Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
/* edit request
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|06:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Atlantis77177|Atlantis77177]] ([[User talk:Atlantis77177|talk]])|page=5|subtopic=Politics and government|status=|note=}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}}




Revision as of 08:47, 20 November 2020


Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bi partisan semantics Praefect777 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I wouldn't mind a cropped image.★Trekker (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use the one that is already in the article? 86.140.67.152 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

- I think its cool! fogonthdowns

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

Can we come up with a standard reply to these edit requests?

Every day we get multiple, identical edit requests objecting to our description of Biden as president-elect. These edits are in good faith but there should be no need for us to discuss it at great length, over and over, each time someone says it. It's an enormous waste of editor time. Do you think we could find a standard cut-and-paste reply - either explaining why we are doing it the way we are, or else referring all of them to one discussion here and closing all the new ones? Wondering what others think. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could put something in an FAQ about this, to say that historically, the "apparent electoral college winner" gets the benefits of the transition prior to the EC meeting, and this is all standard fare. Save for the loser not conceding, that is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I just edit conflicted with Evergreen Fir on creating the FAQ. —valereee (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lol sorry about that. I started this an hour ago, and to drive, and just finished it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, folks. From now on when someone brings this up I intend to refer them to the FAQ. I don't think I will immediately hat their request - that would be kind of rude - but maybe hat or archive after 24 hours. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are new ideas discussed, there should not be laziness and say "already decided by the Wikipedia Court". This is not an issue of pro-Biden people saying one version, pro-Trump saying another version. This is just factual and clear writing. There can be ways to write it that should not offend either side if sides are reasonable. There is just too much crystal balling in Wikipedia on many, even non-USA articles, like "such and such WILL happen on this date" not "is scheduled" or "is expected to". Mink cull (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRUTH is useful here. We reflect what RS say, even if it is "technically wrong" or we personally disagree. RS almost universally call him president-elect. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mink cull, Wikipedia's standard is not to avoid offending any "side", as EvergreenFir states, it's to report what reliable sources say. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Wikipedia must not fall into the trap of false balance. In fact, one of the sides is not being “reasonable”. What’s going on here is there’s one end of the US political spectrum that is actively questioning, undermining, and sometimes outright denying the reality of the election result, for the sole reason that it isn’t the result that they wanted. Wikipedia does not change its content to avoid offending people. I seem to recall a prominent conservative commentator saying something like “facts don’t care about your feelings”? Also, if this is not about Trump losing, then why did this sort of thing not become a major on-wiki controversy until after Biden won? 🤔 —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no, unresolved issue

Sorry, NOT resolved. I bring up issues and ideas not discussed.

I came to the article and was shocked so I came to this talk page. No, there shouldn't be a standard reply but re-evaluation of the Administrative Decision to keep it the way it is.

Reasons to change this includes:

1. Factually wrong

2. Conflicts with other wikipedia articles

3. I don't think there is a formal title of "President-elect". It is purely informal

Current version:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and the president-elect of the United States.[nb 1][nb 2] Having defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president on January 20, 2021.

What if he dies early? Why disregard the Constitution as far as the winner. CNN is not the King of the United States making decrees.

Suggested version 1 (which satisfies all sides or should) AND EDIT REQUEST

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and is expected to be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on January 20, 2021. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and United States Senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009.

Suggested version 2 (consistent with the President-elect article in Wikipedia, using identical language)

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician. He has been declared the president-elect of the United States by numerous media outlets. [nb 1][nb 2] He is expected to be inaugurated as the 46th president on January 20, 2021. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and United States Senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009.

For those who hold Wikipedia power, please do not rule with an iron fist but consider these very neutral, not anti-Biden, not anti-Trump, suggested version. I like Suggested Version 1 but 2 is also ok. Mink cull (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a nasty habit of writing "so and so WILL occur on such and such date". Look at the 2020 Olympics. All along, it should have read that the Olympics is SCHEDULED to begin in August 2020, not Olympics will begin in August 2020. Mink cull (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Suggested Version 3 accounts for that. For Biden lovers who think that any challenge to him is a pro-Trump move, Suggested Version 3 removes all that. For Trump lovers, Suggested Version 3 is more factual than the current version. I like Suggested Version 1 but 3 is fine with me. Mink cull (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Biden lovers"? This has nothing to do with people being fond of Biden and pushing him through. For every victor of the presidential elections throughout Wikipedia's two decades, we have always labelled the President-elect as such when the 270 threshold has been reportedly reached. We did this with Obama and Trump in early November of 2008 and 2016, respectively - now we're doing it with Biden. It has absolutely nothing to do with our personal preferences. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with Biden or Trump lovers. It has to do with factuality. If there are Reliable Sources, they at least need to be cited. In 2008 and 2016, there was no dispute over who had won. In this case there is. Many believe those disputes are unfounded, but that is opinion, not fact. If the Trump campaign drops those disputes or they are dismissed, then it would be safe to describe Biden as President-elect (and there would be ample citations available). Otherwise it is not factual to label him as such unconditionally until vote counts are certified and/or the electoral college vote is complete. Regardless of standard Wikipedia practice, I don't understand why anyone would want Wikipedia to display anything other than strictly factual information.PeanutButter1046 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)User:PeanutButter1046[reply]
Here's what I said the 87th time this came up this week... So you're saying we should wait until December 14th. But wait! On that day, all the electors of each state do is prepare a Certificate of Vote, and these are all forwarded to the Senate, where they are placed in a ceremonial box. Not until January 6, 2021 are these boxes opened and the elector votes tallied up, after which the president of the senate announces the result. So shouldn't we wait until then to say Biden's the president-elect? Or maybe we should wait until the electoral vote is printed in the Journal of the Senate! You see how stupid this all is? EEng 09:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Much Ado About Nothing" (as a comment, not as a reference to this) comes to mind. Re editorial disagreement supported by reliable sources with differing viewpoints, WP:DUE comes to mind. Too many editorial arguments boil down to "I like my source better than I like your source." Too many others boil down to "I'm right. You're wrong. Period." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is having to be addressed so much, isn't that a good indication that this is not undisputed? If it is not undisputed until January 6, or whenever, then yes, that is when we should wait to say that it is not disputed. Even if it looks sure or we may want it to be sure sooner doesn't make it okay to go ahead and publish technically unfactual information. To bring this full circle, why not use one of the three suggested edits above to make it accurate? So many rely on Wikipedia to be factual, and I feel it's important that it is. I still don't understand why so many are so resistant to making a simple, easy correction that would make this article factual and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutButter1046 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice examples

The 2020 Summer Olympics (Japanese: 2020年夏季オリンピック, Hepburn: Nisen Nijū-nen Kaki Orinpikku),[b] officially the Games of the XXXII Olympiad[c] and commonly known as Tokyo 2020,[d] is an international multi-sport event scheduled to take place from 23 July to 8 August 2021 in Tokyo, Japan.

Bad example

The 2021 London mayoral election will be held on 6 May 2021 to elect the mayor of London. (That election is already postponed from 2020) Mink cull (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But secondary sources, when they are comprehensive, do make the distinction. Furthermore, my version is better and factually correct. Secondary sources also say the Holocaust never happened. If your problem is the word "president-elect" that can be worked in an encyclopedia fashion. Mink cull (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No valid source says the Holocaust never happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Mink cull, quality, reliable sources describe Joe Biden as the President-elect, and the related Wikipedia articles will follow suit. You are seriously reaching with comparisons to the Olympics, and the attempt to portray Holocaust denial as legitimate criticism (for the record, no reliable secondary sources question the Holocaust) is getting to areas of antisemitism. IMO, you should tread cautiously here, and reconsider that line of argumentation. ValarianB (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your problem is the word "president-elect" that can be worked in an encyclopedia fashion. Mink cull (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested version 3 (for those who like the word "President-elect")

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and is expected to be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on January 20, 2021. Several days after the election, Biden was declared the President-elect. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and United States Senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009.

(This would inform kids of the future that there was a delay and cause them to be curious and read more. Certainly the election of 2020 is far different from the election of 2012. Mink cull (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an improvement. ValarianB (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say so? Wikipedia is not a vote. Please explain, if you wish. It is not my favorite version, #1 is, but #3 is an improvement over the current version. Mink cull (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is what the sources use; "Joe Biden is the president-elect of the United States". Not considered-to-be, not kind-of-is. He just is. We have 2 notes (nb1, nb2) at the end of that statement explaining how the current resident of the White House refusing to accept the reality of the situation. That is all we need. ValarianB (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current version follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And I suggest you strike your comment about the Holocaust as it's an egregious example of Godwin's law. O3000 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Americans are already confused with concession, no concession. Concession is a custom and being polite. It has no legal consequence. Also what is "President-elect"? It means the person that has been elected but the Electoral College has not even met yet. The big problem is that TV networks declare winners when usually they base it on polls, exit polls, and the thinnest of released election results but the official count or even count after 99% of votes are tabulated can take a few days. Wikipedia is just perpetuating the misinformation.

There IS a way to fix Wikipedia. Consider this a EDIT REQUEST. Remove the term "president-elect of the United States" and replace it with "president-elect". If you insist, then "president-elect in the United States". The current way may lead readers to think that this is an official job title or position, which it is not. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Kirk, you are violating the "prime directive". O3000 (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1] EEng 09:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine and good to use the phrase "president-elect of the United States". However, it should be "presumptive president-elect of the United States". Skcin7 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YES... presumptive. I understand that this is a pedantic point, but one of our jobs is to educate our readers about pedantic details like this. Biden WILL be President-Elect (and then President)... but he isn’t until the electoral college actually ELECTS him. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Foreign policy

User Slatersteven deletes an important paragraph "Foreign Policy", in my opinion, this can be considered vandalism. I appeal to him, that if he has no reservations about the paragraph, to leave it. Removing Biden's views on world events (Iran, Israel, etc. ), if everything is well sourced, is quite absurd (and against the rules of Wikipedia). Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on it, we do not need it in to places.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Homonym alert! EEng 15:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, why didn't you say this first time you reverted the edit, that this bothered you? During the first revert, sourcing was required, I took the job and added the sources, at the second no request was made (no reason), until at the next you asked me to take it to the talk page. Nevertheless, I have no problem to defend my edit here. I strongly disagree that there is no reason to add a paragraph "Foreign Policy", Donald Trump, Barack Obama and others have also this paragraph and no one complains, It's also good to know the attitudes of a man who will have so much power in his hands, don't you think? Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In both my edit summaries I said it was down to you to make a case one with a link to wp:ONUS and once telling you to take it to the talk page. Nor did you add just on paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? I'm still waiting for your reason for removal. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on it, we do not need it in two places. We do not repeat information.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Should I go now and delete all of the same paragraphs in all articles, because they have their own article? Because you forbid it? Should I refer to you? Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, and lay of the making it about me. We do not need this amount of information that just duplicates already existing information (literally a cut and paste job). Now if you want to propose (here) a one paragraph summery go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What copy and paste job are you referring to? This was mostly translated from the Czech Wikipedia (looks like you did not even read the text). English sources were also found by me, and not copied from the article. So if you have no serious issue, I am again asking you to stop removing it from the article, as it is: related, standard and well sourced. Do you agree? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NO as we have an article on it already Political positions of Joe Biden. We do not need this in two places in such length (especially when some of it was little, roe then list entries). I think it is time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So now there is another reason, excessive size. What will you come up with next? Have you seen how long is this paragraph at Barack Obama? But ok, we can agree on how to shorten it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Slatersteven. This is huge complex subject, and we have big separate page where everything was properly described. Selectively including just a few random views (as Jirka.h23 did) was not an improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying it's too short? What are you missing there? Anyway, any missing things can always be added. No new topic on Wikipedia has ever been perfect, to delete whole paragraph because of this is quite non-standard. Jirka.h23 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But alright, I'll wait until the paragraph is delivered by someone else (although I still do not agree with the Slatersteven's unjustified procedure). Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writings by Biden

Isn't "by Biden" in the section "Writings by Biden" a little redundant as it is self-evident? Wouldn't just "Writings" as the header be more concise? — The Most Comfortable Chair 14:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Comfortable Chair, Such a section does not currently exist in the article as far as I can se? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek, it must have been changed to "Publications" recently. — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The allegation is mentioned in Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact. TFD (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Drmies: Fair. I will keep that in mind, thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In fact the Reade allegation did receive coverage in mainstream media.[2] 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)[reply]
"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? [3] IHateAccounts (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/859280849/sexual-assault-allegation-against-joe-biden-presents-metoo-challenge
  2. ^ https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847840765/new-information-emerges-around-biden-sexual-assault-allegation
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html

Logical order of sections

The article is in a haphazard order section-wise. Sometimes it is chronological, otherwise totally mixed up, various topics mingle in a single section, and what is "Reputation" doing in front of the 2008 presidential election? His marriages and children should not be under his senate career but should be a separate section under Private life. The whole article is illogical and looks pierced together. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt it is pieced together, and could use a careful review of its organization, but a hybrid approach of some kind (not strictly chronological, not strictly thematic, not ...) is probably appropriate here. EEng 18:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

Vice President or Vice President-elect?

I feel as if the "blankname" and "namedata" fields should be used for Kamala Harris under the "President-elect" section of Biden's infobox. It would be more fitting and more accurate than using the "Vice President" field, even though 'elect' is included in brackets. DanJWilde (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does TBA mean in the context of election results?

What does TBA mean in the context of election results? --Werfur (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"To Be Announced". ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Typo: 45th Vice President under Obama not 47th.

Subject says it all. There's a typo on the right column listing Biden's political career.

It's not a typo. The source for the claim that Biden was the 47th VP is in the article. [4] Obama was the 44th President, but that doesn't mean Biden was the 44th or 45th Vice President. FDR had multiple VPs during his tenure. Knope7 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: eletorial history table

Trump got 73,000,000 popular votes, not 730,000,000 (which is printed as 73,000,0000)

Thank you. Good eye. I fixed that. Moncrief (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of typos, there's no such word as "eletorial". There is "electorial", but the standard word is "electoral" (no i), as in electoral college. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Flashing stop

Well, I thought Wikipedia intimidation (don't you dare edit this article or talk page!) had reached peak levels on numerous other articles, but then I happened across this page. This is something else! Like many other editors I'm not prepared to contribute to articles or pages where this degree of coercion is used. This flashing image is especially egregious and off-putting. Thanks, but no thanks. Arcturus (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

then please do not edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you I'm not going to. Now see below for a suggestion. Arcturus (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the flashing image is removed from this talk page. Arcturus (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Its there for a very good reason, so we do not have to answer the same question 76 times a day. I wish all pages had a faq that said "this has been discussed please do not ask". Nor has any good reason been presented as to why it shouls not be here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I spelled out a reason. It's merely your opinion that it's not a good one. Arcturus (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it is. so lets see what others think.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get your bowels in an uproar. The stop sign is to make sure people see (and, we hope, read) the FAQs; the idea that it means don't you dare edit this article or talk page is your histrionic distortion. In fact, right under the stop sign it says the the FAQs are meant to familiarize you with points that have been previously addressed, though not to prevent further discussion of these issues. Perhaps you didn't read that far. But anyway, if you're too important or delicate or superior to read the FAQs, then as someone already said, in that case it's probably better you not edit this page after all. Funny how things work out, in the end, for the best.
And by the way: you refer to the many other editors whose sensibilities have been ruffled and who choose not to contribute. How do you know? Do you guys have a club – some sort of mutual validation network for the rightously offended? EEng 11:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarise yourself with WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on contributors. Arcturus (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your preferred pastime seems to be feigning offense at edit notices and FAQs [5]. EEng 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the stick? Surely one for you as well. Just out of interest, how much unproductive time did it take you to ferret out that edit of mine? Arcturus (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About 30 seconds. It's front and center on your talk page [6] in the context of your reference to other editors as idiots. Maybe you forgot. EEng 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC) And don't call me Shirley.[reply]
  • Even with the big red flashing stop, the same question is still being posted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's not working anyway? I suspect the main problem with these types of warning is that they don't actually bring editors to the article, but they do persuade some not to bother. Arcturus (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is working, as it has cut it down, and means we do not havee to waste time posting arguments we have already posted 15 times but just "see the FAQ". If its puts users off, fine, any one put of by it probably is no great loss, if all you care about is this one issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps as a compromise you could read the FAQ once and then have a system to opt out to never read it again? I do understand the reason for it being there. Biden has won, this is not something new that happens in US politics, elections have always been called and except for extremely rare cases where the call is wrong. The few cases where calls didn't result in a presidential victory is a difference of a single state. Trump to win would need to win Georgia, Pennsylvanian, Arizonia and New Mexico to become president, which is a fantasy dream. It is annoying to see new comments of people simply being upset and denying facts, and I defend it in that context. However maybe as a way to get everyone to be partisan, we can have the FAQ close and never read it again once you read it once. I do admit it is distracting, and perhaps POV pushing. Or the flashing image could be replaced possibly with a less distracting one? Perhaps something more in good faith. It is indeed mildly intimidating. Vallee01 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this compromise. I would add the suggestion that we word the FAQ in a way that is as kind and non-patronizing as possible. Obviously, there is good reason for calling Biden the President-elect (he is just that). But the "flashing stop" will only embolden the most ardent people who disagree to push their POV even harder. We should also be welcoming of new and good faith editors wanting to improve the article, and the way that courtesy notices are worded and presented are important matters in this regard. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you suggest changing the wording? EEng 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a better compromise: The first time you see the FAQ, read it; the second and subsequent times, scroll past it. EEng 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-election

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ye but you didn't get the popular vote! heh. Govvy (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm filing for a re-count. EEng 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't certify the results. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you shouldn't certify the results because there was obvious !election fraud - EEng !voted twice! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

Boodos95 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add a few important things to the personal life section.

State what those things are in the request. 2600:1012:B10C:B98F:0:38:6144:7F01 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=989663826"