Talk:Joe Biden

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  There's no doubt he made the comment, but the question is: what did it mean? That's what we need sources on. EEng 04:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Main picture of Biden in the Infobox should be cropped better

Current image in use

Proposed alternative

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential transition article

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

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (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)

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

(reply to self): Added a modified version of this. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:53, 9 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)

About the whole president-elect thing

See the FAQ above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First of all, I am not an expert, but the table states, that President-Elect Biden assumes office on Jan 20, 2021 as president-elect, which is just wrong, because he (probably) assumes the office as president, and somewhen in December, when the Electoral College votes for him, he assumes the (not official existing) office or position of president-elect. Please, let me know where I am wrong. --185.69.247.169 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC) On December 14th the Electors will vote for the President of the United States. Until then there is no official president elect. . There is no guarantee that Electors will vote with the popular vote for their state . In the 2016 election there were ten faithless electors - electors that went against their party . The vote in November only elects the Electors - not the President. It is the electoral college that votes for the president, not the people References President-Elect refers to the winner of election, as soon as this becomes apparent. This is the use that is commonplace in the media and the public, and it is used in federal law ("beginning on the day after the date of the general elections held to determine the electors").[1] GreatCaesarsGhost 14:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "President-Elect refers to the winner of election, as soon as this becomes apparent." No, it does not. Is there a reason you make unfounded claims? Whatever it is, you should consider dropping it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/president-elect https://www.dictionary.com/browse/president-elect https://www.thefreedictionary.com/presidents-elect etc etc 95.202.161.202 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC) I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Worth calling out

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

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

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

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

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

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

- I think its cool! fogonthdowns

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

• Agree. In any case, it's silly to claim that Trump represents one generation and Biden another, when they differ in age by only 3 1/2 years. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

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

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

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

:: Done —valereee (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC) clearly not enough coffee, this needs more discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nickname

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

Proposed change to lead

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

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

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

Reelected or re-elected?

Hi

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

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

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

Best wishes

Andy (from UK)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a speaker of American English, I prefer re-elect with a hyphen. I also note the AP style guide uses a hyphen in re-elect [2] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't [3]. EEng 06:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-elect appears to be a relict. —valereee (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Poll

This appears to be a matter of opinion since neither is officially incorrect. Google searches for re-elect: [4], 167 million hits. Google searches for reelect: [5] 5 million hits. But Google searches don’t decide things, consensus does. Keep discussing above, but let’s take a poll - just list yourself under your preferred spelling, no discussion. That might help to clarify things. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, Melanie: what a colossal waste of time. EEng 23:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're gonna use Google, using quotes and the news tab would be more useful; "reelect" gives 124K news articles (and Google telling you it's spelt wrong) while "re-elect" gives 210K. (Also, to avoid code spam, you can simplify Google URLs to just "/search?q=<term>", and, for tabs, just add "&tbm=isch" for 'image-search' or &tbm=nws" for 'news'.)  Nixinova   T   C   00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

reelected

• Since we're apparently really going to spend time on this: Brit ngram, American ngram, combined ngram – so it's an ENGVAR issue. And the AP style guide. And the NPR style guide. And the Congressional Budget Office. APA. Shall I go on? (These don't demonstrate which choice is "correct" -- they're both correct -- but rather that re-elect is hopelessly old-fashioned, in American English anyway. They used to hyphenate to-day too.) EEng 23:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

lol, you found a lot of examples of this way, seems lazy like a Trump government not to put a hyphen in! Govvy (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what? EEng 09:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

re-elected

• I prefer. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• The other spelling looks just strange, much prefer this one. Govvy (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Per my comments above. If someone can provide convincing evidence that "re-elect" is genuinely no longer in use in AmEng I'd reconsider, but otherwise WP:COMMONALITY applies; this may be a US article but it has a global readership and using language that's specific to one variety of English if an alternative exists that's valid to all is never going to be a preferred option. To my eyes, "reelect" looks as silly and inappropriate as would "preevent" or "cooperative". ‑ Iridescent 23:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  You've been hanging around with Brits too long, Iri. EEng 23:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reëlected - Diaeresis solves everything. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Re-elected is acceptable in American English and has the added advantage of not making every English speaker outside of the US instinctively want to correct it.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (5)

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

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

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

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

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

The most votes ever in a presidential election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's likely due for a single sentence at some point. If this becomes something that's repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources, we can surely include it, but I think for now it's too soon. It's obviously due for the election article, as EEng implied. As far as it being trivia, I have to disagree. It's historic and thus encyclopedic, regardless. If the trend of increased voter participation continues, you might have a point, but your reasoning as to why it would ultimately be trivial sort of requires a crystal ball at the moment.Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I shouldn't have called it trivia -- that's too strong -- but it's a ... factoid? I mean, think of all the other many fascinating things we could tell the reader: first presidential election in which the winner got the same # of electoral votes as the winner of the just-prior election; first president-elect from a state starting with D; presidents married more than once. Somewhere someone mentioned about former vice presidents who got elected president after leaving the vice-presidency -- I mean, really, what is the significance of all this??? This article is about Biden the man, primarily, and the focus should stay on that. EEng 21:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree, and obviously the main BLP article should be focused on biographical material. I'm sort of at the point where I would contend that this is inherently biographical. Though if and when it's included, it should be weighted accordingly, and it should be a single, simple sentence qualifying and characterizing his successful candidacy. Two at most. The fact is that those other items, which I fully agree are factoids (and some of them truly trivialities), do not have the weight for inclusion that this does. I'm arguing for a weak inclusion, just because it's supportable by policy. But like I said, I'd still like to see how reliable sources deal with it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We should mention within the context of total turnout, which was truly remarkable. Highest since 1900, I believe. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree the high turnout is worth mentioning, but that should be expressed as % of eligible voters, not raw counts. EEng 03:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Change suggestion

"is an American politician and democratic candidate in the 2020 election for president of the United States of which he is the presumed winner & president-elect, pending confirmation by the electoral college. If elected he will be inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States in January 2021."

Or something similar. Then simply keep it locked til the electoral college has voted, and change it ever so slightly if (or more likely, when) he is actually elected. (And do include who he defeated if that happens) Same if somehow loses. I truly fail to see what the thing is with this "he must be referred to as president-elect NOW" attitude some display here. I hope it's not a case of POV. (And you do realize that wikipedia articles does not determine reality? They should only reflect it) Same with the calls to basically emulate the media in incorrectly (unverifably) claiming that Biden is the president-elect before the fact. Mass media really shouldn't set the standard for how an encyclopedia behaves. Indeed the guidelines here rather discourages acting like a media outlet. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Christ. It's like wikilawyering, but real life, so... lawyering? A) To imply that there will be 20+ faithless voters and the election goes to someone else is unprecedented. Wikipedia needn't speculate on remote possibilities. It also doesn't need to needlessly complicate the prose to satisfy people who want to entertain remote possibilities. B) What you're saying is irrelevant, and it's why things like WP:PRIMARYSOURCE exists. Editors do not use their own reasoning to decide what is or isn't true, or if a label/title is fair, or whatever. Reliable sources do that. And they've done that. So this point has little relevance to Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not an assumption of anything but the opposite: A statement of the actual facts without attached assumptions and incorrect assertions. He isn't the president elect, that's a fact. So why should ot say he is? What you are saying is that editors SHOULD indeed decide what's true and false (rather than simply going by the plain and simple facts) even as you criticise it.95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Further.. in regards to primary and secondary source.. Media outlets claims that he is president-elect, that's primary source. If you want to claim they are secondary sources, then what is the primary source? It cannot be the only real one - the electoral college, because that hasn't voted yet. So it is indeed original claim. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news

"All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources" 95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The "actual facts" according to you. This is original research. We don't do that. We use reliable secondary sources, which are nearly unanimous in the simple word in the article also used in previous elections. And this is no longer "breaking news". Immediately after one or two sources called it would be breaking news. When massive sources use the same wording, we use it. O3000 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No, primary and secondary source are defined things (and not by me lol) and it doesn't mean "a newspaper or media outlet" as you seem to infer. A supposed secondary source that doesn't rely on a primary source - cannot be a secondary source. And your definition of what constitutes breaking news is indeed your definition of it. This is what the guidelines state: "It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors." 1 or 2 days does not mean "immediately", now does it? Most sources saying Biden is president elect is from today... Not that this article even cites them correctly.. it goes on for several paragraphs before a single source on anything whatsoever is presented. And not a single source is used to cite him supposedly being president elect. (First source is several paragraphs down - about him having the delegates to become a candidate) So do spare me these baseless claims of this adhering to guidelines. :D I'm one of the few here who is pushing for guidelines to actually be followed. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You really need to read the Wikipedia policies fully. All of the major news networks, print and television, in the USA are referring to Joe Biden as president-elect save for Fox, which has major reliability issues and seems to be doing it purely out of right-wing partisan pique. Wikipedia reflects what the Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage is. This is neither "breaking news" nor is it any other form of exception. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News does refer to Biden as president-elect. Awoma (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have read them, and you are unfortunately simply ignoring what "secondary source" (cant have a secondary when there is no primary) means, what reliable means, what verifiable means. As well as the part about breaking news. You in particular also display clear political bias with your statement. Which is incorrect as well - as fox news has indeed called Biden the president elect. https://www.foxnews.com/world/reaction-world-leaders-biden-presidential-election

"World leaders have extended their congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden after he was projected to be the winner of the 2020 presidential election." Not that it matters - you cannot be president elect when you are not elected, it doesn't matter how many (primary to boot) "sources" say so. It's akin to saying religious people outnumbering atheists prove the existance of God.

But maybe a few dictionaries might help you?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/president-elect

"a person who has been elected president but who has not officially become president yet"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/president-elect

"a president after election but before induction into office."

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/president-elect

"A person who has been elected president but has not yet taken up office."

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/presidents-elect

"A person who has been elected president but has not yet been inducted into office."

And how is a (US) president elected? Why: https://www.usa.gov/election#item-36072

"In other U.S. elections, candidates are elected directly by popular vote. But the president and vice president are not elected directly by citizens. Instead, they’re chosen by “electors” through a process called the Electoral College."

So then.. how can a man who has not been elected - be the president elect? The answer is apparently found in "creative" (re)interpretation of the wiki guidelines. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You are making some basic mistakes. Wikipedia policies follow the secondary sources: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary

In the case of the term "president-elect", American news agencies use the term for the person who has earned enough Electoral College votes to become the next President of the United States. The meeting of the Electoral College itself is a formality, and this is also recognized by the United States Secret Service, which implements heightened protection of that individual from the point of certainty rather than waiting until after the Electoral College officially meets. The primary source in this case is the vote counts released by each of the states, which the various news and statistical reporting agencies collect and then release their evaluation as secondary sources as to whether a particular individual (in this case, President-Elect Biden) has won enough of the state election contests to have an incontrovertible lead in the Electoral College.

"The president-elect of the United States is the person who conclusively appears to have won a presidential election in the United States, but has yet to take office as President." - per President-elect of the United States IHateAccounts (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My friend, it's quite simple. We go by what's WP:VERIFIABLE. Doing otherwise is original research. When nearly every source is referring to him as President-Elect, in addition to world leaders and subject matter experts, we can't say otherwise. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• We really need an FAQ on this, but I did the FAQ on why George Floyd's death was a homicide so it's someone else's turn. As we all know an FAQ won't reduce the number of spurious talk posts, but at least it gives us a shorthand way to answer them. EEng 23:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The last two have been this same IP. I agree that it's becoming disruptive and a partial block from this talk is probably on the horizon. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a temporary problem primarily by one inexperienced editor that may not be helped by an FAQ. Two week block from this IP for WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT might work, and won't even go on record if the user creates a username. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's someone who has some pretty clear Wikipedia:Competence is required issues and who is refusing to read and understand the policies involved, continuing to make arguments that make little to no sense. I support the proposal of O3000. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly four years ago, Trump's article said he was "an American businessman and politician who is President-elect of the United States."[6] Similar objections were made but rejected. I see this as similar to prime ministers. We always say that someone was elected prime minister, but actually they are usually appointed by the head of state on the basis that their party won a majority of seats in the legislature. TFD (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Our lead currently says this:

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. 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.

I think that is a good lead, comparable to the way we have handled previous presidents-elect, and should be kept the way it is. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Having a note is good. Joe Biden is the President-elect despite the incumbent president's false claims. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Current or recent health status of Mr Joe Biden?

For example if there are recent pictures of him riding a racing bicycle, or running, or lifting weights, that would be a good indication of good health.

--ee1518 (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No, no it is not. RS saying he is would be.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

A photograph of Mr Biden undertaking exercise would be evidence of his health status per WP:OI. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That is about use of images, not their accuracy or reliability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It would reasonable at some point to note Biden is the oldest president ever, which has lead to some reasonable speculation on his health and longevity. However, the presidency section is currently so short it would be UNDUE now. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Under 2020 presidential election President-elect. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant specifically concerns raised about health, given his age. Not that the speculation itself is worth noting, but a this becomes an issue during his presidency (as has Trump's apparent age-related degeneration). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (2)

In 2017, Joe Biden became the founding chair of the University of Delaware's Biden Institute, a research center that develops public policy solutions for some of the nation’s toughest domestic problems, including civil rights, environmental sustainability and violence against women. 100.14.209.244 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail^[Talk] 16:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

lol, I just edit conflicted with Evergreen Fir on creating the FAQ. —valereee (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

• Support Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

• Oppose Too strange having "by numerous media outlets" Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

• We follow reliable, secondary sources. That's it. We cannot include our opinions, cannot engage in speculation, and cannot engage in original research. Simple. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

No valid source says the Holocaust never happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Not an improvement. ValarianB (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Support this the most Number 3 Is factual. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

Admiral Kirk, you are violating the "prime directive". O3000 (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

[7] EEng 09:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

Infobox, what to do with 'succeding' field.

Howdy. Seeing as there's a growing consensus to remove Biden from the 'successor' section of the infobox at Donald Trump's article. Shall we remove Trump from the 'succeding' section of this article's infobox, until Biden takes office? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

A growing consensus isn't consensus, it sounds like an ongoing discussion. Can you provide a link to this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's happening at the Trump talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

And I just noticed that you are blocked from editing that article and talk page, is there a reason you are bringing that discussion over here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It relates to this article & not to mention all the congressional & gubernatorial bio articles. Do we really want to have a sloppy encyclopedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

With my vote, it's 7 remove to 6 include. At this point in time, even if it were to be called on the Donald Trump page, I would want a vote here as well. It's too close to apply the same vote to a wide selection of pages. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I do not think we should list Biden as Trump's successor, in the President of the US box, until he has actually taken office. But it's OK to list Trump under "succeeding", in the president-elect box in the Biden article, because that box is obviously a statement of what's going to happen. EEng 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop Wikipedia:Repetition in Argumentation

Repeating the same exact argument over and over ad nauseam is not going to convince anyone that the policy of WP:NOTTRUTH is wrong. Please stop making new sections arguing this point. If you want to argue this point, at least continue an existing thread. As most of these arguments are created by users who have never edited before or IPs who have never edited before, please take a bit of time to learn our procedures before arguing here. As well as that, if you have not made any contributions to Wikipedia in the past, people may not enjoy you joining Wikipedia to argue. If you want to actually encourage discussion instead of receiving a canned response, please also do not make threats like "Wikipedia is breaking a federal law" or call people "Biden-lovers". Unsurprisingly, people do not take kindly to threats or attacks of any sort. If you have read this and refrained from posting the same complaint, thank you so much. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of these requests are coming from new editors who do not read over an entire article talk page before posting their comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Moncrief (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make Talk:Joe Biden/FAQ more visible? I feel like the average IP editor might not give up even after seeing Q1 and A1, but we could at least do a better job of communicating the information. KidAd talk 22:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not expecting IP editors or anyone who would come to request this to read my suggestion. I'm just going to refer to it immediately if someone posts the same thing again. Might even be a valid edit summary for just reverting the edits. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I am doing: copy-pasting this at the bottom of the discusion:

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) 00:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

...and hatting after 24 hours. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Jumped the gun a couple sections below. When you get older, time moves more quickly. O3000 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

We only need one of the same discussion on the page so I archived all of the repeated ones. The IP editors that come up with these complaints put in absolutely no effort so I don't feel bad about putting no effort into responding to them. Gsquaredxc (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Small Change

Why does the Post-Vice Presidency (2017-2021) section include 2021? There's nothing in that section from the year 2021?

Also, the first two sentences in the LGBTQ+ sub-section (Biden was the first to speak on gay marriage at a Human Rights Campaign event in Los Angeles in 2012. He also called LGBT workplace discrimination "close to barbaric" and "bizarre".) are outside of the time frame of the section above. Should that part be moved to a different section? I was thinking the Vice President (2009-2017) section specifically. ChipotleHater (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

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

Edit request to fix an error

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

---

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

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

Errors like this make Wikipedia look childish.

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

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

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

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

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

Another solution would be to just not have the succession box at all, since there's no one on the planet -- and very few people on other planets -- who don't know Biden will be the next US president. EEng 09:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020 <<< THE GOVERNMENT RESOURCE DO NOT CLAIM MEDIA RESOURCES ARE RELIABLE In the time of which people question the Wikipedia, the writers on here claim "news" is a reliable source of data. Of which is the most biased data ever. For example during 2013,(I have it recorded on DVR) my news channel said a nuke was lost in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Anyone knows this is false. I have 9600 more instances of this. I looked at 5 different Wiki pages for politicians, of which all includes data from left leaning news sources. Statements on immigration force a POV in effective psycho-manipulation tactics. In example, Joe Biden said Donald Trump is sending US born "Immigrants" back to Mexico. That is not how it works though. The parents will be deported for being illegal. However, the children will stay if they were born in the US they will stay, as they are illegal in Mexico.

A witness testimony statistically, is almost always wrong as well. In example the previous stated Joe Biden thing. Meaning any biographical writ also needs to have that segment recorded by video for the most untampered data. Any data that is from a news source, should be looked at as false, due to the heavy amount of lies that any news source does. I know in it's own sounds like a bias, but I have data that holds true. Until presented with new data I will remain to believe that is fact, that the news is almost always wrong.

Don't deny my edit request, because requesting a consensus is unnecessary when I presented hard evidence. That's like being an officer with a body cam, and watching a man(referring to man's definition as the shortened form of human) cheat at official poker, and performing consensus on the other card players because people don't believe real evidence. Because I have evidence for the change for complete accuracy. Present me with evidence to change my mind.

Joe Biden is not president nor has he been voted for by the actual voters. We also do not know if he is being voted in yet. The line in the first paragraph needs to add "Joe Biden won the popular vote as of November's count" "He will be inaugurated" Should change to "He might be inaugurated" or be removed in it's whole.

Our leaders(representatives) vote our leaders not us.

I joined the Wikipedia to make it unbiased, and data ran. Cheers, Lord Sieyono (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC). Also Sieyono for president 2030! Lord Sieyono (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See FAQ above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has said he is president yet. He is recognized as president-elect, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

We have an article on it, we do not need it in to places.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Homonym alert! EEng 15:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Remove "46th"

I'd like to to shorten "inaugurated as the 46th president" to "inaugurated". There has been wide speculation that Trump may resign before the end of his term. While I would not give any weight to what is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL, I also don't feel anything substantial would be lost. Opinions? GreatCaesarsGhost 16:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see this as valid, yes we should remove it until he is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

And a nuclear weapon could explode in DC. Let's not engage in speculation. Just say what RS say. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia poorly handling subject, suggest 8 year war starting

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

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

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