Talk:Joe Biden

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmolga (article contribs).

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([1]) 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)

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)

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)

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,[2] 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)

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)

Joe Biden once said he didn't want his kids to grow up in a "racial jungle" in regards to desegregation.

Joe Biden once said he didn't want his kids to grow up in a "racial jungle" in regards to desegregation. This should be added immediately.

Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-racial-jungle-quote/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.84.138 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It’s not particularly relevant to this article since that quote wasn’t a major campaign issue.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Immediately 31.124.84.138? Why, after over 40 years? The full quote is "Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this." Personally I'd give him credit for being very early to identify the tensions that racism have created - but where are the reliable sources discussing this quote, and it's significance? Nfitz (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's significant that the future president opposed desegregation because he didn't want his children to grow up in a racial jungle. For Trump, his 'racial views' are listed fine, but for Biden omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.84.138 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not over yet

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)

Main picture of Biden in the Infobox should be cropped better

Current image in use

Proposed alternative

The current image being used in the info box is poorly cropped with the subject not covering the majority of the picture and is off-center. The image should be changed to one that is better cropped, preferably with him in the center of the picture and taking up most of it's area. I strongly believe the image "File:Joe_Biden_official_portrait_2013_cropped.jpg" would be a better replacement. The proposed alternative is better lit and Biden's face can be seen clearer compared to the one in use. Anirudhgiri (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a cropped image.★Trekker (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not use the one that is already in the article? 86.140.67.152 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - the current photo is better, adhering to the Rule of thirds for photography. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Presidential transition article

I just stumbled upon the Presidential transition of Joe Biden article, and since there are many editors with considerably better knowledge of American politics than me are here at the moment, can someone get onto verifying everything written there? I just removed an unsourced "as expected by all" and a "many other nightmare scenarios", there are many entirely unsourced paragraphs, and the whole tone of the article seems a bit odd. -- GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 19:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3)

https://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (4)

it should say.....at 78, Biden will be the oldest person to be sworn-in as US President....don't just say he will be the oldest. Also....the date of the election was Nov. 3...the date of when the national press declared him President-elect is/was Nov. 7, 2020 why be vague in just saying...in November 2020 was the election>?>? List the dates..ok?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.130.2 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of "At 78..." I don't think the dates need to be mentioned. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020

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 96%, 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)

COVID response plan

I added this to the Political positions of Joe Biden page; I think it deserves a mention here.

Biden pledged a large federal government response to the COVID pandemic akin to the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt following the Great Depression. This would include increased testing for the COVID virus, ensuring a steady supply of personal protective equipment, distributing a vaccine and securing money from Congress for schools and hospitals under the aegis of a national "supply chain commander" who would coordinate the logistics of manufacturing and distributing protective gear and test kits, distributed by a "Pandemic Testing Board" (similar to Roosevelt's War Production Board). Biden also pledged to invoke the Defense Production Act more aggressively than Trump in order to build up supplies, as well as the mobilization of up to 100,000 Americans for a "public health jobs corps" of contact tracers to help track and prevent outbreaks.

References

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (5)

Minor edit request: in the final sentence of the opening section (beginning with "Thus, he is ..."), change "and the first since Richard Nixon" to "following Richard Nixon". "First since" doesn't quite feel right semantically, given the first half of the sentence. This isn't something that happened multiple times in the past; this is only the second time in history. Myriad100 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, and strongly agree. I would change it to "he is only the second non-incumbent vice president to become President-elect of the United States, after Richard Nixon in 1968." Saying that he's the "first since" seems to imply that Nixon is not the only other instance of this, so it just doesn't feel right. Cpotisch (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

CpotischMyriad100, that seems quite reasonable, but neither of the listed sources seem to back up that claim, could one of you point out the source you got that from? Thanks :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: We didn't add it, so we don't know the source. However, the suggested edit is justified completely by what is already written there, so it shouldn't really matter, right? Cpotisch (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Cpotisch, As another person has requested it below I have amended it and found another source. Let me know if you think the new wording should change further, there were several different ideas about how to reword it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I think that "after" would be better than "besides." Other than that, the wording's good. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Terminology: "President-elect of the United States"

As I understand it, the progression is something like the following:

1. a candidate is reliably reported in the news to have won enough statewide elections to amass at least 270 electoral votes
2. later, enough state governments to total at least 270 officially certify that
3. later,electors are chosen in the various states
4. later, electors vote (that will be on December 14, as I understand it)
5. later, the electoral votes are counted (as I recall, the count begins on January 6)
6. later, the results of the count of electoral votes is certified (and, at that point, the presumptive President-elect becomes the President-elect)
7. 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.[3] See this term apparent used when the administrator of the GSA confirmed Barack Obama as president-elect the day after the election in 2008.[4] 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)

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)

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)

About the whole president-elect thing

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").[5] GreatCaesarsGhost 14:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020

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)

Worth calling out

Joe Biden will be the first and only president the Silent Generation has produced (1928-1945). Can someone please add this to his page?

 - Biden - Silent generation
 - Trump - Boomer
 - Obama - Boomer
 - Bush II - Boomer
 - Clinton - Boomer
 - Bush 1 - GI generation
 - Reagan - GI generation
 - Carter - GI generation

Seems like WP:TRIVIA to me, especially because generation boundaries are fairly ambiguous and debated. KidAd talk 02:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, though it may be worth adding to the Silent Generation article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:24D0:2CA0:5096:D876:AFBB:DAD3 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I heard this fact discussed on an NPR a few weeks ago by an author of "The Lucky Few", a book about the Silent Generation. It was significant but considering that Trump and Biden are only 4 years apart, I'm not sure if they represent a generational break. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

- I think its cool! fogonthdowns

• No sources, no edit. EEng 02:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. In any case, it's silly to claim that Trump represents one generation and Biden another, when they differ in age by only 3 1/2 years. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 8 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)

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)

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) clearly not enough coffee, this needs more discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:14, 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)

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)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (4)

Hi

In the third paragraph of the introductory section it says "Biden was reelected to the Senate six times, and was the fourth-most senior senator". Why 'reelected' not 're-elected' (almost all dictionaries put a hyphen in). Also, why does that sentence also say 'fourth-most' not 'fourth most'?

'Reelected' is also not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia on presidents, eg: in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/1792_United_States_presidential_election, in the third paragraph of the introduction to the George Washington election it says: "Adams won 77 electoral votes, enough to win re-election"

Furthermore, in the next sentence, it says "Obama and Biden were reelected in 2012". Again, why not 're-elected'?

Best wishes

Andy (from UK)

Ps the world can breathe again Georgio18 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that on a read through and I agree that they should be hyphened. Would need an admin to change it as the article is currently locked. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

:: Done —valereee (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC) lol, I'm not getting it right anywhere. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No, re-elect is horribly old-fashioned; please put it back. And since I've got you Valereee, you might take a look at User_talk:Oshwah#Joe_Biden. EEng 11:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, hm. Let me take a look at the edits that have been made by EC accounts. If what Jeske Couriano is saying is correct, that could be a pretty important factor. —valereee (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's see what Oshwah says when they start editing again and see your comment at their talk. I tend to agree with the argument that there are plenty of eyes on this article, and especially during the US daytime on a Sunday, for us to at least go to EC for a few hours. —valereee (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I hate the way the English looks, Reelect just looks weird without the hyphen, if you type the word into google it will hyphen it. Seems it has both ways on the Cambridge dictionary, I was always taught if the word begins with an E, before a Re, it should be hyphened. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I hate the way the English look too, but they were pretty brave in holding out against Hitler way back when, so you gotta give them credit. Hyphenating re-elect went out about the same time as co-operation. EEng 16:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agree-ment. O3000 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Shirley you mean agre-ement. EEng 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

To hyphen or not to hyphen, that is the question! Upon the morrow, thy shall see, which will it be, the hey or the ney! Govvy (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(Responding to User:EEng's ping) I'm not the right person to be asking. I've lived in the UK for 30 years, and in British English anything other than "re-elect" would just be flat-out wrong, to the extent that the unhyphenated version instinctively makes me want to correct it. When I left the US "re-elect" would have been preferred but "reelect" would probably have been acceptable, and I don't know how whether AmEng has shifted to the extent that "reelect" is now preferred. On most articles we'd unquestionably go with "re-elect", as a form that's at least acceptable in all variants of English and thus follows WP:COMMONALITY, but this is obviously a US-only topic and as such if "reelect" is genuinely now the preferred term in AmEng this might be one of the rare occasions in which it's appropriate to make a formal decision to disregard the Manual of Style. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My dear friend Arid Desiccant, like it said in the edit summary (though perhaps I should have had the text flash or something), I was pinging you on the question of the article being full protected indefinitely. EEng 21:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

On that question, definitely not unless it proves necessary. This is just the kind of article where we need people to be able to edit all the time, since for the next four years it will need to be constantly updated. Full-protection is an absolute last resort for articles (at the time of writing this is one of only two articles in Category:Wikipedia pages protected against vandalism); what full-protection does is hand over control of one of Wikipedia's most important articles to the tiny handful of people who have both admin status and enough interest in the topic to want to edit it. If I didn't think it would provoke a wheel-war, I'd remove the existing protection without a second thought; I think it's totally inappropriate. ‑ Iridescent 21:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

As a speaker of American English, I prefer re-elect with a hyphen. I also note the AP style guide uses a hyphen in re-elect [6] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 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: [7]

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. [8] 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)

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)

Sources

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)

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)

Not the president elect

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://wiki.riteme.site/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. MrAureliusR_Talk! 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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

The most votes ever in a presidential election

Is this stated anywhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I imagine not yet, because we don't know how many votes he received yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, my source was a quote from an elected official, but she must have gotten in from somewhere. Surely there is a reliable source. Also, I know I've seen that Biden alone received the most votes ever for president. That may actually be true just based on the votes we know about and I'll be back if I can find that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

While it is likely a true statement, I'm sure that more reliable sources will say it as the tallies are finalized in all 50 states. Plus, it's a strange metric to use, sort of like using high box-office ticket sales in dollar amounts without accounting for inflation. The number of votes should generally go up, assuming similar turnout, simply because the population of the USA continues to rise. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Have we had this sort of record in an article before?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe we did in the Obama article, but I'm not sure if it's in the current version. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• People need to bear in mind that there are satellite articles for stuff like that: 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2020 US presidential election, etc. Articles become swiftly overburdened by factoids like this. EEng 18:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There's also List of United States presidential candidates by number of votes received. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Since the population of the US continues to grow, a great many presidents have earned the most votes ever when elected. I foresee this trend continuing, and thus find such a factoid to be WP:TRIVIA and probably undue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's likely due for a single sentence at some point. If this becomes something that's repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources, we can surely include it, but I think for now it's too soon. It's obviously due for the election article, as EEng implied. As far as it being trivia, I have to disagree. It's historic and thus encyclopedic, regardless. If the trend of increased voter participation continues, you might have a point, but your reasoning as to why it would ultimately be trivial sort of requires a crystal ball at the moment.Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:24, 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)

Biden technically isn't president elect until the electors vote for him.

Just your friendly reminder that the president isn't chosen by the people, it's by the 538 electors. It isn't until mid-December that they vote, so we technically don't know who will win that vote yet. I request that any suggestion that he is already the official winner be removed due to this, thanks.