Talk:Joe Biden

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule still applies. Here's what this means:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day per the BRD rule, and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the above

Point of Order: BRD is not a rule. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy..." (my emphasis) 86.140.67.152 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not mandated by policy, but it is mandated by the discretionary sanctions on this page. To prevent disruption on pages relating to contemporary American politics, any administrator may place any reasonable restriction on pages to ensure compliance with our policies and guidelines. One common restriction is to enforce BRD. Editors who are aware of the sanction and do not comply may be banned or blocked at administrator discretion. For more information see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

When something like this is done (a) it really needs to be stated in the post the source of the authority to do it (i.e. DS) -- I for one don't edit much in DS areas so I was completely puzzled; and (b) it's not clear to me that you don't need to issue new DS alerts to editors individually -- how is someone supposed to know the rules have suddenly changed, unless they happen on this thread? EEng 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng Worth noting that the DS alerts do not specify any page-specific sanctions, or mention any pages the editor has been editing. So, if I give you a DS alert right now, it won't mention the BRD (nor the 1RR), nor that I'm alerting you due to Joe Biden. So even a new alert doesn't help. It's a crappy system of alerting. FWIW the BRD has been in place (along with 1RR) since November 2019; Awilley just relaxed the 1RR requirement, which maybe makes it a little better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the Discretionary Sanctions bit and link to the relevant Arbcom page are in the template I modified at the top of the talk page. On notifications, I wish there were a better way to do it. There's the template at the top of the talk page and the edit notice whenever you edit the article itself. Since this was a relaxing of restrictions I figured a post on the talkpage would be sufficient to get the attention of the regular editors I was targeting. For the other restriction, typically how things works is that people will "welcome" newcomers to the article with the standard notification template, which I hate. Then if someone runs afoul of the sanctions they usually get a couple of people on their talk page explaining the sanction and asking them to self-revert. It's when they refuse to self-revert that things typically escalate to administrators. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment On the contrary of the loosening of restrictions, I think this article needs to be subject to WP:0RR, until next January. Given the contested nature of the election and ongoing lawsuits, short-term, continuous vandalism is almost guaranteed and should be adjusted for accordingly. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:44, 14 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)

Cropped one follows it well enough for portraits (focal point on eye) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing generally positive responses to the proposed change and I request someone with the appropriate edit access to execute the change to the photograph as soon as possible. It is known that Wikipedia is used as a source for images and information by everyone from the casual reader to news corporations, and I've already come across the image currently in use where Biden is off center and doesn't cover a majority of the area of the image in various news articles, news telecasts, YouTube videos, memes etc. This is the image of someone who is almost definitely going to be the most powerful man in the world, and the most popular website used to gather information worldwide should at least use an image that is properly cropped to portray him. Anirudhgiri (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, especially given that Biden is now President-elect of the United States, I would say that the current, off-centre image is horrendous, and I cannot understand how anybody would prefer retaining the image as it currently remains. Fully support switching to the proposed alternative where the image is appropriately cropped. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I invite @Nick.mon: to give his two cents here, given that he reverted the image back to the off-centre photo. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think we should use the official portrait, but I can live with the cropped version too. Anyway, we'll soon have a new official photo. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Why did you change the picture to the cropped version already? You claimed a consensus for the change in your edit summary, but there is nothing near a consensus in this talk page section. And now that it's a cropped version, EEng has predictably come along to shrink it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the crop but MOS:IMGSIZE predicts the size change. EEng 05:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, as the person who wrote this guideline and has been advocating mostly unsuccessfully for small bio infobox images, you have got to know that displaying the portrait at upright=0.8 is going to make it stand out from other articles. Changing the size of the photos for a few prominent people (and spending a lot of time fighting to maintain those changes) is not an effective way to bring about the adoption of this reading of MOS:IMAGESIZE. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't in practice apply to bio infobox portraits in the way that you want it to. Maybe an RfC to add more specific wording to the MOS regarding bio infobox image sizes would help you change this, but until then, we need some consistency across articles. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I really don't need any tips on getting things done, or how to spend my editing time, from someone with 6 months tenure and 7K edits, just as Paine Ellsworth doesn't need your help judging consensus. IMGSIZE makes no special provision for lead images to be unusually large; in fact, it goes out of its way to put a special upper cap on their size. And something you'll learn after you've been around a bit longer is that consistency among articles (cf. within any given article) is just about the weakest argument there is; we don't "need" consistency across articles, and without deviation from the norm progress is impossible. And please stop obsessing about process over substance. EEng 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Tartan357: I included the new image suggested in the #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020 made by Anirudhgiri below. A closeup of our next president seemed a better fit, so I granted the edit request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, this comment does not address my concern about consensus. You say that you made the change because it "seemed a better fit", which does not square with your claim to having a clear consensus for the change. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The participants in this discussion have met WP:CONSENSUS or I wouldn't have made the change. What do you think the outcome should be? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, I agree with IHateAccounts about the rule of thirds, and I disagree with your assessment that this discussion has reached a consensus. Although it's less of an issue for me as long as the photo isn't at upright=0.8, which wasn't discussed here and EEng changed it to. It looked pretty bad that way, so I reverted them. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I still prefer the original, uncropped image. And I looked at the upright=0.8 edit and that was awful, please don't repeat that. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, when I first came to this discussion before I changed the picture, I assessed the !votes and whatever rationales were included. It seemed obvious to me that there was consensus to change the picture. Even when Tartan357's opposition, which came after the change, is figured in, there is still a consensus for the cropped version. The issue of size is a separate issue and can be further discussed between involved editors if necessary. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:14, 24 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)

• This would be better placed on something like the list of Presidents of the United States by age article.  Nixinova   T   C   22:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this should be noted here, although, that page has it's own issues. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Obama a "Boomer"? I don't think so. He is clear-cut GenX, by values, behavior, frame of mind, digital affinity, etc.; not a Boomer. He, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, etc. are of a common generation that clearly stands out from Boomers, like Trump, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Cruz, Pence, and others born in the 1940's and 1950's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:222:69FF:FE4C:408B (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The general consensus is that Generation X began in 1965 - Obama was born in 1961, Ryan in 1970. However, you're probably right that 1961 may well be a sort of transitional microgeneration of late Boomers and early Xers, much as late Xers and early Millennials are said to constitute an "Oregon Trail Generation". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Please include his electoral promises in this article. I think joebiden.com can be used as a reliable source

I am still waiting for someone to reply here.

I think you have your answer, no one thinks we should do this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a place to document his promises. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

On inappropriate contact

@Valjean: Hasn't Joe Biden also been accused of being involved in sexual contact as well? Vallee01 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, only once (Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, singular) the highly questionable Paula Reid case. She keeps changing her story. All other claims are about non-sexual contacts that either made the person feel a bit uncomfortable or made observers feel uncomfortable on their behalf, even though the person had absolutely no problems with the contact because they know Joe and understand him. It's important to make it clear these are non-sexual contacts. -- Valjean (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I still think that if there is even a singular accusation of sexual assault there should still be present. After all if it a broad range of accusations it should still state that. I don't know if the case of sexual assault has entitlement evidence or not, and that's not the place to go and state. If the sexual assault genuinely is questionable then it should maintain "accusations of sexual misconduct" followed by the lack of evidence thereof. Vallee01 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The allegation is mentioned in Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact. TFD (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

So then it should be removed "non-sexual" allegations to simply misconduct, if Joe Biden is accused of sexual assault. Even if the entirely unclaimed, it should be removed. Or we can make it clear in the article the legitimacy of the statement is questionable or even false. Still there is a sexual assault case so you should remove "non-sexual" with simply "misconfuct". This seems like a pretty open and shut discussion, there is a allegation of sexual assault. Vallee01 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"Allegations of non-sexual contacts and one allegation of a sexual assault." Something like that. We should not leave the impression that any contacts other than that one contact are of a sexual nature when there is no evidence or claims that they were. -- Valjean (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, I strongly encourage you to more carefully proofread your comments before you actually post them, for grammar and word choice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: I agree. "Allegations of non-sexual contacts and one allegation of a sexual assault" that seems great wording and makes it clear while there is only a single accusation of sexual misconduct. If there is no objections I will change it. Vallee01 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Fair. I will keep that in mind, thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• I find this one difficult. All such allegations must be taken seriously – at least at first. This particular allegation is clearly problematic. I lean toward removing the “non-sexual” addition as the remainder of the text is more clear and accurate. I don’t think the “see also” makes sense as it only describes one incident, which appears unlike other incidents (and which may or may not be favorable to his position). I’d rather see that as a wikilink in the appropriate sentence. But, I could easily be convinced otherwise. O3000 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Non-sexual" is already used elsewhere in this article, but we need to use it at the beginning, otherwise, readers will assume the worst, and thus we would be guilty of violating BLP. -- Valjean (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• What is the source for the non-sexual addition? PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, for references: Vallee01 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the significance we provide. It depends on weight. Mainstream media ignored the story for a month and even when they covered it, it did not receive a lot of attention. So the brief mention we provide is due, and it would be undue to change the header or the introduction to the section. Basically we tack it on the end of various complaints where no allegation of sexual misconduct was made. TFD (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We can post things that are credible, or we can post non-credible things that get legitimate coverage. Reid didn't get coverage BECAUSE it wasn't credible. The biggest part of the story was the supposed bias in the MSM in ignore her, which turned out to be entirely appropriate. But THAT was not a story about Biden, so it should not be here. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

In fact the Reade allegation did receive coverage in mainstream media.[1] The New York Times for example published articles about the case, including "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden" That article does not say the allegation was not credible, although some opinion pieces may have said that. However, mainstream media waited a month after the story had been widely covered in alternative media before covering it. As you can see from the archives, I opposed inclusion until it had received coverage in mainstream media because I thought that only then did it have adequate weight for inclusion. Additionally, it allowed Biden's campaign to respond. TFD (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Mainstream media ignored the story for a month" - you mean to say, mainstream media did their due diligence, taking the time to properly research and report on the story ethically? [2] IHateAccounts (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the suggestion of Valjean is great "Allegations of non-sexual contacts and one allegation of a sexual assault" is the best way to word the article, we can also remove the "see also" as it referenced in the article. Vallee01 (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor here, but I also like this wording (with an embedded piped wikilink) and the idea of getting rid of the "see also" here. The article section goes on to summarize nonsexual allegations and it should similarly summarize that sexual one, basing that summary on content present in the detail article and citing sources cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I am going to change the wording, if there are any objections I will revert and keep discussing on talk. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I restored the original wording of the first sentence of the section. The revised wording inserted the phrase "one allegation of a sexual assault" between the phrases "inappropriate non-sexual contacts," and "such as embracing, kissing, gripping, or placing a hand on their shoulder", making the meaning of the sentence unclear. The phrase about the embracing, etc., describes the accusations of "inappropriate non-sexual contacts" so those two phrases should be kept together. The new wording seemed to read that the allegation of sexual assault involved the "embracing, gripping, or placing a hand on their shoulder," which is not accurate. In addition, the deletion of the phrase "with women at public events" makes the meaning of the pronoun "their" later in the sentence ambiguous. I do agree the "see also" is unnecessary as the article is already linked in the following paragraph. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The meaning is supposed to state one allegation of sexual assault, and the rest non-sexual, how do you propose to wording the article? Vallee01 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I see the current issue, it is indeed poor wording what about changing the wording to: Biden has been accused of inappropriate non-sexual contacts, such as embracing, kissing, gripping, or placing a hand on their shoulder and one allegation of sexual assault. Also isn't kissing an example of "sexual contacts"? Vallee01 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Context matters. Kissing the back of someone's head (as he has done) can be quite innocent. Showing physical signs of affection can be non-sexual. In some cultures and families, quick kisses on the mouth are non-sexual. Longer kisses on the lips, especially French kissing (tongue), would usually be considered sexual in the United States. So context and allegation matter. -- Valjean (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:IHateAccounts, I think it is more a matter that the media did it consider it important until it had received extensive coverage in alternative media - left, right and center - and the Biden campaign decided it was important enough to respond. After all, newspapers normally don't take a month to report news. Hence the New York Times published an opinion piece by Linda Hirshman, [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opinion/tara-reade-joe-biden-vote.html "I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway. The importance of owning an ugly moral choice."] She compares Reade's allegations to Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas. TFD (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing the wording, to "Biden has been accused of inappropriate non-sexual contacts, such as embracing, kissing, gripping, or placing a hand on their shoulder and one allegation of sexual assault." If there are any objections state so. Vallee01 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel that we should also include "sniffing" on the list. Bobby Neir (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The main issue I have with adding non-sexual is it makes an assumption in regards to intent. PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not doing so makes innocent behavior appear like a sexual assault, and that would be a BLP violation. We should avoid even the shadow of a BLP violation. If RS do not make an explicit allegation that the contact was sexual, we should not leave that option open. The people (men and women) involved would have made a sexual accusation if it was, but none of them did so. Only Reade has done that and she has kept changing her story. It has morphed from descriptions of innocent contact into an allegation that was specifically sexual. She's the only one who has done that, and that constant changing of her story lessens her credibility. -- Valjean (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Making assumptions on intent of a BLP where no evidence exists either way is a BLP vio. There is no implication to restoring the long standing text that I can see past your own personal WP:OR. So no BLP issue with going back to the long standing version that I can see. It also does not help that your version is unsourced. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Valjean on this. It's very clear that while Biden has been accused of not having good boundaries with regards to personal space, the conduct mentioned is not intended sexually. Especially when right-wing media loves to lie about it and try desperately to make fake "news" with false accusations, and the fact checks are available [3]. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Again just making assumptions without RS backing is WP:OR. The source provided does not support the additional qualifier. It goes against MOS:DOUBT. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

[4] [5] "“I do not consider my experience to have been sexual assault or harassment,” she said." [6] "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." but I get it, right-wing individuals are desperate to misrepresent the reporting so they can claim, or at least imply, that Biden has some kind of "sex scandal". IHateAccounts (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate the people he had contact with do not consider it sexual assault most of the time, you seem to have missed the actual objection I posted. Which is about intent and sourcing not talking about that. Again, for the last time, if no RS make the statement we cannot make it up on our own to white wash articles. This is basic stuff. Without RS backing the claim, which again your sources do not obviously, it is a BLP violation to make up content like that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, and this is not the ideal way to solve this problem. What is a better way, using RS? -- Valjean (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, we should go by what RS say. From what I can tell above, with the sources provided, they do not support in Wikipedia's voice stating what Biden's intent was or was not. I get that some of the people involved did not personally see it as sexual assault or harassment but that is not the question here. PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Political Positions" section could use improvement

Normally I'd just start making edits, but this article seems high traffic and controversial.

I think the "Political Positions" section could use some improvements. Here are my suggestions.

• Reduce the 2 paragraphs about Joe Biden ranking "X% conservative, Y% liberal" to 1 sentence. We already know he's a liberal because he's in the Democratic party. Those 2 paragraphs are taking up about 40% of the section's prose, and discuss zero specific "Political Positions".
• Add Joe Biden's healthcare position. Currently zero mention. Is he for Medicare For All? Is he happy with the current ACA? Does he want to make changes to the ACA?
• Add some of Joe Biden's foreign policy positions. Is he warm/neutral/cold toward Russia, China, North Korea, Venezeula, Cuba, Iran, etc? How nationalistic is he? Is he likely to start a unilateral war? Does he have a dislike of "socialism"? Is he likely to continue the Cuba Thaw started under Obama? Is he in favor of abruptly ending current military engagements? etc.

Would you folks be in favor of these changes? If so let me know and I can do some research and make the edits. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• The first part sounds good
• Yes, we can add that he wants to keep but make changes to the ACA
• I dont really know much about his foreign policy specifics, but if you do, please add them.

-Sillygoose762 (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Sillygoose762, edits complete. Thanks for your feedback. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy Theory

I currently don't see anything about the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, Trump's attacks on him relating to the theory, etc. If we want to wait until more evidence for or against the theory is presented, that's fine by me, but if not, here is a source from which we can add info about the theory: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851 (does Wikipedia consider NBC an RS?). Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It has little to do with Biden personally, and is more relevant to his presidential campaign. There is a brief mention in Joe Biden#Campaign,. More can be found in the link in that section to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign#Trump–Ukraine scandal and of course the main Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. ValarianB (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. But should we link the part in Campaign to the main Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy Theory article? I don't believe it is currently. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Though I will say that on the Donald Trump page Trump's supposed collusion with the Russians is mentioned. I feel that we should try for consistency. Bobby Neir (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not consistency. Treating all accusations as equal is not consistency. Proper weight and credibility, per reliable sources, is the test. Biographies are not and should not be cookie cutter templates of each other with no consideration through reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral Results Table

CBS and CNN, among other reliable sources, have called Georgia for Biden, bringing his projected up from 290 to 306 electoral votes. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/13/politics/joe-biden-wins-georgia/index.html and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-georgia-first-democrat-win-since-1992-cbs-news-projects/. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Age

A sentence about Biden's age was removed from the lede along with trivial presidential firsts, seconds, and thirds. However, I do believe that some sort of statement regarding Biden being the oldest president does warrant mention in the lede, given that Trump's and Reagan's both mention it. Appreciate any input. Dosafrog (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That Biden will be the oldest president from the first day (not the pointless comparison between his age at his swearing-in to Reagan's second swearing-in) should be mentioned in the article, and maybe even the lead (though given all the important things that really do need to be in the lead, I'm not sure about that). That he's the second left-handed vice-president from a state not ending in r to be elected president after shaking hands with a prime number of female foreign leaders might belong in some satellite article, not here at all. EEng 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, include, but not in the lead, just as other common facts about his election removed by EEng. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure some of that stuff belongs at all:

• first vice president to be elected president since George H. W. Bush in 1988 – So?
• second non-incumbent vice president to be elected president – So?
• first person from Delaware to serve as President – So?

It doesn't take too much reflection to realize how arbitrary these are: why aren't we saying he's the first (or second, or whatever) former (but not current) senator to be elected president? In fact, I suspect he's the only former (but not current) senator to defeat a sitting president running for reelection -- why aren't we saying that? We have list pages exactly so trivia like this can be parked somewhere without cluttering up real articles. EEng 08:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with various trivia "firsts" being in the article, as long as they aren't in the lead, which they aren't. Some of those apparently trivial things are kind of important in an American context, for example "only the second Catholic". For our first two centuries, more or less, it was unthinkable for anyone other than a Protestant to be POTUS. (It was also unthinkable for them to be anything other than white and male, but we have finally gotten past one of those restrictions and are working on the other.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You'll notice that the Catholicism wasn't on my list. I'm afraid I'm really going to insist on hearing the significance of these other factoids. For example: there have been 47 presidents, and Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio have supplied about half of those. The other 24 presidents emerge randomly from the remaining 46 states, so it's inevitable that almost all of them will be the first (indeed only) president from their particular state.

But the inverse is worth noting: a president from Virginia should probably be noted as the 10th from that state, because that does tell the reader something (about Virginia, anyway). EEng 21:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, their "home state" is one of the things that always gets listed about a president. I guess it's part of our national obsession about the importance of states as entities, not just geographical subdivisions. Check out List of presidents of the United States by home state - yes, it's important enough to us to have an article - where I learned that presidents get listed by TWO states: the one where they were born, and the one they are most associated with. That cleared up for me the apparent contradiction that the article lists Delaware even though he was born in Pennsylvania; turns out they both count. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Turns out we also have List of presidents of the United States by age. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The article already recounts where he was born, where he grew up, what state he represented, and so on. My objection is bothering with him being "the first" from Delaware -- once again, So what? (And, as you yourself raised, it's not as simple as that -- he was born one place, raised in another. So is he the first from the one, or the first from the other? Or both? So what?) EEng 23:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-election

@MelanieN: Your poll disappeared and the article still has the horrible spelling of Reelection! Govvy (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Govvy. Since discussion had died down, the thread was archived without having been closed. (It wasn't a formal RfC or anything, so it didn't have to be closed.) My “poll” ended up with these results: one very well documented !vote for reelected; four not particularly documented preferences for re-elected; one suggestion for reëlected; and one for “what a colossal waste of time”. Like most of the other commenters, I preferred re-elected and I still do. However, at this point I’m inclined to agree with that last choice. Your mileage may vary. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

My mileage has been running on low! I would prefer the change, o well, guess it would need more people interested. Govvy (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I supplied both the very well documented !vote for reelected and the "colossal waste of time" comment, I obviously win the thread! EEng 21:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ye but you didn't get the popular vote! heh. Govvy (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm filing for a re-count. EEng 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I won't certify the results. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, you shouldn't certify the results because there was obvious !election fraud - EEng !voted twice! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, EEng, you clearly won the thread. BTW I let you get by with a "with all due respect" in your comment about the colossal waste of time, but I know you have been here long enough to remember the page Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect" - now unfortunately deleted, but a classic nevertheless. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant to ¡vote! for reëlected, and while MelanieN is acting like the results are all final or something, I insist (without evidence, documentation, or justification of any kind, who needs those) that my ¡vote! be counted, and this huge swing means that reëlected obviously wins in a landslide. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. [7], [8], [9], [10]. So there.

Well, that settles that. The New Yorker prefers reëlected. Case closed? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as someone who went to school when English was still English, "reëlected" is correct. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And as someone who thinks there should be some connection between how words are spelled and how they are pronounced (which I realize is kind of a hopeless goal in English), I object to "reelected" as appearing to be a three syllable word - reel-ect-ed - rather than the four-syllable reality of how it is said and what it means. But oh well, we have bigger issues to fix here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, support the use of diaeresis marks. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

My uncle used to take those for his blood pressure. EEng 17:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Change the main image in the infobox to "File:Joe_Biden_official_portrait_2013_cropped.jpg". The change has been discussed and the overwhelming consensus is to change the image from the current off-center one to "File:Joe_Biden_official_portrait_2013_cropped.jpg", at least until Biden's official presidential portrait is taken. Anirudhgiri (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Anirudhgiri:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuits pending

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.

---

Since lawsuits are still pending against the election results in multiple states, should we change the phrasing of "Biden defeated Trump in the November 3 election" to something like "Biden has currently won the election, however, lawsuits are pending against the election results in some states."? Bobby Neir (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the (so far) sterling levels of failure suffered by these lawsuits (and the fact that they have often been condemned for simply being utter junk), no.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, but here is a link to an article explaining that at least two of the lawsuits have been upheld, and many more are still pending: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/11/16/trump-election-lawsuits-republicans-battleground-states-vote-count/6177538002/ Also, whether or not the lawsuits are upheld later, we should still give the facts, which are that there are pending lawsuits. Bobby Neir (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

2 to 8, a 25% failure rate, I stand by "sterling levels of failure". I also note that one of the successful ones can have no effect, as it only extended voting, and its now ended.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Your article hasn't been updated in 4 days, a number of the "pending" cases have been decided, and all against Trump. If you read your own article, you'll note that none of the two "wins" impact the election result, as called, in any way. The PA case that was won, for example, resulted in ballots that had never been counted in the first place... not being counted. So, they did not impact Biden winning the state (in fact, it could be argued that if there had been enough of these ballots and had they been from areas that were Trump leaning, excluding them prevented them from adding to Trump's total). The second case again does not impact the result of the election; it merely stated that polling locations with machine issues had to stay open in Nevada until 8 PM on November 3rd. They did stay open. So, Biden's winning Nevada included these votes. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if they had won all of the lawsuits (but as of now, they are 2 for 36 I believe), it wouldn't change the result of the election. These lawsuits are performative, not substantive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Neir, Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Reliable sources say Biden won. No reliable sources cast any realistic doubt on this. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral collage

EEng

The election has not been completely certified by the electorial collage, just the media. the popular vote does not decide the president so it needs to be changed until after December 14 2020 when they vote, or at least specify he hasnt been certified and there are also audits that can change some of the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.198.182 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden is the president-elect, according to all mainstream reliable sources. That's what we care about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the "media" isn't calling the election based on the popular vote nationwide. They are calling it based on the votes in each state and their respective number of Electors, which is why it has been called at 306 - 232, and not numbers in the tens of million. This standard of "you can't say that until the Electors are sat" is not one we have followed in your or my lifetimes. In 2016, we didn't wait until December before Trump was called president-elect, in fact, he was in the White House meeting with Obama and starting the transition process within 48 hours of the election itself. Not a month and a half later; 48 hours. Nor is this some extra legal action. Ever since at least 1963 and the Presidential Transition Act, we have begun the legal process of transition between one administration to the presumptive president-elect as soon as the winner is clear, and NOT waiting until the Electors are sat in December. We all know that this is not a standard that has been applied ever in our lives. The fact is, people will come up with an excuse to say he isn't president-elect on Dec 14th, since the Electors being sat isn't the acceptance of their result, that happens early January when the report of the Electors is sent to and certified by Congress. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:13, 23 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.

We should do what RS do. If something changes, we can always change it here. We should generally mirror what's happening in RS, including when they get it wrong. We cannot know they are getting it wrong until after the fact. To do otherwise, because we think they are wrong, would be substituting OR, wishful thinking, crystal ball thinking for dependence on RS, a phenomenon we see all the time with editors who depend on unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

BIDEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE United States, AS THE CONSTITUTION DETAILS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION, AS THE ONLY DOCUMENT THAT MATTERS IN THIS CASE IS THE CONSTITUTION. CHANGE BEING A PRESIDENT TO BEING A POLITICIAN. 2600:6C5D:5B00:C2E3:6546:1921:5745:B86E (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per all other rejected requests. Please read the FAQ. Also, WHY DO PEOPLE THINK TYPING IN CAPS HELPS ANYTHING? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say that Biden is currently the President. Moncrief (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden notifying him of her decision to "ascertain" U.S. federal resources for transition of Presidency of Donald Trump to Presidency of Joe Biden.

Added image of GSA letter to the page, feel free to move it to a different location, remove it, and/or discuss. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Belongs in some article on the election or the transition, not here. EEng 00:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's in Emily W. Murphy —valereee (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

So the image we see here at right was obtained via X-ray? EEng 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about an X-ray. I think it's an ordinary scanned pdf file, scanned using a regular office scanner. The pdf file is from the CNN website[11]. Nsk92 (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, Valereee said the letter was in Emily Murphy, so I was wondering how someone got a picture of it. Maybe it wasn't X-ray but rather a tremendous ultraviolet or just very powerful light. EEng 03:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And also in Presidential transition of Joe Biden. That's plenty enough already. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Right cite (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)