Talk:Joe Biden

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've always thought that these succession boxes are redundant. Isn't this information already present in the infobox and the body? ~ HAL333([1]) 20:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vietnamese refugees

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

United States Senate career of Joe Biden

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

Inaccurate statements about first wife’s accident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls by private firms such as Decision Desk HQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No need for strawmen. Nobody says Biden is president now, and Wikipedia doesn't care about (your original analysis of) "constitutional sources", only reliable sources. He is now the president-elect[2] after major RS such as AP and others have called the election and declared him to be the president-elect. Reporting what widely recognised reliable sources report is the very opposite of OR; the only OR here is your original analysis and fringe claim that "the race is undecided" (consensus among RS disagree). --Tataral (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is now the president-elect widely recognised by reliable sources,[3] and that's how we'll describe him in line with how we have described all past US presidents-elect (including Trump the day after the 2016 election). Of course he doesn't become president until 2021 when he is inaugurated. --Tataral (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not over yet

Biden may have won the election, but it's not over just yet. Trump is protesting that there are votes that consist of fraud due to illegal immigrants and impersonation votes as well. Trump's attorneys are doing everything in their power to battle in an effort to reverse the votes so that they may call this just a paper election.

The process not over yet, only 14 december: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-timeline-idINKBN27C1XC https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54724960

Nah.★Trekker (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, we just found out that some psychopath has been globetrotting to conspire a hitman's theory to prevent Biden from being sworn in. I am suspicious that it was that same jackass who intended to bring down Obama 12 years back, and he got a lifetime ban from Wikipedia from doing that. I just wonder why that same guy would just sprint back in action to cast such a vengeful agenda? Regardless either way, we still don't know the outcome of the election, because there are other allegations against Biden, especially for his son connecting ties with Russia. Slasher405 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Next time, bring sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The new account has been dealt with. Any more accounts from this user will be dealt with too. Crboyer (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Same things occurred in 2016 & 2017, when protesters, hollywood celebs & Democratic politicians tried to stop Trump from taking office. Nothing new. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Two sides of the same coin, how droll. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:E9B6:3401:F418:27C9 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This is wrong to have this article written this way and overall will degrade the whole site in the end. 007longbeach (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur with OP. until a candidate concedes or SCOTUS hands down a ruling, the election remains contested, and the text should reflect this state of affairs. Xcalibur (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Main picture of Biden in the Infobox should be cropped better

Current image in use

Proposed alternative

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

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

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

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

Presidential transition article

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3)

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

References

Given that even unreliable right-wing sources like Fox News are calling him the President-elect, surely this is a non-issue, User:Keyswab! Nfitz (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (4)

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

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

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Joe Biden is not yet the president elect. States are still counting and have yet to submit final counts. Also- until the electors go through the process of nominations, he is not the president elect. 173.26.178.209 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Are there sources that reflect that, User:173.26.178.209? There's plenty of sources that say otherwise. And even unreliable pro-Trump right-wing sources that refer to President-Elect Biden, such as this. Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources which overwhelmongly refer to Biden as president elect--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The Associated Press themselves (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=us+election) show that Nevada has only reported 88% of its votes, Ohio 96%, Texas 98%, California 66%, Illinois 92%. Georgia has announced a recount due to the slim margin (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/georgia-recount-us-election-biden-trump). December 14th is when the Electoral College votes in the President of the United States. Any candidate has until December the 8th to settle and disputes with the count (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/faq-what-happens-next-in-the-presidential-election-process). I agree with the original author here. It is not up to the media but the states and the electors of the elector college through the processes of the US Constitutuion. Please see my post above. A few news sources that support this are below. . These are just two be very wary because they are very right wing sources. If you need more sources let me know in reply. Ymblanter, what do you mean by reliable sources? All journalism and writing is biased according to the author's slant.

References

COVID response plan

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

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

References

Bare url refs

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

References

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

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

+ category

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

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

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology: "President-elect of the United States"

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

1. a candidate is reliably reported in the news to have won enough statewide elections to amass at least 270 electoral votes
2. later, enough state governments to total at least 270 officially certify that
3. later,electors are chosen in the various states
4. later, electors vote (that will be on December 14, as I understand it)
5. later, the electoral votes are counted (as I recall, the count begins on January 6)
6. later, the results of the count of electoral votes is certified (and, at that point, the presumptive President-elect becomes the President-elect)
7. later, at noon on January 21, the President-elect succeeds to the Presidency

See President-elect of the United States, Electoral Count Act and, probably, elsewhere.

Perhaps something like "presumptive popular vote winner" or something along that line might be appropriate for now than "President-elect".

I suggest that the relevant language in this article be brought into line with this (with appropriate corrections if I've made errors above), and that information be added to the article clarifying this in the interim between now and the January 21, 2021 inaguration date, when it can be stabilized. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Need a source. Are there reliable secondary sources out there using the term "presumptive popular vote winner", User:Wtmitchell. Every media source I've seen uses the term "President-elect" - including vote with right-wing bias like Fox News - see here. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would "presumptive popular vote winner" be better? Popular vote is irrelevant to this whole process. Hillary Clinton was the "presumptive popular vote winner"216.165.95.180 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Though it may seem counterintuitive, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth" (see WP:NOTTRUTH). Reliable sources consider Biden the president-elect. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that is what he is.  Aar  ► 

Well, as far as the existence of alternative viewpoints re the terminology, see WP:DUE and e.g., Barrus, Roger Milton; Eastby, John H.; Jr., Joseph H. Lane, (2004). The Deconstitutionalization of America: The Forgotten Frailties of Democratic Rule. Lexington Books. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-7391-0835-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) My comment was just a drive-by suggestion, though. I'll leave it at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden is not president elect because he did not win the election. Donald J Trump won the election. U.S2020 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The declaration of Joe Biden's win is based upon the Pennsylvania vote. As of 7th November he leads by 34 000 votes in the state however there are still over 60 000 votes to be counted in the state - therefore it is too early to call the state and there could also be a recount. As such the Associate Press was wrong to call the election based upon the Pennsylvania result.

References

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (6)

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

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

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (6)

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

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

inline citations for possibly contested claim.

Could we please source the following statement?:

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

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

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

About the whole president-elect thing

First of all, I am not an expert, but the table states, that President-Elect Biden assumes office on Jan 20, 2021 as president-elect, which is just wrong, because he (probably) assumes the office as president, and somewhen in December, when the Electoral College votes for him, he assumes the (not official existing) office or position of president-elect. Please, let me know where I am wrong. --185.69.247.169 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

On December 14th the Electors will vote for the President of the United States. Until then there is no official president elect. . There is no guarantee that Electors will vote with the popular vote for their state . In the 2016 election there were ten faithless electors - electors that went against their party . The vote in November only elects the Electors - not the President. It is the electoral college that votes for the president, not the people

References

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020

Change the incorrect information that states Joe Biden is the president elect scheduled for inauguration January 20th, 2021. The electors have not yet met to elect the president of the United States. So the information is FACTUALLY incorrect. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641

December 14, 2020: Electors Vote in Their States Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years is set (3 U.S.C. §7) as the date on which the electors meet and vote. In 2020, the meeting is on December 14. 2600:8800:2980:F1:F939:6279:1D90:52BA (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not doneAFAIK, no major reliable source has suggested that he won't be elected, and our wording doesn't say that he will, merely that it is expected. Sure, faithless electors are possible, but unless you provide sources that suggest that is a real and serious problem, it is likely not due coverage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

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

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

Rephrase the second sentence

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

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

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

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)

- I think its cool! fogonthdowns