficiently reliable. I think this one is unassailable. It's from the Wall Street Journal and it's not an opinion piece. It's about Joe Biden. Can we run with it? If not, why not? Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The article you link to say, right at the very top, "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden." -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, might it be appropriate to create an article on Tony Bobulinski, the ex-business partner who is the subject of the article? Not only is he offering his personal testimony regarding his experiences with Joe and Hunter Biden but he is turning over cell phones which contain text messages and emails that he claims corroborate some of the information that is alleged to come from the laptop acquired by Rudy Giuliani. A search in Wikipedia seems to indicate that there is no mention of him anywhere on the site. Further, Bevan Cooney has made a trove of 26,000 emails available to investigators, many of which he claims are the very emails sent out by Hunter Biden. I'm heavily biased in the Republican direction but I'm trying to be objective here. Even giving every possible benefit of the doubt to the Bidens, it seems like the claim that the information is fabricated or was collected via hacking is getting less and less plausible with each passing day. At some point, it would seem that Wikipedia would have to drop what one writer called the "Silicon Curtain" and admit that there is at least smoke, whether fire can be proven or not. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You can certainly create an article for this random dude if it passes WP:GNG, although I very much doubt it makes the cut. That is not a matter for this talk page though. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995

Please could someone with privileges add, in the States Senate (1973–2009), Senate Judiciary Committee section, Biden's role in creating the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which Biden took credit for as the precursor to the PATRIOT Act.

References

 Not done: Per WP:COATRACK Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Under the "Political Positions" section of the article it states that " Biden has proposed partially reversing the Trump corporate tax cuts." Should we be more specific and say "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017" instead of "Trump corporate tax cuts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowmanfresh (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Snowmanfresh, agreed. I attempted to make this sentence more neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion of "partial" in this edit. The word is significant because the level at which Biden has stated he desires corporate taxes to be is below the Obama-era level (28% instead of 35%). Typeprint (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Typeprint, I reinserted the word "partial", since the source does use it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden winning

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 should be shown in the article that joe Biden is currently ahead in the polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.52.163 (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• As an example of something which absolutely does not belong in an encyclopedia article, and which readers can find out just by turning on their TV or googling or something, nothing compares to this. Completely inappropriate. EEng 09:20, 29 October 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.

Edit request--Emails about Joe Biden and Ukrainian Government

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.

---

Hello, I read several reports about how Joe Biden is involved in Ukrainian government and business. It is pretty interesting and important because of Biden's position in US government. Sky-Dream (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And here is "But his emails" moment. Haha. History repeats itself. BTW, why still no info about Shokin rearresting Burisma, etc? We need to vote on inclusion, IMHO. https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1176290653883514882?s=19 2A00:1370:812D:EDFE:4C7C:E145:78E0:CEB0 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not include conspiracy theories of the far-right into Wikipedia articles, sourced to social media and tabloids. ValarianB (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Honorary professor

Could someone please expand the line "In 2017, Biden was named the Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where he intended to focus on foreign policy, diplomacy, and national security while leading the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement." with information from https://heavy.com/news/2020/09/biden-professor/ clarifying the nature of this position? Currently this sentence does not even have a citation. 2601:482:8000:C470:0:0:0:DF96 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the ref to the article and drop some details not in the ref. (No doubt there are sources supporting those details but they're not significant enough to worry about.) EEng 22:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

Add "1972" to December 18 date, when the car accident occurred. Tkhorse (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Add the date "May 30, 2015" to the date of death of Beau Biden. Tkhorse (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please change “On December 18,” to “On December 18, 1972”

Please change “he died of brain cancer in 2015” to “he died of brain cancer on May 30, 2015.” Tkhorse (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Tkhorse (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I think this all got done. EEng 13:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

उनके पास अब तक 264 वोट हैं। 71.241.131.168 (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 (2)

Nayemuzzaman (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

46th President of the United States

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2)

Black7795 (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3)

Biden is reelected to the Senate only 5 times, not 6 times. 112.198.170.44 (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (4)

fourth paragraph add that Biden was elected President Elect on 11.7.2020 Vive la Franks (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

In the article already. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (5)

Biden has been elected president, time to edit the page 3 s h a r d u l 3 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It says he is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

JOBTITLES

This reversion by Woko Sapien (talk · contribs) misinterprets MOS:JOBTITLES. Because "senator" is preceded by "U.S." I would contend that "senator" should be lowercase. "Senator Kamala Harris" would be correct, but it should be "U.S. senator Kamala Harris" in this particular instance. Also, this word's capitalization has now been changed several times in a 24-hour period, which is why I am bringing it up here. Suggest Woko Sapien self reverts to avoid ArbCom's discretionary sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Invoking discretionary sanctions over uppercase letters seems a tad harsh. Anyway, I've modified the sentence so the "U.S." is removed while still conveying the right information. Fun fact: the sentence now matches how Biden's announcement as running mate is written on Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not the case change that would draw a sanction. Rather it would be the reversions. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that "announced U.S. Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate" is correct. Note that "U.S." is used to distinguish her from state senators, rather than senators from other countries, and hence is used like a title. To be lower case, it would be need a comma: "announced the U.S. senator, Kamala Harris, as his running mate." TFD (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about correct, but that's directly contrary to JOBTITLES. This case is exactly equivalent to the guideline's example: "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." which derives from bullet 3's "preceded by a modifier", U.S. being a modifier. This is notwithstanding the large number of existing cases that are contrary to the guideline because editors were unaware of it or disagreed with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, this edit by Vaze50 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem right either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be "U.S. senator (name)" rather than "U.S. Senator (name)". What planet are you people living on? There is no justification for that within MOS:JOBTITLES or - far more importantly - the English language. What is wrong with you?! Vaze50 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vaze50: Please address the issue, rather than questioning whether or not there is something "wrong" with a fellow editor. My question is this. What is the point of having a Manual of Style if we don't follow it? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like translated Russian, where the articles are dropped. One doesn't say, "I like American actor Tom Cruise," "I met American lawyer Jeffrey Toobin." One would insert "the." According to Your Dictionary, "you capitalize the job title when it comes immediately before the name, in a formal context or in direct address. It is not generally capitalized if it comes after the person's name, or if there is a "the" before it."[18] (I don't know if it meets rs.) TFD (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, some people would insert the; some wouldn't. See false title. It's a stylistic choice. EEng 13:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL. It doesn't matter what some people might do, but what would be accepted in reliable sources written in standard English. If you can show me an example of the usage in a newspaper, academic journal or book, then I'll accept that. But it's usage with which I am unfamiliar, except with some Russian speakers who often omit articles. People say um too, but one does not find it often in formal text. TFD (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the language maven William Safire will be good enough for you [19]. Or are you unfamiliar with him as well? EEng 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. On this page we don't use formal language.

Of course I have heard of Safire, although I did not read his column. I find it interesting that you refer to him as "the language maven William Safire" rather than just "language maven William Safire." That seems the most natural way of writing. Safire in fact acknowledges that "the style arbiters of the best publications have long said it's bad form to throw false titles around." Safire's argument is that the term "language maven" cannot be confused with a title such as "Lord." But the term "U.S. Senator" can definitely be confused with a title, because "Senator" is a title, while "maven" is not. But you still haven't provided an example of a reliable source that uses lower case for "U.S. senator John Doe." TFD (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Will you make up your mind?

You: "I like American actor Tom Cruise" sounds likes a Russian who drops articles; you should insert the.

Me: Some people use the, some don't.

You: Show me.

Me: Well, here's a link to the language maven William Safire.

You: You said "the language maven William Safire" but just "language maven William Safire" is more natural.

EEng 04:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I was looking for an example of a reliable source that uses lower case for "U.S. senator John Doe." As I pointed out, the Safire column doesn't apply because first he says that he holds a minority opinion and secondly, he was referring to cases where the description could not possibly be confused with a title. He said that "language maven Safire" could not be considered a title like "Lord Safire." But Senator is in fact used as a title. Bear in mind, we should do what most reliable sources do which in my opinion is capitalizing Senator. I did a google news search for "U.S. senator Kamala Harris" (notice that the s in senator is in lower case) and every hit on the first page of results used a capital S.[20] While that is not conclusive, you need to show that reliable sources use a lower case s. TFD (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You deprecated "I like American actor Tom Cruise"; I was responding to that. All that other stuff is something you were discussing with someone else. EEng 05:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparent double standard

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.

---

In light of recent developments in the news, I cannot personally see a good reason why our article on Donald Trump has an entire section titled “False statements” but there is no equivalent section dedicated to someone who might become president of the U.S.

If the reasoning for this difference amounts to “because there are no RSs stating that Joe has been lying about his business dealings with foreign entities and Bobulinski’s allegations are the work of the Kremlin,” I would then propose that this article on Biden needs a different section, ”Promotion of conspiracy theories,” that is also featured on Donald Trump’s article but is conspicuously absent here on Biden’s article. Greg L (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden doesn't promote conspiracy theories, which is why we have no section on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Your answer explains the disparity perfectly. May I assume Biden doesn’t make false statements of any substance either? Greg L (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

All politicians lie some, but Trump has taken it to an extreme that the media has called attention to. Biden is prone to gaffe. This article used to have a section on that but I see that it doesn't anymore. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I could agree with you, but then I think we’d both be wrong. 01:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Double standards? Definitely. And this is why Wikipedia articles on subjects of controversy are not taken very seriously. Many times I have seen people post a Wiki article with the typical intro of "FWIW".--Topcat777 (talk) 01:14, 28 Oct 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you 110%. Greg L (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As it is said, "Politicians lie" and "Cast iron sinks", but that is not notable. When "politicians lie in cast iron sinks", it is notable. In other words, being the subject of conspiracy theories is not equivalent to being the promoter of such. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Does the Biden lead include anything like has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics as the Trump lead does? No. Should it? No. Does Biden invent/promote conspiracy theories? No. soibangla (talk) 17:59, 28 October 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.

VAWA

The article says "Biden help craft many federal crime laws. He spearheaded the 1994 Crime Bill; this included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban[98][99] and the Violence Against Women Act,[100] which he has called his most significant legislation.[101]" I suggest that we need a re-write:

Biden help craft many federal crime laws, including the 1994 Crime Bill, his support for which is a controversy in the 2020 presidential election, along with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban[98][99] and the Violence Against Women Act,[100] (which he has called his most significant legislation.[101]), both of which have since expired and neither of which are currently in force.

98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that these bills have been issues in the current election is already covered elsewhere in the article. The expiration is not a reflection on Biden. EEng 22:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, the fact that his signature bills did not have legs is relevant to those who would evaluate his boosting of ideas which peter out. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, lots of good legislation finds its moment in the sun, thrives for a period, then expires years or decades later for any number of reasons. That's not "did not have legs". EEng 22:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

uh, this reliable source says the usage of "did not have legs" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/have-legs is exactly correct 98.118.62.140 (talk)

Ooh, this reliable source https://www.oed.com/ gives popular appeal or success, esp. over a long period of time; the potential to be popular or successful; staying power i.e. the connotation of "over a long period" is secondary. The denoation is simply potential for success. Eek. EEng 05:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah... I see that your link does not actually resolve to a citation (unlike mine) and I see that you ignore the fact that what you characterize as "secondary" is nonetheless, essential. And yet, given that you concede both sources support that the 'over time' aspect is salient, I'd say that "did not have legs" is thereby proven to be perfectly correct and utterly apropos. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• The OED requires access, which I supposed you might not have, so I quoted the entry.
• When an entry says esp. over a long period of time, the esp. means, unavoidably, that the "over a long period of time" isn't essential.
• You're really arguing over the meaning of a phrase used only here on the talk page? Really??? I know -- let's have a talk page for the talk page!

EEng 12:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not shift your focus onto my role in the discussion process, not unless you are willing to focus on yours also. And for the record, I note that you initiated this disagreement by criticizing my suggestion. So not only did you start what you now characterize as an argument, you misrepresent your own evidence. I say this because the "esp" notation means "especially"; and given that it does, the only correct reading is that the true meaning (of the phrase in dispute) is almost the exact opposite of what you claim it is. Thus, the 'over time' aspect is central to the meaning - and therefore, given that Joe's signature legislation petered out over time, it's indisputably true that his signature legislation "did not have legs". 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Especially, in a dictionary definition, means an additional connotation that may or may not be present in a given use. EEng 14:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you are just mistaken. See this link, which is a programmer's syntax guide to editing dictionary entries: https://www.dictionaryapi.com/products/json and search the page for the formatting example for the phrase "bounce into". You will see in this example that "especially" is spelled out and it's very clear that the "especially" clarification meaning is essential to the accurate usage of the term. That is the correct model and it demonstrates that "esp." refers to a particularized, precise usage; a usage which adheres centrally to the meaning of the term. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

My time budget for educating the benighted is close to exhaustion, so I'll give it one more try and then that's it. Since bounce into is an informal Briticism with which I'm only vaguely familiar, let's consider some other examples from the page you linked:

Kids hopping in a sack race

• hop: a short brisk leap especially on one leg – Under your construction of especially, it is "essential to the accurate usage" of hop that only one leg be involved, which is silly – see image at right.
• backflip: a backward somersault especially in the air – Under your construction of especially, it is "essential to the accurate usage" of backflip that the maneuver be made in the air. But as everyone knows, a backflip might be done underwater, or in molasses, or mentally, or even in a vacuum.
• fowl ... 2a. a cock or hen of the domestic chicken especially an adult hen – Under your construction of especially, it is "essential to the accurate usage" of fowl, as applied to a cock or hen of the domestic chicken, that the creature be an adult hen, which is stupid because it would mean a cock is a hen.

From here on out you'll have to prattle on without my participation, but feel free to have the last word and maybe someone else will take up the cause. EEng 23:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any need to mention that the legislation has since expired. TFD (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Please change He previously served as the 47th vice president of the United States in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017 to He previously served as the 47th vice president of the United States in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017 and is the 46th president-elect of the United States. Please change He is the Democratic presidential nominee for the 2020 election to He was the Democratic presidential nominee for the 2020 election. Please change running against the incumbent, Donald Trump, to running against the incumbent, Donald Trump, and was declared the winner of the election on November 6, 2020.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician. He previously served as the 47th vice president of the United States in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017 and is the 46th president-elect of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as United States Senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009. He was the Democratic presidential nominee for the 2020 election, running against the incumbent, Donald Trump, and was declared the winner of the election on November 6, 2020. Kraioloa (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Kraioloa (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: While Biden now leads in Pennsylvania and Georgia, neither state has been declared yet (except PA by one firm (see #Calls by private firms such as Decision Desk HQ) and both could very well be recounted. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 02:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Biden is 47th president

Source: https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21534594/joe-biden-wins-2020-presidential-election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.76.96 (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Although this piece of commentary seems likely to reflect reality soon enough, Wikipedia cannot describe Biden as the President-elect until major news organizations call the race in his favor. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

And he would be 46th, not 47th. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe this refers to a conspiracy theory, that having suffered a loss in the election Donald Trump will resign the presidency before January 20 and then President Michael Pence will pardon him for any current or future charges of federal crimes. This conspiracy theory seems to be sound on legal grounds, but there is no known documentation of it so this is merely speculation. if this conspiracy theory is to be believed, it assumes that the 45th president, Donald Trump, will resign and Michael Pence will become the 46th president. while this theory is legally possible, I do not believe there are any reliable sources to verify it. on a sidenote, a pardon from vice president Michael Pence would absolve Donald Trump from federal prosecution but not state prosecution.Juneau Mike (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Let’s wait for January 20. Meanwhile he will be president elect. Hektor (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (6)

113.22.185.231 (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What edit do you want done?Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Elected

CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, NYT, Reuters, and Fox News have all called the race. There is unanimity now. Master of Time (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (11)

change president-elect to the line below:

Joe Biden is the 46th (and current) president of the USA. 2606:A000:1100:2A5:E4EB:D423:199:7ADA (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

He is not the current president. He does not take office until January 20, 2021. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 presidential Election Campaign

Biden launched a presidential campaign in 2019 and defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Theotorii (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

yes Theotorii (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request

Change "the 46th president-elect of the United States" to "the president-elect of the United States". While he will be the 46th president, not all presidents have been president-elect, so he will not be the 46th president-elect. AlexBot2004 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, according to the list in President-elect of the United States#List of presidents-elect, Joe Biden is the 37th president-elect. He will become the 46th president in January when inaugurated. So to say Biden is the 46th president-elect is inaccurate. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Also requested below. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Remove the picture of a penis posted instead of Joe Biden's photo 2A07:A880:4601:1061:1632:864A:23A7:327D (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's already been handled. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump can still win

There's still a chance Trump will rerun for president. We shouldn't have that Biden will be the 46th president-elected for the USA. All info on Biden's victory is plainly wrong. Only in its most recent addition has it been sourced. This source is not what we recognise as a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by the policy on verifiability.140.146.203.154 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

LMAO^--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:E9B6:3401:F418:27C9 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If he reruns for POTUS, we'll cover it four years from now. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No, he can't. You need a majority of the Electoral votes, which he doesn't have. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (8)

The article states that 'Biden won the 2020 presidential election of November 3rd against Donald Trump'. According to the Wikipedia manual of style, you should not use ordinals when writing dates, so the sentence should be changed to 'Biden won the 2020 presidential election of November 3 against Donald Trump'. TentativeTypist (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There was only one US presidential election in 2020. The date is superfluous. 75.174.138.211 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

My comment was about style, not about the content of the sentence. However, since you bring it up, I don't believe the date is superfluous. It tells the reader more precisely when the election was held. It's not ambiguity which is the issue.TentativeTypist (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the request to remove "of November 3rd". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know when it happened, but this appears to be already  Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

46th President-elect?

Would this number not be incorrect, considering Former President Gerald Ford was never being elected President? Considering this, wouldn’t the appropriate numbering be 45th? There was no interim period with Nixon, as he gave his resignation and as soon as he resigned the Presidency had transferred. Wilhelmus79 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Already fixed. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sections

Please remove yearly numbers from the sections. Example:

Early life (1942_1965)

Change to

Early life

1942_1960 ABC and DEF

Text...line 1

Text...line 2

Text...line 3

1961_1965 GHI and JKL

Text...line 1

Text...line 2

Text...line 3

217.218.25.124 (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I will never donate to Wikipedia again

I disagree with the wording of this article at this time. It totally ignored the process outlined in the United States Constitution, Amendments, and our laws as a nation. Shame on you all for letting politics into all of this. 007longbeach (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

007longbeach, could you be more specific -- what is wrong in the article? --Distelfinck (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

The sentence "Thus, he is only the second non-incumbent vice president to become President-elect of the United States, and the first since Richard Nixon in 1968." should be changed to read something like, "Thus, he is only the second non-incumbent vice president to become President-elect of the United States, after Richard Nixon in 1968." The former is redundant in its information, and the latter seems more concise. Hail$ (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Rephrase the second sentence

The phrasing "After defeating incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president in January 2021." is not totally logical. It should be something to the tune of "Having defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president in January 2021." He already defeated Trump, but the existing wording implies that he "will do that," and then will be inaugurated, which obviously isn't right. Cpotisch (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree - This change looks good to me. Gsquaredxc (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Cpotisch,  Done, good catch. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (6)

change president elect to candidate 2600:1700:1883:7D40:A4CE:5DBC:C148:CC85 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: You have provided no clear reasoning for the suggested change, nor have you provided a reliable source to backup your claim. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#/media/File:Biden_Crime_Bill.jpg

He's not the 46th president-elect, as not every US president was elected. See - Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson & Arthur. Besides, we don't number the president-elect, anyway. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, he's not the 46th "president-elect". But, he is the "46th president-elect" as he is the presumed 46th president to be. O3000 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The term does have a specific meaning, and Joe Biden is actually the 37th president-elect. He will become the 46th president when inaugurated in January. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The 46th should be removed. Simply president-elect of the United States, will do. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, he is only president-elect for now, and is expected to become the 46th president next year (he could even theoretically become the 47th president if Trump resigned in favour of Pence in the final days of his presidency). --Tataral (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

To formalize this as a protected-edit request: Please remove “46th” from the first sentence of the lead. He is not the 46th president-elect. The second sentence already makes it clear than he will be the 46th president. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Too late for us. You'll have to do it. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (12)

Under Joe Biden's photo in the right-side side-bar it says "47th President" when it should say "46th President". 188.64.207.206 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it says "47th VICE President," which is accurate. Crboyer (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

In the lead, "Having defeating" is not proper grammar. It should be "Having defeated". Bmf 051 (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The page is locked for presumably understandable reasons. But it is really annoying me that the 2nd sentence has an obvious mispelling; it says "Having defeating incumbent", should be defeated. Who does have the power to change this? -- unsigned by someone

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Bare url refs

Please see ref #303, which is a "bare url". Here is the properly formatted ref, if an Administrator would add it.

References

Ref#18 is also bare, but I don't know how to format a web.archive.org "bare url", sorry. I think these are the only bare urls present, just now. If this is too minor to deal with, it can wait, of course. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (6)

The Associated Press called the 2020 Presidential Election for Joe Biden on 7th November 2020. However at this point in time several states had not completed their vote count and re-counts are likely to occur in other states due to the narrow margins in the counts. Silversunt (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You have not suggested any change. O3000 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Second bare url

Please see ref #19, which is a "bare url". Here is the properly formatted and archived ref, if an Administrator would add it. That is the last of them, for now. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Calls by private firms such as Decision Desk HQ

Decision Desk HQ has called the race for Joe Biden after he took the lead in Pennsylvania. While I know it is procedural at this point to wait for networks to follow, there is no chance Trump wins Pennsylvania, meaning Joe Biden is the president-elect. Heads up for later. Master of Time (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ is a private firm on a cheap Wordpress platform without even a proper impressum (https://decisiondeskhq.com/about/). What we need is official confirmation by official authorities, not reliance on calls by private media. This also applies to the giant networks like Fox, CNN, etc. which are also only private companies. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The moment mainstream reliable sources are starting to describe Biden as the president-elect we will do so too. We described Trump as the president-elect the day after the 2016 election, long before all the votes were counted and ages before the Electoral College was formally convened and before he was "formally" anything at all. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on "official authorities". If Biden is the apparent winner of the election and described as the president-elect by reliable sources, then he is the president-elect for Wikipedia's purposes and needs to be described as such, in the way that we described Trump as the president-elect in 2016. This is especially true in the likely event that RS would treat the claim that Biden did not win the presidency as a fringe conspiracy theory.

(I don't think Decision Desk HQ alone is sufficient as a source to make this change just yet, but that they are "private" is irrelevant; so are most large mainstream RS. When quality sources like NYT, CNN etc describe him as president-elect, we'll follow suit. Far-right Breitbart and Fox News are not serious sources in polite discourse, so they don't count here. For example, CNN describes its "journalists" e.g. as "a pro-Trump propagandist employed by the network", so Fox doesn't count as professional journalism or RS, but as propaganda, similarly to RT aka Russia Today). --Tataral (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't sufficient, no, but I'm not sure if there is a place on Wikipedia where a set of all calls is made, but since this was the first one of note, I thought I would mention it. Hence the "heads up" bit. Master of Time (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

NYT actually has a decent list of calls here, including the calls by DDHQ. Master of Time (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is utterly pointless. There's nothing more irrelevant to an encyclopedia article than breathless updates on who's calling the race when. Readers can turn on their TVs or use Google for that. EEng 15:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, Tataral, you won't describe him in Wikipedia as president-elect yet. This is not the due process here. The president is elected by the United States Electoral College in the US constitution, not any private network, however RS its news may be otherwise. Besides, states like Georgia have already announced a recount which their election laws requires with this tight result. Therefore, Joe Biden won't be called on Wikipedia "president-elect" until these democratic processes have been concluded. Everybody is watching how we are handling this unprecedented situation, as a proper encyclopedia or an extended propaganda arm of the contenders. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we will describe him as the president-elect, as we described Trump in 2016 the day after the election, when reliable sources describe him as such, whether you like it or not. If you don't like how Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, you can start your own blog. Wikipedia is only concerned with reliable sources and verifiable facts, not conspiracy theories, original research or unfounded fringe claims about "due process" that are treated as fringe theories by RS. --Tataral (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)−

In the past, we have relied on a consensus of reliable sources for making this call, rather than the Electoral College milestone. Is there an argument that the past consensus was wrong? It would seem out of step with the way the encyclopedia works to have us make a different call than a consensus of reliable sources. This seems especially true given the nature of the term President Elect, which is informal and there is even federal law that allows for the government to designate the president elect before the Electoral College vote. From our article:

"The president-elect is the common or honorific title accorded to the person who conclusively appears to have won a presidential election in the United States...If the result of an election is unclear or disputed, no person is normally referred to as president-elect until the dispute is resolved... [In the Constitution, t]here is no indication when that person actually becomes president-elect. Since 1963, U.S. federal law has empowered the General Services Administration to determine who the apparent election winner is, and to help facilitate the basic functioning of the president-elect's transition team."

In short, due the nature of the title President-elect, regular WP:RS rules apply. The way we have done it in the past is, I believe, correct. It will be trickier this year than most. Chris vLS (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I went looking and Slate, which is considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, has a background on "Decision Desk HQ" here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/decision-desk-hq-called-the-2020-election-for-biden-what-is-it.html Here is the part that seems most relevant: "In 2017, Decision Desk HQ partnered with BuzzFeed “to provide live coverage of elections across America” in what was described as a six-figure deal. It began working with Vox that same year; Vox said in a piece this March that Decision Desk HQ “uses gold-standard methods to call elections.” After Decision Desk made its call this morning, Vox affirmed it from its own Twitter account." I do not think that it should be used as a SOLE source for anything, but I think it is notable enough to be considered a viable source? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to say it again: this is an utterly pointless and stupid debate. There's no rush for us to report what people can see for themselves on the news worldwide. EEng 21:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Whether it is here or in the article about the 2020 Presidential Election, I think it may be relevant to have in Wikipedia which reliable sources called the race and at what time / in what order. It is worthwhile to discuss whether Decision Desk HQ - which has contracts or partnerships with at least 2 media outlets, one of which is considered fully reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - is reliable for these purposes to be included, especially since users such as Gun Powder Ma seem to have mistaken impressions about the site. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:TENYEARTEST: In ten years no one reading this article will care which sources called the election in what order. Maybe 2020 US Presidential Election should memorialize such stuff, if there was some controversy as a result. G.P. Ma is indeed mixed up: we certainly will say he's president-elect when the inevitable moment comes that an avalanche of RSs start reporting that. In the meantime we needn't say anything at all, and we certainly don't need to debate the reliability of second-tier (or lesser) sources. EEng 21:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

1. In ten years historians will care which sources called the election in what order.
2. In ten years political science students will care which sources called the election in what order.
3. In ten years statisticians interested in polling analysis may well care which sources called the election in what order.

Do I need to go on further for you to stop being rudely dismissive? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No historians, political science students, or statisticians ten years from now will be using Wikipedia as a source for their research. EEng 22:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Recognizing that there are passions from all sides on this particular issue, our job here is to chill just a bit. When (or if) Joe Biden has enough votes to be recognized as having won the election, there will be more than enough news outlets (be it NYT, NBC, Fox, etc.) that are considered reliable sources that we can then feel comfortable updating the article. We are not a news organization, and we don't deal with the "truth" per se, so we don't need to "break the news." Whether we update the BLP (which carries with it a more cautious set of guidelines) now or later does not in any way impact whether he is the president elect or not. There is no downside to waiting just a bit and being patient. Just my two cents. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting, I simply wanted to point out that Gun Powder Ma's portrayal of the site as "a private firm on a cheap Wordpress platform without even a proper impressum" and somehow "unofficial" is far from accurate. It appears that Decision Desk HQ is a data source that some Reliable Sources are using. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't describe him as the president-elect until he is widely recognised as such by reliable sources. The issue here was the false claim that we need to wait for some sort of government formalities (instead of relying upon RS), something we never ever did in the past, neither in the 2016 US election or in elections in any other countries. When NYT, CNN and comparable quality RS state that he is the president-elect, he is the president-elect for Wikipedia's purposes, but not before. --Tataral (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What the networks claim plays no role. Biden isn't president yet. I challenge anyone to find me a constitutional source that says Biden is president now. The US constuition is clear: The president is elected by the United States Electoral College, not the media. Since Trump has not conceded and the Electoral College has not voted yet, the race is undecided and claiming Biden is WP:OR. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No need for strawmen. Nobody says Biden is president now, and Wikipedia doesn't care about (your original analysis of) "constitutional sources", only reliable sources. He is now the president-elect[21] after major RS such as AP and others have called the election and declared him to be the president-elect. Reporting what widely recognised reliable sources report is the very opposite of OR; the only OR here is your original analysis and fringe claim that "the race is undecided" (consensus among RS disagree). --Tataral (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So show me the constitutional source that says Biden is president-elect now. The media does not make a president-elect because the president is elected in the democracy by the people, not journalists who call races. The only reliable source for Wikipedia to consider here is the US constitution and the proper democratic process. According to these, the race is undecided yet, and will remain so until the Electoral College assembles (or Trump concedes). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong from start to finish. --Tataral (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that's not how Wikipedia works. It doesn't rely on the US constitution for a sole reliable source, just the general conscious when declared in all the known reliable sources, like The Newyork times, CNN, fox, BBC. All the major outlets around the world say he's president elect thus he will be called here as such as well, unless they change their claims in the future go ahead and edit the change. Yes Wikipedia isn't a scholarly source, yes it relies on news outlets & their journalists as reliable sources, if you disagree with that then Wikipedia isn't for you.Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (9)

I want to edit the Joe Biden article Frozen902 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You must specify what edit you plan to make if you want to edit the page.Crboyer (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you are a new user you may only suggest a specific edit/change here on the talk page. --Tataral (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

+ category

Could we please add Biden to Category:American memoirists? Many thanks! No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No Swan So Fine, Could you provide a source that backs up that claim? Thanks :) I can't find the word "memoir" in the article as it stands. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

His two memoirs, Promise Me, Dad and Promises to Keep (Biden book) are listed in his bibliography No Swan So Fine (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (5)

It is false to claim that Biden is the president-elect of the United States. The election is not over. This should be rectified. Yanbad13257 (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

How is it not over?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

Change "Category:Biden family|Joe" to "Category:Biden family" in the category section (without the sorting by "Joe").

In 2018, one user, User:Rcb1 changed a bunch of categories on families (like Category:Obama family) so that individuals in them are by first name within the category. However, they implemented this rather inconsistently: It works decently for royalty, but it gets quite clunky and confusing when there are individuals within the family category with a different last name (making this "sorting by first name" thing pretty useless), and it doesn't fit within the standard Wikipedia sort/categorization guidelines. Rcb1's resorting within family categories would be the sort of thing that would require an RfC (if more than just one user actually wanted to implement it). Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I actually think that's a useful scheme. For example, nearly every page in Category:Obama family ends with "Obama" so sorting everything into the "O" section is kind of useless especially since I'd be scanning that category for someone's first name. I'd rather we work to bring other pages in line rather than edit this page. This probably makes me involved w/r/t this request so I'll leave it to someone else to action. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done —valereee (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Vietnamese refugees

The fever swamp is circulating a story about Joe Biden being the lone holdout against Ford’s efforts to allow refugees from Vietnam to come to the USA. As far as I can see it’s nonsense - https://www.pivotnetwork.org/news/us-congressional-records-joe-biden-welcomed-vietnamese-refugees-to-the-united-states (non-RS). Guy (help! - typo?) 17:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (10)

As an Irish person it is offensive to call County Derry as per the British renaming of it as what has been written here- County Londonderry

Therefore, as Joe Biden identifies strongly as having Irish heritage I request that County Derry is used to describe his mother’s roots not ‘London’derry 2A00:23C5:4717:A800:4DB:806A:A4E1:55E1 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, not what Biden thinks.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The "British" don't call it Co. Londonderry all the time, that would be your fellow cough cough Irishmen and Women, regardless of how they choose to identify.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:5448:2F17:E27E:57F2 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Derry/Londonderry - "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. Do not deviate from this merely because the subject relates to a particular side of the political divide". I therefore propose to reinstate the use of 'County Londonderry' once full protection expires.Alekksandr (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You're completely wrong, as the majority of people from Ireland do indeed refer to both the city and county as Derry, not Londonderry. However, Wikipedia policy is meant to be a compromise, between both the nationalist and unionist community, as well as between the popular, and the official names of the localities, so it's irrelevent.207.237.254.8 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

County is in the United Kingdom and they call it County Londonderry. In fact they created the county and called it County Londonderry. There was never a County Derry that covered this area in the history of Ireland, it's purely a colloquial name used by some. Prior to being called County Londonderry it was mostly called County Coleraine. Canterbury Tail talk 22:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I solve all this sectarian jabbering by removing such details. Go argue at Family of Joe Biden. EEng 01:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

Joe Bidens mother traces her roots to LondonDerry. This is insulting when concidering yourself Irish. It’s just ‘Derry’ unless you are British 2001:BB6:7DF:9158:701F:36D2:1E8E:C677 (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Consensus is to use Londonderry when referring to the county as per the Manual of Style. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 02:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The compromise Wikipedians landed on was making a guideline to use one ("Londonderry") for the county, and one ("Derry") for the city. That way, there won't be any edit warring of users switching it back and forth, because there's a strict guideline. See WP:DERRY. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden's Irish roots

While Biden's Louth roots are mentioned [The Finnegan side of his family is from there], could somebody please edit this to mention his Ballina, County Mayo Blewitt family roots? The NYT did an article on it here - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/world/europe/ireland-biden-ballina.html - while The Irish Times has a decent genealogy here with Biden's known Irish roots - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/what-are-joe-biden-s-irish-roots-1.4403488 Dáibhí Ó Bruadair (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the important Ballina connection in Mayo, can we please use the correct term for Derry instead of Londonderry? Londonderry is the British protestant colonialist term for that city which is in County Antrim in Northern Ireland. Biden is Irish Catholic and would refer to it as Derry as does 99% of Ireland. Calling it Londonderry is offensive to Irish people who are very proud of Joe Biden. Very important this is edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Housewife of Ireland (talk • contribs)

The longstanding and hard-fought compromise here, since 2004, is Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. Please see WP:DERRY. Sorry and thanks DBaK (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Per consistency with other major party Presidential, Vice Presidential, and Senate candidates, please add the following political party succession boxes:

73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing other articles such as Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, and Hillary Clinton, this does not appear to be correct procedure. I am not sure where you got the idea that these boxes are standard. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Tim Kaine and Kamala Harris do in fact have political party succession boxes. Other such as Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Dan Quayle, to name a few, all have such inboxes, which indicates that this is common procedure. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton seem to be exceptions and they should also have their political party inboxes added.

The succession boxes are for positions held, not candidacies. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There is no consensus or precedent for succession boxes for candidacies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've always thought that these succession boxes are redundant. Isn't this information already present in the infobox and the body? ~ HAL333([22]) 20:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding succession boxes for candidacies, Kamala Harris has this at the bottom of her article:

While Tim Kaine has this at the bottom of his article, which includes unsuccessful candidacies.:

Furthermore Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines says that Party political offices (s-ppo) includes "Party candidates for the Presidency of the United States, France, etc." In addition, those succession boxes were previously on this page, but only removed on August 29.

• Doing some more digging, it seems that they were removed, plus Hilary Clinton's on the same day, with the reasoning being per Trump's page. However it seems that Trump was the only one who lacked those succession boxes, so it seems more like they should have been added to his article than removed from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There are other examples like Alan Keyes, a perennial candidate who has never won office, having succession boxes for unsuccessful candidacies. The following is at the bottom of Keyes' article:

This seems to indicate that the succession boxes are used for candidates. Otherwise, a lot of article would have to be cleaned up.

IMO these navigation boxes should have ben reserved for actual officeholders, to let the reader jump through the line who who has been, say, Colorado's 2nd district Senator, the Sec. of State, and so on. "The nominee for office" is not an office, it is an ephemeral state of being for a person. You are what you are, you become the nominee, then you either win and assume office, or return to your life. I find nothing remotely useful in being able to navigate from Bob Dole to Bush Jr. to McCain to Romney to Trump, for example. If there's a lot of articles that would need cleaning up, then, well, we roll up our editing sleeves and do it. ValarianB (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Since such succession boxes are mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines, it seems like such an action would require a policy change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the Senate succession boxes were also removed. This seems to be a standard feature on articles for senators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, this is what was present prior to its removal on August 29:

They were removed from the Trump article because so many template were breaking the page, and these are about the most pointless templates any of these articles have. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a policy on which templates are allowed? It's worth nothing noting that Trump hadn't served in elected office before President, so he would have had less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's worth a lot that Trump hadn't served in elected office before being president, and it's worth even more that he won't be serving in elected office ever again. (Though if there really is a God he'll still "serve", of course.) EEng 03:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant to say "worth noting", as in giving a possible explanation for why there were no templates there, not offering on opinion on the matter, though I don't think highly of his lack of service. I have since corrected it in the previous comment. In any case, what about the matter at hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk • contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (7)

106.201.33.26 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden is the 46th President of the United States of America.

Technically not until the electoral college says he is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven -- just a curious question, where are the official Electoral College results are released? I can't find any sources coming directly from the government in the 2016 article. all of them are from media sources. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 17:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

December 14th I think.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

He is now the president-elect widely recognised by reliable sources,[23] and that's how we'll describe him in line with how we have described all past US presidents-elect (including Trump the day after the 2016 election). Of course he doesn't become president until 2021 when he is inaugurated. --Tataral (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we can say that now that is what reliable sources say. What we wanted to avoid was making the declaration before reliable sources and seeing headlines like "Wikipedia declares Biden the winner." TFD (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The election has not been certified. Biden has a good chance to win and Trump could still win.

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.

---

Hello everyone, seeing as the results of the 2020 Presidential election in Pennsylvania are currently being investigated and litigated including before the US Supreme Court as are other states including Nevada, Biden should not yet be considered the president elect. This is added to by the fact that Georgia will be conducting a recount after computer glitches affecting the count were found there and in Michigan. According to the US Constitution, Elections are decided by states and the Electoral College as well as a Joint Session of Congress, the year afterwards on January 6th. Since they have not yet certified the castings of a duly-appointed Electoral College yet, the election is not over. With Projections showing Biden could win 270-273 votes and Trump 268 or more depending on what happens, we are well within the range of the seven faithless electors of 2016 (five for Donald Trump and two for Secretary Clinton.) We should wait until January 6th or later to add a Presidential desgination whether elect or President considering that according to some commentators this (the election) could continue till then and be the most contested election since 1824. An explanation as to the situation as above should appear on the page. Perhaps I was too young but I also don't remember President Trump's designation being changed to President-elect right after the election of 2016. I also agree with the user who noted Biden is not the 46th President elect, he is 37th, witnessing the cases of President Johnson, President Ford and others including President Cleveland who was elected twice though non-consecutively and was the 22nd and 24th President-elect and President. Keyswab Keyswab (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

He is the president-elect according to reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

All the Presidents-Elect since Wikipedia was founded have immediately titled them accordingly - we're making no exception here. Plus, consensus reads that he has handily won 279 electoral votes - perhaps more, depending on who is reporting. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Given that even unreliable right-wing sources like Fox News are calling him the President-elect, surely this is a non-issue, User:Keyswab! Nfitz (talk) 20:52, 7 November 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.

Hello and thank you for writing, given that in 1948 the Chicago Times printed Thomas E. Dewey as the winner of the Presidential election against President Truman later retracting that piece and the Washington Times declared in November 2000 that Al Gore's Florida votes had put him "over the top" which was also retracted their is a long tradition of media retracting calls in contested races as CNN did with Arizona this year before calling it for Biden again. This is why it is important to wait for the Electoral College to tabulate and the Congress to certify their votes. If under the Constitution, it was up to the media and the popular vote who won there would be no congressional certification or state selection of electors for their votes. As it is, we are still looking at potential faithless electors. Yes! Fox News is super right wing biased and almost completely unreliable! Ridiculous. How does citing them add to your argument that the race was reliably called? Thanks for the update on the vote count I did not catch that. A true statement through fact checkers would be to put on the page, "Joe Biden has been projected to receive 279 votes by some sources and has been declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential election by major US media news sources." Not as is misleading, "Joe Biden has won the election." We don't get to decide that. Our duly elected representatives do. Let's endeavor to follow the Constitution, I am confident it will be our guide as it has been the past 231 years. Keyswab (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC) keyswab

We simply report what reliable sources say, which is that Biden is now the president-elect. EEng 09:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

United States Senate career of Joe Biden

I've recreated the article from a redirect following the cuts made to the US Senate section. Feel free to revert and/or discuss here (or at AfD) if you feel it is unjustified, though please note the previous consensus to create such an article here. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 01:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - wikilink Trump wall

Biden has vowed to stop building the U.S.-Mexico border wall should be Biden has vowed to stop building the U.S.-Mexico border wall. Linking to Trump wall. We have an article for it. Popcornfud (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think Mexico–United States barrier would be a better link. That's where U.S.-Mexico border wall redirects. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yes could be, I'm not clear on the exact distinction between them. Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

   Done with Trump wall as the target. It's more specific since Biden's talking about Trump's planned wall, but it also contains a link to Mexico–United States barrier in the first sentence so readers can find out about the more general barrier should that be what they want. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (6)

In the last paragraph of the lede, "2020 presidential election" should link to 2020 United States presidential election. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's already linked in the first paragraph of the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

But there is a link to the wrong article in the last paragraph. It shouldn't be, right?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I unlinked it and shortehed to the ""presidential election", it is pretty clear from the context that it is the 2020 one.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#/media/File:Biden_Crime_Bill.jpg

Change caption of photo from "Biden spoke at the signing of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994." to "In 1999, Biden spoke at an event at the Alexandria (Va.) Police Department where President Bill Clinton announced plans to add 50,000 new police officers."

source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?118112-1/alexandria-police-event (see from 10:15 to 20:30) Novahistory (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus for your edit before requesting it be added to the page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

inline citations for possibly contested claim.

Could we please source the following statement?:

"After defeating incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president in January 2021"

The statement is later sourced with references 2 and 3. This is an infamously contested statement, so adding a direct citation might show neutrality.--TZubiri (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

TZubiri, Where do you suggest that this be added? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not over yet

See the FAQ above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Biden may have won the election, but it's not over just yet. Trump is protesting that there are votes that consist of fraud due to illegal immigrants and impersonation votes as well. Trump's attorneys are doing everything in their power to battle in an effort to reverse the votes so that they may call this just a paper election. The process not over yet, only 14 december: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-timeline-idINKBN27C1XC https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54724960 Nah.★Trekker (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC) In addition, we just found out that some psychopath has been globetrotting to conspire a hitman's theory to prevent Biden from being sworn in. I am suspicious that it was that same jackass who intended to bring down Obama 12 years back, and he got a lifetime ban from Wikipedia from doing that. I just wonder why that same guy would just sprint back in action to cast such a vengeful agenda? Regardless either way, we still don't know the outcome of the election, because there are other allegations against Biden, especially for his son connecting ties with Russia. Slasher405 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Next time, bring sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) The new account has been dealt with. Any more accounts from this user will be dealt with too. Crboyer (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Same things occurred in 2016 & 2017, when protesters, hollywood celebs & Democratic politicians tried to stop Trump from taking office. Nothing new. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Two sides of the same coin, how droll. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:E9B6:3401:F418:27C9 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC) This is wrong to have this article written this way and overall will degrade the whole site in the end. 007longbeach (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC) I concur with OP. until a candidate concedes or SCOTUS hands down a ruling, the election remains contested, and the text should reflect this state of affairs. Xcalibur (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC) The Supreme Court doesn't normally have any role in determining elections, nor do the candidates, so if we use your criteria we might wait forever.. EEng 09:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC) The supreme court does have a role as in they have the right - they simply do not need to excercise it usually. As for "waiting forever", this is of course nothing but hyperbole and utterly irrelevant as well. Your lack of patience has no actual bearing on electoral results, nor how they are determined. Might want to read about NPOV. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC) The Supreme Court definitely does have the power to change the outcome of an election. It's silly to claim otherwise. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that Biden is President-Elect for now. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "President-Elect for now." No such thing I'm afraid. President elect is determined once the electoral college elects him or her, and I don't know if their decision has ever been overturned.. (the only way there could have been temporary president elects) 95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC) User:EEng took me too literally, or perhaps I was too hasty in posting. of course this will be wrapped up by January one way or another, but much could happen between then and now. the Electoral College hasn't voted yet, so it's not official. they could cast their votes differently than anticipated, reversing the outcome or even creating a tie, in which case Congress would decide via Senators and state delegations in the House. and as I suggested, the Supreme Court may make a decision as they did in 2000. Usually, it's safe to assume the projected winner is the actual winner, but this election is anything but typical. given the close margins, legal challenges, and accusations of fraud, we should treat this as the extraordinary circumstance that it is, and that means making it clear that Biden is currently projected to win, but that there's a significant degree of uncertainty. Xcalibur (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC) No reliable source agrees that there's a significant degree of uncertainty. EEng 03:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC) there are sources that support that statement, but it all depends on what you consider reliable. Xcalibur (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Naturally. EEng 07:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC) I have no idea why referring to him as "President-Elect" is even a point of discussion here, when this same time, four years ago, Trump's page already referred to him as "President-Elect" and nobody complained about that, despite the Electoral College not having voted yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=750648428 See for yourselves. 78.132.22.160 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC) I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ)” at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020

See the FAQ above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Joe Biden is not yet the president elect. States are still counting and have yet to submit final counts. Also- until the electors go through the process of nominations, he is not the president elect. 173.26.178.209 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Are there sources that reflect that, User:173.26.178.209? There's plenty of sources that say otherwise. And even unreliable pro-Trump right-wing sources that refer to President-Elect Biden, such as this. Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC) We follow the reliable sources which overwhelmongly refer to Biden as president elect--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC) The Associated Press themselves (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=us+election) show that Nevada has only reported 88% of its votes, Ohio 100%, Texas 98%, California 66%, Illinois 92%. Georgia has announced a recount due to the slim margin (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/georgia-recount-us-election-biden-trump). December 14th is when the Electoral College votes in the President of the United States. Any candidate has until December the 8th to settle and disputes with the count (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/faq-what-happens-next-in-the-presidential-election-process). I agree with the original author here. It is not up to the media but the states and the electors of the elector college through the processes of the US Constitutuion. Please see my post above. A few news sources that support this are below. . These are just two be very wary because they are very right wing sources. If you need more sources let me know in reply. Ymblanter, what do you mean by reliable sources? All journalism and writing is biased according to the author's slant. References Which are the sources not calling him President-elect? Yes, bias exists, but we see right-wing sources like Fox News using the term "President-elect". If the use was questionable, we did different sources using different terms - so where are they? Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Similar conversation going on over at Talk:President-elect_of_the_United_States#Contradiction_in_article. TL;DR: "President-elect" is not well defined in law, so if RS are calling him that we will too. Bring sources please. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC) In response to both of you, I would refer you to the Wikipedia article on President Elect of the United States in their statement on election process, Real Clear Politics a non-partisan rescource and industry leader in poll aggregation . I would also point you to others world leaders who have refused to recognize Biden as well reported in the Jerusalem Post the President of Mexico has refused to acknowledge Biden yet, . Important we reflect transparency on Wikipedia to our international friends. Other sources are Newsmax and Trunews cited here as well as the Epoch Times. As all national news sources are biased be aware the last three are right wing. Real Clear Politics and Epoch Times are our best sources for this subject at this time. 104.220.107.83 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Keyswab References

Terminology: "President-elect of the United States"

See the FAQ above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As I understand it, the progression is something like the following: a candidate is reliably reported in the news to have won enough statewide elections to amass at least 270 electoral votes later, enough state governments to total at least 270 officially certify that later,electors are chosen in the various states later, electors vote (that will be on December 14, as I understand it) later, the electoral votes are counted (as I recall, the count begins on January 6) later, the results of the count of electoral votes is certified (and, at that point, the presumptive President-elect becomes the President-elect) later, at noon on January 21, the President-elect succeeds to the Presidency See President-elect of the United States, Electoral Count Act and, probably, elsewhere. Perhaps something like "presumptive popular vote winner" or something along that line might be appropriate for now than "President-elect". I suggest that the relevant language in this article be brought into line with this (with appropriate corrections if I've made errors above), and that information be added to the article clarifying this in the interim between now and the January 21, 2021 inaguration date, when it can be stabilized. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Need a source. Are there reliable secondary sources out there using the term "presumptive popular vote winner", User:Wtmitchell. Every media source I've seen uses the term "President-elect" - including vote with right-wing bias like Fox News - see here. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Why would "presumptive popular vote winner" be better? Popular vote is irrelevant to this whole process. Hillary Clinton was the "presumptive popular vote winner"216.165.95.180 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Though it may seem counterintuitive, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth" (see WP:NOTTRUTH). Reliable sources consider Biden the president-elect. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that is what he is.  Aar  ►  Well, as far as the existence of alternative viewpoints re the terminology, see WP:DUE and e.g., Barrus, Roger Milton; Eastby, John H.; Jr., Joseph H. Lane, (2004). The Deconstitutionalization of America: The Forgotten Frailties of Democratic Rule. Lexington Books. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-7391-0835-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) My comment was just a drive-by suggestion, though. I'll leave it at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC). Reliable sources are using the term correctly; it has nothing to do with the Electoral College as suggested here. President-Elect is codified in federal law as the apparent successful candidate for the office of President in an election. It directs the GSA to ascertain the apparent winner and provide transitional services to the President-elect.[24] See this term apparent used when the administrator of the GSA confirmed Barack Obama as president-elect the day after the election in 2008.[25] GreatCaesarsGhost 04:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC) This claim is just as false as Biden being the president elect. The winner, that is who is elected president and who is referred to as president elect (though incumbent presidents who win are not always referred to as such), will be determined by the electoral college. It is not decided by statements from Trump anymore than it is decided by statements from media outlets. Though they do have the exact same degree of authority on this issue: None whatsoever. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC) The declaration of Joe Biden's win is based upon the Pennsylvania vote. As of 7th November he leads by 34 000 votes in the state however there are still over 60 000 votes to be counted in the state - therefore it is too early to call the state and there could also be a recount. As such the Associate Press was wrong to call the election based upon the Pennsylvania result. -- Post by someone Then talk to the AP about it. EEng 12:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Nice appeal to authority.. Except AP isn't even an authority: Sources need to have some form of verifiability. Verifable and reliable secondary sources. And this claim cannot be verified. (Because it is simply untrue - it is the electoral college which verifies any claims of president elect) These media outlets don't even constitute a secondary source in this matter, but a primary. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Appealing to authority is exactly what Wikipedia does. EEng 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC) References : Comment Everyone calm down. By federal law Biden IS the "President-Elect". If the Supreme Court throws the election back to Trump or sends it to the House of Representatives in January, then he won't be the "apparent" winner anymore. All credible sources at this point are accurately and legally calling Biden the "President-Elect". It still may be subject to change. Everyone take a breath and remember WP:NOT -- Sleyece (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Completely wrong. The electoral college decides who is the president elect, no one else. And they have not even voted yet. All claims that Biden is the president elect is simply wrong: The US public do not elect presidents, they elect electors. And yes, do look at WP:NOT, "original thought" in particular because that's what claims to the effect of "Biden is the president elect" or "Trump actually won this election" etc is. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Joe Biden is not president elect because he did not win the election. Donald J Trump won the election. U.S2020 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Donald Trump is the President of the United States, Joe Biden is the President-Elect. It does not matter if it's subject to change. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Donald Trump is indeed president (no matter what happens, he remains president til january at the very least) but Joe Biden is not the president elect, as that is decided by the electoral college. Not media outlets. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC) As I recall, as stated in the constitution, the President-Elect is the designated apparent winner of the electoral process; it doesn't specifically say that a person is definitively the President-Elect after final election by the Electoral College. Hence why reliable sources are referring to him as "President-Elect": because it's technically correct. Regardless, we go by what reliable sources say per WP:VERIFICATION, so all this winging about what to call him is useless. We're going to follow policy on this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC) * This is absolutely correct. The President-Elect has nothing to do with the actual Electoral College vote. However, a Supreme Court decision, or faithless electors could potentially change who is the President-Elect... Declaring Joe Biden P-E at this time is in line with the Constitution, Federal Law, and Wikipedia Policy for the time being. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "The President-Elect has nothing to do with the actual Electoral College vote." Lol. Good one. I assume you have an equally good source for this? 95.202.161.202 (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "As I recall, as stated in the constitution, the President-Elect is the designated apparent winner of the electoral process; it doesn't specifically say that a person is definitively the President-Elect after final election by the Electoral College." Really? Mind quoting that or linking it? Because as I recall - the term isn't even used in the constitution, making this claim rather dubious. What the constitution simply says (12th amendment) - is that the electors elect the president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text "President elect" refers to the candidate they choose, "elect" because he is elected (by the electoral college), and because he does not become president right away. Simple. You are not following any of those things you've listed.. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC) I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ)” at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020

See the FAQ above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Change the incorrect information that states Joe Biden is the president elect scheduled for inauguration January 20th, 2021. The electors have not yet met to elect the president of the United States. So the information is FACTUALLY incorrect. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641 December 14, 2020: Electors Vote in Their States Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years is set (3 U.S.C. §7) as the date on which the electors meet and vote. In 2020, the meeting is on December 14. 2600:8800:2980:F1:F939:6279:1D90:52BA (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)  Not doneAFAIK, no major reliable source has suggested that he won't be elected, and our wording doesn't say that he will, merely that it is expected. Sure, faithless electors are possible, but unless you provide sources that suggest that is a real and serious problem, it is likely not due coverage. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC) @CaptainEek, no sorry, it doesn’t suggest that it is expected, it says clearly HE IS. That he will be, not that he might be. So, it is factually wrong as suggested above. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and president-elect of the United States. Having defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president in January 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Look-aa (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden Vice President

Biden was VP of the USA from 2008-2016 not 2009-2017. EleanorQueen82 (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

He was elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012 - he served from 2009 to 2017, so you are mistaken... DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 03:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

True, why the elections are in November the actual takeover of power takes place in January.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The transfer of power used to be in the Spring so an inauguration in January was moving things up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

GSA

Even as the media declared Biden the winner on Saturday, the GSA was reluctant to immediately follow, saying in a statement that “an ascertainment has not yet been made. GSA and its Administrator will continue to abide by, and fulfill, all requirements under the law.” Every passing day, however, also stalls what was already a historically difficult transition. Making matters even more complicated, the law on the subject is vague and leaves it up to Murphy to determine when Biden is officially president-elect.

As I understand it, despite most media calling Biden "president-elect", the official declaration is down to GSA chief Emily W. Murphy. Politico says she hasn't made the decision as of yet (06:05 PM EST): "Meet Washington's most powerful woman (temporarily)" Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The GSA has its procedures, and for its purposes a somewhat conservative approach makes is appropriate. We still follow the sources. EEng 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we have a source that clarifies this legal wrinkle. Perhaps the addition of a note about the official position would be useful (and more accurate) ahead of Murphy's decision? Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Over at President-elect of the United States that would make perfect sense. In the everyday use of the term that our readers understand, Biden is the president-elect. EEng 12:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

But our readers can only understand the information given, and technically that information is wrong. Politco is, I assume, a reliable source? For an overview see: [26]

The “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” are defined by the Act as “such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator [of the GSA] following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.”

I still think a note clarifying the situation would be a good idea until further notice. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The GSA makes decisions on the logistics of transitions and defines -elect for its purposes. We still go by the preponderance of reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

So if a reliable and unbiased source provides verifiable facts that disprove the popular narrative it should be completely ignored because most other outlets state otherwise even though they're technically incorrect? Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Here’s the thing. Verifiability, as per Wikipedia policy, means according to reliable secondary sources. They massively say president-elect. We have one source, Politico, that disagrees. I have tried to find other such sources. I am finding a few lower level sources which include the same line: “A spokesperson for the General Services Administration said early Saturday afternoon that the administrator, Emily Murphy, has not formally ascertained that Biden is the ‘apparent winner’ of the race.“ But, these sources all use the term president-elect anyhow. So, basically, we have a Trump appointee who has not yet called Biden the winner (while her boss claims he is the actual winner), and the rest of the world saying Biden is the president-elect. O3000 (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the sources say "president-elect", and I wasn't suggesting you alter that in the article. I just think a footnote or single sentence somewhere which explains the official process would be beneficial to the curious (or dubious) reader, especially if Murphy continues to drag her heels. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

For those who want to know what president-elect means, we have a link in the lead to the article on that subject which discusses the GSA in its lead. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, and according to that article, "Since 1963, U.S. federal law has empowered the General Services Administration to determine who the apparent election winner is..." It doesn't say that Fox News, CNN, and various heads of state determine the pres-elect. Whatever the opinion of the rest of the world, that determination is solely made at the discretion of the GSA, legal challenges notwithstanding. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered RS. And, that's not actually what the law says: (c) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2. That is, those are the definitions as used in this Act. The transition act has it's own definition for their purposes before the election is called officially to enable the transition. But, the political appointee who runs the GSA does not decide who actually won. For our purposes, we use RS. We do not engage in original research based on primary sources. O3000 (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of that quote, having used it already in this converstion. The law seems unambiguous as to whom determines the president-elect. It is not engaging in "original research" — the matter is covered by the Politico article mentioned previously. Whether that can be considered a primary source (alongside most of the breaking news about Biden's victory) is somewhat open to interpretation. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Only for purposes of the transition ("as used in this Act"). Murphy does not decide who won the election. O3000 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Did I say she does? Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason not to wait till it is offical, RS have been wrong before.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The GSA's role is not to certify the election, it's to start the transition process. [27] near the end. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• President-elect is not a formal office. The very fact that the GSA has to have its own definition, for its own purposes, reflects that. We go with the sources. Period. EEng 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Exclamation point! PackMecEng (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Exclamation point? EEng 00:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

See the FAQ above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The sources used in this article to state the Joe Biden is the president-elect are media outlets. The media does not declare the official results of who is the president-elect. Congress counts the electoral votes of a presidential election. 12aq11 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC) If you simply report what reliable sources say, then state that in the sentences. Such as, “Multiple media outlets have projected...””. 12aq11 (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC) I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC) For comparison, on November 10, 2016, the Donald Trump article said "He was elected President on November 8, 2016, defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and will take office January 20, 2017." No qualification. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia reports what is reported in independent reliable sources. They are unanimous in calling him the president-elect, so we call him the president-elect. It has been repeatedly argued that technically he is not the president-elect until the electoral votes are counted. Whether or not that is true (and there are actual government sources who refer to the apparent winner as the president-elect), we follow the usage of the reliable sources. As well as the precedent set in our previous articles about presidential elections. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (3)

He his not president until January 21st 2021 64.222.180.90 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we say he is?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done Flogged to exhaustion above. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit - Law degree

Current version

In 1968, Biden received a law degree f

Comment

Too vague. JD. LL.B., LLM what?

Seems to be JD per this: https://www.law.com/2020/11/03/biden-would-be-first-lawyer-president-without-a-jd-from-the-t-14-in-a-century/

Suggested edit

In 1968, Biden received a J.D. law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law.........(continue with the rest of the section) Mink cull (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "earned a Juris Doctor". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Change "President-Elect" to "Projected President-Elect" Karac Henderson (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please read all of the other discussions to this effect on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

...and please read the FAQ (frequently asked questions) at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand the that this has been discussed but this seems like a reasonable compromise. This is probably one of the most highly contested elections and there are over 70 million people that feel that he is not the president elect until one candidate concedes or the vote is certified BlackBird1008 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

71 million people voted for Trump, and 76 million people voted for Biden. The 2000 election was far more contested than this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

BlackBird1008, it is highly unlikely that 'over 70 million people' think that, given the number of prominent Republicans who have already conceded that Trump lost. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Muboshgu, I’m not one to argue the vote count, however, this election is, by definition, contested and It would be far more accurate to label him the projected President elect since neither candidate has conceded nor has the vote been certified. Labeling him the projected President elect would not go against reliable sources
• 109.159.88.9 that’s a matter of opinion as was my statement, I was taking into account that there is likely many more people who feel this way that are either not voters or are ineligible to vote BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (5)

Remove the information about his election as president. The Supreme Court hasn't speak about it yet. Is not fair information. 200.73.240.33 (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Just erase the info about the election, because is not finish. More over, could be electoral fraud. So I suggest to stay out of this propaganda if the information isn't official.

This has been discussed multiple times on this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Can we just start deleting these identical requests at this point? It's F-ing ridiculous. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please. "The Supreme Court hasn't speak about it yet"? Huh? Neither has Donald Duck. Honestly, the done thing for talk pages is to delete irrelevant and unhelpful comments. Not sure why it isn't being done here. Moncrief (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moncrief, well then we get accused of censorship. There's no win here, except for Joe Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's also democracy, common sense, and the humans everywhere, of course. EEng 04:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

People will accuse others of all sorts of things. That doesn't change the task at hand. I'll bow out here, but Acroterion put it well when he or she told me a few months ago, on my user talk page [28]: "Actually, we do remove comments ... under WP:NOTFORUM. Talkpages aren't soapboxes for partisan political views, especially when they denigrate entire parties on a broad-brush basis, as the comment did. Talkpages are for specific suggestions concerning article improvement, and off-topic attacks or statements of personal opinion are often removed. They don't have to be against another editor, and at times it's important to remvoe such commentary to keep talkpages from breaking down." Moncrief (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

RE: Can we just start deleting these identical requests at this point? IMO we should not delete them, but we could point to the FAQ and then hat them. And maybe archive after 24 hours. (What is our standard archive time here, anyhow?) -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

President elect?

Yet another repetition. Enough already.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So Biden is president elect? According to Google, the AP (American press) has declared Biden the winner. Since when does the press declare the winner? I thought each state was in charge of the winner of its own election, not the press.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Spidersmilk, please read every single thread on this page that covers that exact topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC) @Spidersmilk: please see the FAQ at the top of this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Not the president elect

See the FAQ above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He is quite literally not the president elect (atleast not yet). The president elect is elected by the electoral college - hence the term president elect as well as the term ELECTORAL college. And Biden has not been elected by the electoral college and indeed, may not be. The claim that he is president elect is literal fake news. It does not matter if any (nor how many) media outlets claim otherwise, they are not the authority on the matter. Reading the article on the electoral college right here on wikipedia might help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College "The Electoral College of the United States is the group of presidential electors required by the Constitution to form every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president." 95.202.161.202 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Flogged to death above multiple times. He is the president elect in multiple sources and that is all that is required. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Complete nonsense. It does not matter how many "sources" you present if they are irrelevant to the the matter. And this matter is determined by law, not opinion. Here's some reading from the library of congress: https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/presidential-election-process/what-is-the-electoral-college/ "If you're a United States citizen, 18 years of age or older, you probably think you have the right to vote for presidential candidates in the national election. That's partially correct. When citizens cast their ballots for president in the popular vote, they elect a slate of electors. Electors then cast the votes that decide who becomes president of the United States." US citizens do not elect a president directly. They elect electors, who then in turn elect the president. There is no "on the one hand but on the other hand here". Biden is not president elect and he has not yet defeated anybody: The election is decided once the electoral college has cast their votes (and that's when the president elect is actually elected) not before. That's the simple facts, all you're doing is putting your fingers in your ears and going "nyah nyah nyah". Or perhaps "president elect president elect". Biden is likely to BECOME president elect but that does not mean that he currently is. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC) And repeating the same tired arguments over and over again isn't going to help your cause. Wikipedia is written based on verifiable, secondary sources. He is the president-elect based on the reliable sources that Wikipedia uses. YOU can put your fingers in your ears and repeat the same arguments over and over -- the page is admin protected for this exact reason. MrAureliusRTalk! 17:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Wikipedia is written based on verifiable, secondary sources." Verifiable you say? And in what way then is the claim that he is the president elect verified? Oh right, it's the electoral college who decides and thus verifies (or not) if a claim of "president-electhood" is correct. And they haven't even voted yet. An argument - more like statement of fact in this case - doesn't become "tired" nor untrue, simply because you refuse to acknowledge it. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC) We all know how the electoral system works. But, Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources, They nearly unanimously say president-elect. O3000 (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Ten million flies"... So what does these parts about "reliable" and "verifiable" mean in practice if the source is factually wrong and unverifiable? "Verifiable" doesn't entail opinions or "this is what a lot of people think is true". And as for this about reliable & secondary sources... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news "All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution" 95.202.161.202 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC) And really, for anyone claiming they are indeed a secondary source.. mind informing us about what the primary source is? Because there clearly is none. The primary source would be the electoral college. But it has not made any claim as to who is the president elect, it has not even been gathered yet. As such, it is an original claim. That is, they are the primary source of this claim. Not secondary. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC) The question at hand is does the title of President-Elect get conferred 1. after the election or 2. when the electoral college votes. There is substantial evidence that it is the former. The evidence provided here in support of the latter does not address the subject of the title at all. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC) The president is elected when the electoral college votes on it, hence the title. And that's when the election is over - that's when someone become president elect because that's when he is elected. Because US citizens do not choose presidents but electors. So everything else is little more than opinion. And technically no - it is not "only" if Biden is the president elect that is wrong here either. This article also claims him to be the winner of the election, which is untrue as well. Really, what is the big problem with sticking to the actual facts? 95.202.161.202 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC) We all know there are several steps to the election process. But, what is your source for when the term "president-elect" comes into play? There are a massive number of sources that say this has already taken place. Doesn't mean it can't change. O3000 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ...So now you are arguing to the effect of "may we use this term legally" rather than "is this accurate and factual"? Is that really what the issue is? Why is it so important to call Biden the president elect when he isn't? 95.202.161.202 (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC) No, I said nothing of the sort. No reason to continue as you deny what nearly every reliable source says. O3000 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Except you are indeed arguing about whether the term might be used now. Not if it should be used, that is - if it is actually true. I am not the one denying anything here. Repeating a mantra of "reliable and verifiable" doesn't change the fact that the claim is not verified, and factually untrue and thus anything but reliable. How exactly is the claim verified? It isn't. How do the media outlets even constitute a secondary source when they have no primary source? Why should the guideline about "breaking news" be ignored? Why "must" Biden be referred to as president elect when it is not correct? 95.202.161.202 (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)President-elect of the United States Chiming in from the sidelines, it seems to me that this discussion ought to be taking place at Talk:President-elect of the United States before it takes place here. There have been some recent edits to the lead section there which are relevant to this discussion. I recognize that WP articles are not reliable sources, but it seems only logical that articles which mention something which is covered by a relevant main article on the mentioned topic probably ought to try not to contradict the main article on that topic. That point relates a bit to the WP:SS editing guideline. Also, considering a bit of reality here instead of POVs regarding terminology, what presidential-slate popular vote voters are voting on is the selection of slates of electors, with that being hidden on the ballots in most (or all?) states behind the names of the slated candidate for whom the electors will be pledged to vote if they are selected. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC) That article is not really correct either. It has the same basic error - An unfounded notion that the president elect is somehow not the person elected by the electoral college. But that's what he is. Yeah.. you are not barred from calling somebody the president elect before he has been elected (hell, even if he won't be), but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do so. This back and forth that has arisen now about whether you CAN call him the president elect is simply strange - yes you can. You could call anyone anything. But the question is if you should.. and we should stick to the facts. Not what we might want to be true or what a large amount of people simply claim is true. The president-elect is the one elected by the electoral college and there is no reason, none, for a supposedly factual, encyclopedial article to not reflect that. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC) You keep saying these things like they are established facts; you need to PROVE your case with references. Not references to the electoral process, but references that define WHEN in the process one becomes the P-E. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC) I've already given quite a few, both in regards to guidelines, the constitution, the electoral college.. And yeah, you are president elect when you are elected president. And how is a president elected? By the electoral college. Are you disputing that? If not - you are simply arguing semantics at best. Whether you "could" call Biden PE rather than if you "should" refer to him as such when he isn't. I don't think anyone here has argued that it' somehow "illegal"? Only that it's not correct. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, you have provided references, but not for the point you are making. THAT is what you need to prove - that reliable sources say the Electoral College makes someone P-E. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

President elect is not factual because none of the states have not endorsed him yet. This page is presenting factually incorrect information. 61.21.137.197 (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources call him the precident-elect. Majavah (talk!) 12:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't write what you intended to write. You wrote, "... none of the states have not endorsed him yet ...". When you remove the double negative, it says, "all of the states have endorsed him" which id definitely not true. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

States do not "endorse" him. There is no such thing. Unless you mean formally certifying the election count, which won't happen for weeks. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (2)

Joe Biden was declared President elect by the AP, NOT the courts, which is the ONLY body that has the authority to make that decision, wikipedia should be shut down for spreading false narratives and information. 67.141.244.42 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Mostly because we are bored rigid with the same old edit request again and again and again. No matter how many times it is made, nothing is going to change. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Question for the OP: when has a court ever declared who the next president would be? EEng 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• "...the courts, which is the ONLY body that has the authority to make that decision" -- Wait, what? That's not how elections work. Moncrief (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"President-elect" is not accurate. He is the presumptive president-elect. The electors do not vote until December 14th.

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.

---

Here's an AP article that you guys are claiming is a "reliable" news source explaining how the electors do not vote until December 14th which is when he is officially a president-elect: https://apnews.com/article/when-do-electoral-votes-need-to-be-in-970e6b8c8474c77ac6ab4fb0d56caa5b

The current AP article being used as a source does not declare him as a president-elect at any point in the article: https://apnews.com/article/when-do-electoral-votes-need-to-be-in-970e6b8c8474c77ac6ab4fb0d56caa5b

Furthermore, I know the majority of people here have personal views that don't want to recognize this fact, but the results of this election are currently attempting to be disputed by Biden's opposition. Therefore, Joe Biden is the presumptive president-elect. "Reliable sources" can be found that say a great deal of many things, but the fact at the end of the day is that he is the presumptive president-elect. That's what he is. We should be using the correct neutral terminology to keep Wikipedia as neutral and honest and unbiased as possible. Skcin7 (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Look, between Obama's election and his inauguration there were lawsuits claiming he wasn't qualified to become president because he wasn't really a natural-born citizen and so on and so forth, yet Wikipedia didn't describe him as the "presumptive" president-elect, nor report that he "might" take office in January, because the lawsuits were hopeless blather filed by crackpots. That principle doesn't change just because the crackpot filing the hopeless blather happens to be the current president of the US. EEng 09:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. This is splitting hairs to the point of trying to cause unnecessary confusion. He's now widely regarded as President-elect until such time as any lawsuit were to successfully overturn the election result. See the first sentence of President-elect of the United States for a nice simple explanation of how Wikipedia views this - which itself is a reflection of wider sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• The current president of the United States is disputing the fact that Biden won and challenging it in the courts, and official electoral votes have not be cast. Yes, many of the major news sources have called the race for Biden, but this is different than in 2016 when Obama called the race for Trump and Clinton conceded, and different than previous elections as well where "president-elect" can safely be used immediately after the general election but before official electoral votes are cast for the same reason. I do think that it's most correct, unbiased, and neutral here to use "presumptive president-elect", since that's what we are presuming Joe Biden is based on the results of the general election which very heavily are in his favor, but okay. I don't want to be splitting hairs and I guess it's fine as just "president-elect" though it's probably most correct to qualify it with the word "presumptive" in front of it. Skcin7 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is addressed in Q1 if the FAQ at the top of this page. ValarianB (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Right, and I was pointing out that one of the "reliable sources" that is explained in the Q1/A1 points outs that the electoral votes are not actually cast until December 14th: https://apnews.com/article/when-do-electoral-votes-need-to-be-in-970e6b8c8474c77ac6ab4fb0d56caa5b

And furthermore, official (government) sources should come before news articles as being considered a "reliable source". Skcin7 (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that "official (government) sources" can be pressured and manipulated by Trump to his own purposes is precisely the reason we use reliable secondary sources, which weigh and evaluate what's going on, instead of primary (e.g. government) sources such as Trump's GSA toady. Reliable means that a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not saying what Trump wants them to say. EEng 15:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• The word "projected" could also be used instead of "presumptive". Actually, now that I think about it, it's probably most correct, unbiased, and neutral to use "projected president-elect" instead of "presumptive president-elect", since the "reliable sources" of the media have been projecting him as based on the results of the election, though it's currently being disputed at the official governmental levels. So, "projected president-elect" is most correct here, but if you guys want to just call him "president-elect" then okay whatever but it's not the most correct, unbiased, and neutral thing to do. Skcin7 (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• It it is not "the most correct", as it relies on the baseless narrative of the losing party. ValarianB (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• This has been addressed previously. Please view the prior comments, which address all your concerns. Joe Biden is the President-Elect. There is no need for any qualifiers, despite Trump's claims, which reliable sources have universally rejected as having no merit. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we do not give equal weight to conspiracy theories. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:43, 10 November 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 10 November 2020 (2)

The following sentence needs a change to one of the words: "Having defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president on January 20, 2021." The word "defeated" has a somewhat negative connotation, when it really should have a neutral one. I suggest changing it to "overcame." PeterPrettyCool (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: "Defeated" is the most common term used in reliable sources. I've never seen it said that a candidate "overcame" another. That would define the losing candidate as an adversity and is worse than "defeated", IMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Never mind then. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (3)

Biden will be the 46th President not the 47th President. 2601:1C2:1B7F:F3B0:AC8B:2B19:8CAF:C479 (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, but he served as the 47th vice president from 2009 through 2017, which is what the article says. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

About the whole president-elect thing

See the FAQ above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First of all, I am not an expert, but the table states, that President-Elect Biden assumes office on Jan 20, 2021 as president-elect, which is just wrong, because he (probably) assumes the office as president, and somewhen in December, when the Electoral College votes for him, he assumes the (not official existing) office or position of president-elect. Please, let me know where I am wrong. --185.69.247.169 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC) On December 14th the Electors will vote for the President of the United States. Until then there is no official president elect. . There is no guarantee that Electors will vote with the popular vote for their state . In the 2016 election there were ten faithless electors - electors that went against their party . The vote in November only elects the Electors - not the President. It is the electoral college that votes for the president, not the people References President-Elect refers to the winner of election, as soon as this becomes apparent. This is the use that is commonplace in the media and the public, and it is used in federal law ("beginning on the day after the date of the general elections held to determine the electors").[29] GreatCaesarsGhost 14:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "President-Elect refers to the winner of election, as soon as this becomes apparent." No, it does not. Is there a reason you make unfounded claims? Whatever it is, you should consider dropping it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/president-elect https://www.dictionary.com/browse/president-elect https://www.thefreedictionary.com/presidents-elect etc etc 95.202.161.202 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC) I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC) But these quote “reliable sources” claims are not true. If a “reliable source” says the sky is red we don’t change how we view the sky. We change how we view the quote “reliable sources”. Popular media outlets are not the ones who call an election. Only the electors and state certified voting statistics are reliable sources when it come to the election. So the “we follow reliable sources” excuse is void when your sources aren’t reliable. CaseyP513 (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to fix an error

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.

---

See the info box. It looks like Biden is to assume the office of President-Elect of the US on January 20, 2021.

This is fake news and false information. He is to become POTUS on January 20,2021.

Errors like this make Wikipedia look childish.

Edit request - change the info box to President of the United States. Vanny089 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Try and think -- think -- what the data in the box is telling you. It says he's the president-elect, and will assume office (the office he has been elected to, obviously) on Jan 20. Cool your jets and use your brain. EEng 04:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

your brain is on something, Miss Eng. Look at the info −box under Vice President. It says "in office ". Then look in the box under President-elect, says assuming that office in January. So sloppy. So Biden is not yet President-elect? (How Trumpers want to believe). IF you don't want to change it, fine, the joke is on wikipedia. Ha ha ha Vanny089 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Vanny089, it makes it seem like he will be president elect starting on Jan 20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎24.114.79.88 (talk • contribs)

I understand what the OP means, though I don't think it's an error. It's just a different way of interpreting/reading the infobox. I looks like Wikipedia used the same format for Donald Trump after he was elected in 2016. It might be clearer if the office parameter read "President of the United States (elect)", rather than "President-elect of the United States", to emphasize that he's acceding to the office of President and not the office of President-elect. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Another solution would be to just not have the succession box at all, since there's no one on the planet -- and very few people on other planets -- who don't know Biden will be the next US president. EEng 09:17, 10 November 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.

Wikipedia poorly handling subject, suggest 8 year war starting

See the FAQ above. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 19:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is currently a battle about Biden being president-elect versus President-Elect of the United States versus being president -elect starting 1/20/2020 (clearly wrong but has support and is the current version) I get it! It's easy to feel that Biden must he called President-Elect of the United States because anything else is a show of support for Trump. That is not true. I personally am not bothered by technically inaccurate but widespread beliefs, that he is, for practical purposes P.E. SNEAKY VANDALISM What I find so silly is clearly wrong info, like the infobox stating Biden will become P.E. on 1/20/2020. So funny because it is exactly what sneaky vandalism is, i.e. something so funny and wrong but stays there for long periods of time. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to warn and ask people to cooperate and not fight. Fighting over this matter shows that for the next 8 years, there will be stubborn behavior and bullying. Please listen to Biden and come together. That means compromise. Nobody should have their way but split things down the middle. Vanny089 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Compromise is why I accept sneaky vandalism. It is wrong but others want it in the info box so I will go along with it as a compromise. Vanny089 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Have you had a chance to read EEng's response to you above? Try and think -- think -- what the data in the box is telling you. It says he's the president-elect, and will assume office (the office he has been elected to, obviously) on Jan 20. Cool your jets and use your brain. EEng 04:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC) It has nothing to do with showing support for Trump or coming together or anything else. The US has a rather well-known title of being president-elect, so it's not exactly appropriate to put the title as POTUS. It makes perfect sense if you look at it and understand what it is saying: "President-elect of the United States; assuming office: 20 January 2021". President-elect isn't an office, so it's obviously referring to the presidency, which rotates on 20 Jan... I don't think anyone else has been confused by this, even if it does look a bit unnatural when you really try to sit on it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

President-elect title is misleading. As no one is president-elect till December

See the FAQ above. Moncrief (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would I be possible to remove the president elect title and anything relating to (if not removal then clarification of that possibility things can change) the “victory” of Joe Biden over Donald trump for the 2020 presidential election. My reasoning being that the electors have not met yet to declare who the president-elect is. Also I noticed the links used to support the notion that Biden won are not links to sources that have the authority to say so. Another note that is more of a personal problem is that the article states he has won before key battle ground states have been called. But the last point is neither here or there. I think the best unbiased decision would be to leave anything dealing with the election out until everything is certain. It offers a shield from people trying to say wiki is biased. What are your options on this ? CaseyP513 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC) CaseyP513, please read the FAQ at the top of the page or the oodles of other talk page sections going over the same exact territory. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

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.

---

Wikipedia & the media are not the certifiers of a presidential election. Wikipedia is providing FALSE information. 104.35.34.64 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No clear change asked for (please use a "Change X to Y" format). Please provide reliable sources that support the change. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 16:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you also concerned about other articles in which Wikipedia uses the standard "-elect" verbiage for candidates who won this year but have not yet taken office, such as Tommy Tuberville and Michelle Fischbach? Or is your concern specific to this race for some reason? Moncrief (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Can WP get a banner which replicates the "cool story bro" meme for use whenever a post like this pops up?--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:FC75:D6FF:587F:C7EB (talk) 19:01, 11 November 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.

Creating News NOT Reporting Fact

See the FAQ above. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 02:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to this article Biden was elected the 46th president. This is completely false. The counting of votes has not finished, the Electoral College has not met, and a multitude of lawsuits need to be settled. Should court rulings and\or recounts result in President Trump being re-elected this article's claim that Biden won will be beyond embarrassing. I am assuming Wikipedia still strives for accuracy no? 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

There is a grammar error in the very first sentence: "is an American politician is the presumptive president-elect" Kirill Tsukanov (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done I added "who" to make the sentence grammatically correct. Maka^⭐(talk) 15:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (5)

A member of the Democratic Party, Biden previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017

Amend to: A member of the Democratic Party, Biden previously served as the 44th vice president from 2009 to 2017 Jyang0609 (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There have been more vice presidents than presidents. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Contradicts List of vice presidents of the United States. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

As Wtmitchell pointed out, the list of vice presidents lists him as 47th. Need more evidence? Britannica, The White House, a biography - 47th is correct. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nickname

Shouldn't we point out in the first sentence that Mr. Biden is colloquially known as 'Joe Biden'? Given that the article is literally titled 'Joe Biden', I feel like that's obligatory. Uaiazr Jxhiosh (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to lead

I propose that the following text be added to the lead, (known popularly as Joe Biden) as no media sources refer to him as anything else.Juneau Mike (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't beat our readers over the head with the obvious. See Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton. EEng 09:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is covered in the MOS, at MOS:HYPOCORISM: It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020, Joe Biden is not currently president.

See the FAQ please, and other discussions which have gone over this ad nauseum CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020 <<< THE GOVERNMENT RESOURCE DO NOT CLAIM MEDIA RESOURCES ARE RELIABLE In the time of which people question the Wikipedia, the writers on here claim "news" is a reliable source of data. Of which is the most biased data ever. For example during 2013,(I have it recorded on DVR) my news channel said a nuke was lost in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Anyone knows this is false. I have 9600 more instances of this. I looked at 5 different Wiki pages for politicians, of which all includes data from left leaning news sources. Statements on immigration force a POV in effective psycho-manipulation tactics. In example, Joe Biden said Donald Trump is sending US born "Immigrants" back to Mexico. That is not how it works though. The parents will be deported for being illegal. However, the children will stay if they were born in the US they will stay, as they are illegal in Mexico. A witness testimony statistically, is almost always wrong as well. In example the previous stated Joe Biden thing. Meaning any biographical writ also needs to have that segment recorded by video for the most untampered data. Any data that is from a news source, should be looked at as false, due to the heavy amount of lies that any news source does. I know in it's own sounds like a bias, but I have data that holds true. Until presented with new data I will remain to believe that is fact, that the news is almost always wrong. Don't deny my edit request, because requesting a consensus is unnecessary when I presented hard evidence. That's like being an officer with a body cam, and watching a man(referring to man's definition as the shortened form of human) cheat at official poker, and performing consensus on the other card players because people don't believe real evidence. Because I have evidence for the change for complete accuracy. Present me with evidence to change my mind. Joe Biden is not president nor has he been voted for by the actual voters. We also do not know if he is being voted in yet. The line in the first paragraph needs to add "Joe Biden won the popular vote as of November's count" "He will be inaugurated" Should change to "He might be inaugurated" or be removed in it's whole. Our leaders(representatives) vote our leaders not us. I joined the Wikipedia to make it unbiased, and data ran. Cheers, Lord Sieyono (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC). Also Sieyono for president 2030! Lord Sieyono (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See FAQ above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Nobody has said he is president yet. He is recognized as president-elect, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Ok, President-elect means by the Oxford dictionary he was the elected president(of which I hope he becomes president because it would be funny). But no real election has taken place yet, by real I mean electoral. Meaning my revision request still stands, because Mister Biden is not the president-elect. The Electors elect on Dec 14th --Lord Sieyono (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC) So you're saying we should wait until December 14th. But wait! On that day, all the electors of each state do is prepare a Certificate of Vote, and these are all forwarded to the Senate, where they are placed in a ceremonial box. Not until January 6, 2021 are these boxes opened and the elector votes tallied up, after which the president of the senate announces the result. So shouldn't we wait until then to say Biden's the president-elect? Or maybe we should wait until the electoral vote is printed in the Journal of the Senate! You see how stupid this all is? EEng 08:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

President-Elect

See the FAQ above. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note that “President-Elect” is currently an inaccurate term. This quibble has nothing to do with Trump’s lawsuits... I have no doubt that Biden WILL be President-Elect (and eventually President)... however, the Electoral College has not YET actually elected him. THAT will occur on Dec. 14th. Until then, we should use some other term (such as “President Presumptive”.) Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Please read the blinking stop sign at the top, the warning when you edit, and the innumerable other sections saying the same thing. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

Same as before Gsquaredxc (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Change "President-elect" to "Probable President-elect" Biden is not officially President-elect until January 6th, as stipulated in the electoral schedule: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641 172.72.224.191 (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC) References  Already declined - Read FAQ - Gsquaredxc (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements about first wife’s accident

The history shows my 11/2 addition of his statements, supported by two reliable sources which include reporting by CBS News. My edit did not overstate the matter. IMO the rv of this bears another look for the sake of the article’s NPOV. Hoppyh (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_13#Deaths_of_family. EEng 13:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't meet weight - you need to show that this information is typically mentioned in reliable sources when referring to the accident. TFD (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It does indeed, as the sources provided indicate the matter to be the subject of Biden’s public campaign speeches, and reports and interviews by the NY Times as well as CBS News. The exclusion of the brief reference to it is editorial bias. Hoppyh (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden later garnered controversy is some heavily loaded language that should never fly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The language is subject to adjustment, of course. Hoppyh (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Snopes has a very detailed article on this. The firrman who treated the truck driver said His injuries were such that his demeanor was similar to that of someone in a stupor, but those of you who serve in emergency medicine know that such behavior is often presented by victims who are in shock, or perhaps even diabetic. and To be honest, those of us in fire-rescue here in Delaware assumed that Mr. Dunn had been drinking, based on comments made by police officers at the scene. And in the Delaware fire service, rumors travel from station to station like wildfire. Until he remarried in 1977, whenever Joe Biden attended a public safety event, parade or spoke during a firehouse banquet, police officers and firefighters would approach him and discuss the accident and the tragedy of his wife Neilia and daughter Naomi falling victim to a drunken driver. Imagine how those discussions must have affected the young Senator. --Distelfinck (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Distelfinck, right. A trivial and understandable error, which he corrected when presented with evidence it was an error. Hence it gets an official "so what" in most sources and is WP:UNDUE here. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In light of the discussion and consensus here regarding this statement about the driver's "drunkenness", Biden "garnering controversy" etc, it should probably be similarly treated in the article on Neilia Hunter.78.144.77.159 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I made the change on Neilia Hunter's article, but given some subsequent vandalism by others my change was included in a reversion; maybe keep an eye on this, just for consistency's sake across both articles/ given the discussion here and at Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_13#Deaths_of_family , it's just not really warranted, constitutes undue emphasis given the lack of mainstream treatment, and comes across as a subtle dig at Biden (probably for political reasons with which, not being American, I am fortunately not involved!).78.144.77.159 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)