Talk:Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 02:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Confusion

Has Joe himself announced that he is running? Tony85poon (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Article status

@Mélencron: What's wrong with this article even if the 'official' announcement is not until next week? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added mention of his expected formal announcement next week. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been a public announcement of his candidacy; there have been multiple false starts like this before already (e.g. with reporting regarding Bennet which was misconstrued to imply that he had announced). The point at which he's a candidate is when he publicly says he's a candidate, which in any case is likely to be Wednesday. Mélencron (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Mélencron, I think there's plenty of coverage to justify an article, and we're days away from a formal announcement. I say let's let the article stay and snowball... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"In March 2019, Biden indicated that he may run."

Currently, the article says, "In March 2019, Biden indicated that he may run." Shouldn't we note this was accidental?

• https://www.complex.com/life/2019/03/joe-biden-accidently-announce-his-2020-presidental-campaign

Simply saying "indicated" suggests the comment may have been on purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Unless, wasn’t accidental. Trial balloon, maybe. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Is this a copyvio of Draft:Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign? Seems parts are copied from the draft. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia is perfectly allowable; just need to request a histmerge since this was a copy/paste move by an IP. Mélencron (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Request where? Hyperbolick (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hyperbolick, Already done, but for future reference: Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "timeline":

• From Efforts to impeach Donald Trump: Bowden, John (September 21, 2019). "Timeline: The Trump whistleblower complaint". The Hill. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
• From Facebook: "Company Timeline" (Press release). Facebook. January 1, 2007. Retrieved March 5, 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Touching and Ukraine

I object to this edit which adds material not related to the campaign, and casts the BLP subject as an active participant in Trump's controversy. I'm opening this section so that Schnuppiepup can seek consensus.- MrX 🖋 11:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that Schnuppiepup's edits are not best. I reverted till it can be worked on talk page to see if it has support and consensus. ContentEditman (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Schnuppiepup's edits regarding Ukraine were mild and correct. How can there be any understanding of the controversy without the context of Biden's December 2015 visit to Ukraine where he promised to withold $1 billion in loan guarantees for the firing of a foreign public servant. It is integral to the Trump/Giuliani claims because Biden's statements on this event are referenced as "bragging" by Trump/Giuliani, and a factor that drove their efforts to compel Ukraine to reopen the investigation. This should be a separate section. -- Ingyhere (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Touching has been an issue for Biden for years. When it came to light in the #METOO movement, Biden offered what many deemed a half-hearted apology. It is my opinion this should be viewed as a serious controversy not to be left out or glossed over. Failing to address this opens the editorial content up to claims of sexism, privilege, rationalization and complicity in alleged harassment. Here is an article from April that discusses the issue: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/04/joe-biden-allegations-physical-behavior-women This should clearly be explored under a separate sub-section. -- Ingyhere (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This material on Ukraine is right-wing propaganda, not a serious controversy. All reputable journalistic sources, and the historical record, agree that Biden was acting on behalf of the Obama administration and in accord with demands from the European Union for the then-Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor known not to be seeking out and prosecuting corruption but rather potentiating it. Hours of testimony at the impeachment hearings were devoted to documenting and explaining this, with no credible evidence to the contrary presented by Team Trump."Bragging" is not a criminal offense and in fact can be described using other terms, should you desire to do so. This Trumped up charge should go: or must Wikipedia enshrine the lowest form of disproved conspiracism, no more credible than "Pizzagate"? A serious question. Actio (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be rewritten so that it makes it clear that it was a debunked conspiracy theory. - MrX 🖋 11:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I note with interest the fact that the name Hunter Biden doesn't appear anywhere on this page. Considering that the NYPost articles, circa October 2020, on his emails have literally broken the Internet over the last several days, might it be time to insert at least one mention of the Democratic nominee's son and confidant? Chron-Kite (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Bevan Cooney. But Heavy just came out with an article about him. https://heavy.com/news/bevan-cooney/ Here's an excerpt: "Bevan Cooney is a former business partner of Hunter Biden who is serving prison time for his involvement in a 2016 bond fraud investment scheme." It's possible that we'll be hearing more about him in the coming days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chron-Kite (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of content

@MrX: I have reintroduced the content you have removed because your justification was very poor. Yahoo News isn't alternative press. It isn't "news of the day", it's been in the news for a while now. Content isn't poorly sourced. You are making false statements. Please reconsider your actions. BeŻet (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary expressed the primary reason, not the only reason for removing this material. The Yahoo! lifestyle section is not an acceptable source for a criminal allegation against a living person. They are basically regurgitating what they read from a Bernie supporter in The Intercept, apparently without conducting their own investigation. They literally quote social media, which is about the lowest form knowledge in existence. Our BLP policy WP:BLPSOURCES and our neutral point of view policy WP:DUEWEIGHT cover why this material should remain out of the article until high quality sources report about it. High quality sources would be major news networks, major newspapers (non-syndicated content), or a major magazines or journals (not upstart publications, or articles written by authors who frequently Tweet their undying love of Biden's opponents). I hope that helps clarify my reasoning. - MrX 🖋 12:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This still doesn't make sense to me. The Yahoo! lifestyle section is not an acceptable source for a criminal allegation against a living person – is there any reason to believe that the allegation did not happen? Are you suggesting that Reade in fact did not make the allegation? There's video evidence of it. There is absolutely no doubt about whether the allegation happened, so this particular line of reasoning does not make sense. Also, we are entering tricky territory here where what is a "major" magazine or news outlet is completely arbitrary. BeŻet (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't The Hill (newspaper), Washington Examiner count as major news outlets, or is that not major enough? BeŻet (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Now also Vox, Internation Business Times talks about it too (and Fox News, but that's not a preferred source). How much more is needed? BeŻet (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Biden's campaign has already rejected the charge of rape. This is a major news story, it's only somewhat hidden because of all the coronavirus news. Is there still a reason to keep it out of the article?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decree whether reports constitute a "major news story". Rather, such stories are defined by consistent and widespread coverage in high-level news sources. As I noted in my previous comment, Wikipedia is not a place to launch astroturfing campaigns. We therefore generally have not provided coverage of lone unsubstantiated allegations - for example, allegations regarding Jennifer Fitzgerald are not mentioned at all in George H. W. Bush 1988 presidential campaign, and those regarding Larry Sinclair are not mentioned at all in Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign. The campaign articles that do mention such allegations, such as those regarding Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, are those where multiple claimants have made allegations, or where these have in fact been widely reported in reliable sources. I would also note that even though Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign mentions the volume of sexual assault allegations against Trump, it specifically does not mention the lawsuit by Katie Johnson claiming that Jeffrey Epstein arranged for Trump to rape her when she was thirteen years old, even though the lawsuit alleging this was also covered by Vox. BD2412 T 03:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, I don’t have the source at hand but could probably find it, but there was a detective who investigated the claims that Trump raped this lady when she was 13 and discounted it because she claimed that Epstein brought her to his parties with celebrities, even though Epstein never brought underage girls to parties with the rich and famous, he kept that illegal side of his life secret. It is ridiculous to claim, as this woman did, that Epstein invited underage girls to these parties where the attendants would be shocked and outraged and when none of the attendants even ever remember him bringing underage girls to them; it was his private islands and his mansions in New York where such abuse occurred. So her story is obviously a fake. It is ridiculous to think Trump would threaten to murder the then 13 year old by referencing a previous murder and in effect confess and implicate himself in the tragic murder of a 12-year-old girl and have her walking around as a witness. Finally, Donald’s Trump’s interest has always been focused on women in their twenties and thirties, not underage girls. This woman made her claims at the height of the general election. As for other claims by other women of sexual inappropriateness and wrongdoing I do not know about but this claim is definitely bogus.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not making a judgment on the credibility of either claim here, merely pointing out that there are numerous isolated instances of unsubstantiated salacious claims made against many political candidates that we consistently do not cover because such a thing doesn't reach the level of encyclopedic coverage. In the case of the claim proposed for inclusion in this article, the matter hasn't even reached the level, so far as any source reports, of having a detective investigate the claim, so it is clearly at a lower level of notability than a claim that was investigated as such. BD2412 T 05:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to highlight that it's quite arbitrary what is "encyclopedic" and what isn't. I think there is also a wider problem of the difficulty of defining what "major outlets" are. Outlets like MSNBC and CNN will avoid covering accusations like that as much as possible, until it's impossible to ignore, so we can't wait until they benevolently decide to report on something. Meanwhile, several other outlets report on it. Is it worth including in the article? Personally, I feel like it's a pretty massive deal. I understand if people disagree, but trying to show how tricky this situation is, and I really want to avoid a situation where things don't get included on Wikipedia unless they are mentioned in 2 or 3 specific outlets. Every single media outlet has a political agenda, and quite clearly outlets like CNN are completely ignoring this scandal (while, for instance, spending hours on Bernie's "snake emojis", or sexism accusations made by a Warren staffer). You might be right that we do not cover these things in general, to be frank I'd have to look into it, but it's perhaps not quite clear what makes it worth including. BeŻet (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. Wikipedia is not the place to launch astroturfing efforts against WP:BLP subjects from low-level sources. BD2412 T 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MrX as well. There is also the WP:RECENT problem where we would be engaging in reporting breaking news even before Biden has responded to this charge of rape. Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

How come Politio is a poor source? Why did you remove this fragment? BeŻet (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There was no citation for the last sentence. If the material is verifiable in the Politico article, the citation should appear after the material. - MrX 🖋 15:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have now moved the ref tag to the end of the paragraph. BeŻet (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be included with better sources, should it get significant coverage (CNN, WaPo, etc). There's a similar section on Biden's primary article, which is maybe where all of these claims should go, unless they become relevant to the campaign itself. If his spokespeople reject the claims, that can be included too. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There's also an OP on Guardian now asking why has the media ignored sexual assault allegations against Biden? BeŻet (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

As well as a mention at The Week. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I recommend this argument be set aside until the resolution of a related RfC at the main article is concluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. BeŻet (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden’s sexual misconduct claims were omitted by mainstream media outlets for a reason

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims

Claims by people such as Tara Reade during Biden’s campaign should not be omitted, and shows a clear bias on behalf of this article. It is omitted by mainstream media due to obvious bias and gaslighting; the subsequent claims were also not by “opposing” sources as the bio by MrX suggests. The tone of Wikipedia should be unbiased and middle-grounded, an opinion-sensitive article is not what Wikipedia is about.

Additional sources that will be used in this section: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/04/04/how-to-weigh-an-allegation-of-assault-against-joe-biden

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/491273-a-woman-accuses-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-few-liberals-listen?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/joe-biden-democrats-sexual-assault-they-never-learn/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims Pompous Retail (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC) — Pompous Retail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• As noted in previous discussions, this allegation is omitted from this article to exactly the same degree that the claim by Katie Johnson, which was more intensely investigated by authorities, is omitted from the Trump 2016 campaign article. Moreover, has this been raised as campaign issue by any specific opposing campaign? BD2412 T 02:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Also, please see the previous thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thoroughly sourced section on Biden's problems with touching/rape allegations. Any recommendations for improvement before I add it?

Alright, I know this is "controversial," but I have a well sourced section. I can easily add some material relating it back to the campaign if that's the problem. Comments for improvement are welcome before I put it in again:

"Touching" and rape allegations

Biden has long had issues with "inappropriate touching," which some claim is simply part of his "Uncle Joe" persona, drawing controversy over what types of personal contact is appropriate in a professional setting.

Biden has had numerous claims made against him of sexual assault. On March 24, 2020, Alexandra Tara Reade, a former staffer, accused Biden of rape, adding, "Thank you, I was silenced for so long." On the 30th, the campaign issued a blanket denial. The accusation has attracted extra controversy due to it appearing to be ignored by mainstream media, and has been cited as an example of the inconsistent advocacy the Democratic party has towards #MeToo, especially when compared with the attitude the party had towards Brett Kavanaugh. It is as of yet unclear whether the allegations are true.

Sources

--Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This is really good and well-sourced the only thing you might consider adding is the fact that intercept reporters reached out to Tara's brother and friend who both confirmed that she told them what happened right afterward in 1993. The intercept article also does a good job of explaining the suppression in the media and why Times UP lawyers did not take the case.

Sources

N8tegr8 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not ready for primetime yet. The sources are all poor and there's very little proper mainstream media coverage. And as mentioned in the previous thread, you should let the RfC at the main article run its course before adding it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No, this should be left out unless it gets coverage in high quality sources. The Washington Times, Twitter, Salon, Democracy Now, and Soundcloud are not reliable sources for such material. Fox News is a questionable source. The other sources are weak at best. Also, the material is really not about the campaign at all. - MrX 🖋 14:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd1a4i: Sexual assault should be changed to sexual harassment. The source for "numerous claims made against him of sexual assault" specifically says he has NOT been accused of sexual assault.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Where has this been brought up as a campaign issue? I have not seen any other campaign specifically raise this as an issue. BD2412 T 15:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The allegation of sexual assault is now included into the article about Joe Biden. Washington Post and New York Times have covered the story and the campaign manager of Trump tweeted about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sexual-assault-allegation-by-former-biden-senate-aide-emerges-in-campaign-draws-denial/2020/04/12/bc070d66-7067-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html?searchResultPosition=2

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1249037951075602438

Is it time to include it here as well?--Baumfreak (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC) — Baumfreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. There's no evidence this is a campaign issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be trimmed way down to keep it relevant to the campaign and avoid weasel words. A little on the 4th-wall-breaking side which can be construed as POV. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

What would make it relevant to the campaign would be reporting in independent, reliable sources specifically covering its relevance to the campaign, in sufficient depth. We should not be using tweets as sources for anything, and certainly not hinging characterizations of relevance on them. BD2412 T 17:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's significant enough to the campaign to be well-covered by RS. But the mention here should be one or two sentences rather than the suggested paragraphs. Some issues I see:

• The "Uncle Joe" persona shouldn't be mentioned without explanation.
• It's unclear who's being addressed in "Thank you, I was silenced for so long."
• The phrases "blanket denial" and "the inconsistent advocacy the Democratic party has towards #MeToo" are POV.
• The party's "attitude" towards Brett Kavanaugh is an excessive detail/off topic.
• "It is as of yet unclear whether the allegations are true" does not need to be stated. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification :) What exactly is sufficient depth? Since the allegation is against the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in the 2020 election, it is hard to not see the effects on his campaign.

This is too short I guess? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/joe-biden-accused-of-sex-assault-amid-challenge-to-donald-trump.html --Baumfreak (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to guess the effects on a politician's campaign of a claim made about them. Is there polling that has been reported on the question? Has a competing campaign been credited for the accusation being made? Have efforts by competing campaigns to make an issue of this been reported? Has any reliable source indicated that this has had any impact at all on any vote being cast? It is quite possible that this will become noteworthy as a campaign issue, but we certainly will not know whether it has had an impact until after the votes have been cast. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. We can certainly evaluate whether this is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia in mid-November. I would also note that this is consistent with Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, which omits mention of dozens of specific allegations comparable to the one made in this instance. BD2412 T 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The campaign's denial of the allegations makes them directly relevant to the campaign, plus the indirect relevance of the now much more wide coverage. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

When the NYTimes carries a major story about it, [1] and a podcast [2] and additional background stories [3] , and includes discussion of a comparison to Trump, that's as good sourcing as is possible in the world, and a clear indication of importanceto the campaign. Why should Wikipedia think they can hide it? DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this does now seem to be getting more attention. Once the AfD on the article is resolved (it looks unlikely to be deleted), we can link to that article from here, and have everything in one place. BD2412 T 19:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• BD2412 Since the RfC on Biden touching/rape allegations has been closed on April 14 (and even has moved to the /Archive), shouldn't this be into the article? Must say, looking at WP:SURPRISE, the omission itself is a surprise. Or are there fora I missed? -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would think that the RfC would be determinative of this for all articles involved, so there should be some mention of this added to the article. It might be noted, though, that some Trump surrogates have deemed the allegation false, so it does not appear to be something that is being picked up as a campaign issue, though it obviously affects the campaign. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Trump surrogates" now is RS? I don't understand your line. What edit do you actually recommend/support? -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean that comments to this effect by Trump surrogates reported in reliable sources should be included, to indicate its stance as an actual issue in the campaign. For example, Levine, Jon (May 2, 2020). "Lindsey Graham defends Joe Biden after Tara Reade sex assault allegation". New York Post. BD2412 T 22:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think this has had any impact on the presidential race (as of yet), and so is not appropriate to add to any 2020 U.S. presidential election article. He just addressed the incident. (Was it Thursday or Friday? The days blend together.) Let's wait and see how the story progresses. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would still be receiving coverage on the nightly news if Biden wasn't the presumptive nominee of his party, but it does not seem plausible at this point to treat it as not being at all relevant to the campaign, when both candidates have addressed the issue. It is an interesting sequence of events at this point that can be summed up in a sentence with a link out. The accusation was made, Trump suggested it could be false but that it should be addressed, and Biden denied it. BD2412 T 01:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Several of his potential VPs and former opponents have been asked to address the allegation. That's impact enough. It's time to add it.--Pokelova (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we first need to come to consensus here on the appropriate language to be added, and the appropriate placement for it. I think a section under the controversies header would be appropriate. As for the text, well, not the shoddily sourced proposal above, which includes a citation to a Twitter tweet, which is flat-out forbidden on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 15:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that "potential VPs and former opponents" being asked about it is "impact enough". Why does this article have a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION? Maintaining NPOV is hard enough as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

Just wanted to emphasize to participants that with Template:Editnotices/Page/Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign having been added be me today, 1RR is now in effect (enforceable). If you find it is still not enough, there are enhancements that can be applied further toward the article's stability — but let's hope we don't need em. Thanks. El_C 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Time for Biden into Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-82-I (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The "Draft Biden" "movement" is not significantly notable for its own page. It could merit a redirect to and mention on the campaign article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. BD2412 T 02:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• 100% UpdateNerd (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• But it is a separate organization from the campaign. I don't know why it should be in the campaign article then. DemonDays64 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
  • @DemonDays64:, because Time for Biden isn't a notable organization and the other option is deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. Time for Biden would fit in #Background. userdude 08:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. The article is too short to be an active page but is still important to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:6000:E000:F974:6049:F062:56BE (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. Time for Biden should probably go into #Speculation. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 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.

The merger with Time for Biden has been completed. Can someone with extended-protection perms please remove the header from the article? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-82-I (talk • contribs) 23:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by this 11:46, 2 June 2020 edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

But all you did was replace the article with a redirect. Obviously if you had to ask for someone else to remove the merge tag here because Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign is under extended confirmed protection, you didn't actually merge any content. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

First Sentence of Political Positions

In the first sentence of the aforementioned section, this is written:

Although generally referred to as a moderate, Biden has declared himself as the candidate with the most progressive record.

Is this really useful? Obviously the moderate part gives us a good general overview of his political positions, but his claim at the candidate with the most progressive record is flatly untrue. Below I'll try to offer my own solutions to this problem:

Although generally referred to as a moderate, Biden has, without evidence, declared himself as the candidate with the most progressive record.

Although generally referred to as a moderate, Biden has attempted to posture himself as the candidate with the most progressive record.

Although generally referred to as a moderate, Biden has moved towards a more progressive agenda, going so far as declaring himself as the candidate with the most progressive record.

I'm no writer, but these seem to give at least a little pushback to this otherwise uncontested claim by the subject of the article.

Edit: Adding forgotten signature Caplai (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose that the claim is contextual to a degree. He was claiming to be the candidate with the "most progressive record" in the Democratic primary field. Of course, in a general election campaign, he is bound to be the major-party candidate with the "most progressive record" (i.e., farthest left record) as between himself and pretty much any Republican candidate. BD2412 T 03:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Of course, in the general election it would be true (at least as far as the two major parties go), but Biden's entire campaign was focused on building a case that a moderate with political experience would have the best shot at a democratic reclamation of the white house. I think any introduction to his political positions in this race should reflect that messaging. Upon further thought, it might be best to remove the progressive line entirely, possibly in favor of a different quote regarding his campaign that more accurately reflects his campaign's roadmap. Caplai (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have the most progressive record. He has been in government for longer than any of the other candidates (44 years), and held higher positions than them, making him more influential in doing progressive things than any other candidates. It's pretty clear that his actions have made the country as a whole move in a progressive direction, instead of a conservative or classical liberal direction. So I think this is what he meant by a progressive record. While Sanders, Warren, and some other candidates have more progressive proposals, they have not had quite as much of an impact on the country as a whole, up to today.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A wealth of political experience enacting moderate change still makes Joe Biden a moderate. Even if he's pushed the country in a progressive direction, he's done so with a manner and pace consistent with a center-left politician rather than a progressive one. Consider the following quotes from other Biden-related articles:

• Over his career, Biden has generally been regarded as belonging to the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Biden has been described as center-left, and has described himself as such. ( Political positions of Joe Biden )

• Biden has been characterized as a moderate Democrat. ( Joe Biden )

Additionally, a look at the Political positions of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidates will yield a pretty clear image of Biden's positions on the issues. Allowing the uncontested claim that Biden has the most progressive record gives the impression that he was the most progressive candidate in the race. I guess I just don't see why this article needs a quote about his credentials as a progressive while every other article about him consistently shows him as a moderate, center-left politician. At the very least, it seems inconsistent.

Caplai (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the significance is not so much whether he was the most progressive primary candidate, but that he called himself that. It is reminiscent of Mitt Romney's claim during the 2012 primaries that he was "severely conservative" as Governor of Massachusetts (although, oddly, that claim is in Mitt Romney but not in his 2012 campaign article). BD2412 T 01:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

But shouldn't the political positions section be an accurate reflection of a candidates political positions? I'm worried that putting an inaccurate quote about his political positions in the section dedicated to his political positions is somewhat misleading. In this example, it would be as if the sole quote introducing Romney's political positions was that he was 'severely conservative' Caplai (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Footnote on potential female VP candidate

"This would be the third female vice presidential candidate in history, and the first female vice president if elected."
I'm assuming the first two are Geraldine Ferraro and Sara Pahlin, but this footnote doesn't specify that, if Biden selects a female running mate, she would be the third female VP nominee for the election in history - indeed, not the third overall. Off the top of my head, Ted Cruz chose Carly Fiorina in the waning days of his 2016 campaign. I believe this should be reworded to more accurately reflect this. 173.225.61.12 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I updated the footnote. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The Long, Hot Summer

@Arglebargle79: I'm not sure everything you added is accurate. Take this paragraph: "Yet, the rioting continued for much of the rest of the month. Then the virus came back. Several states had thousands of new cases in only a day. Climate change's heat made life intolerable for those in the south of the Country. June had yet to end." The virus has always been here and never went away. Was there such a major increase in the number of cases, that had gone down previously? I'm not seeing that much evidence for that. Also, I don't think climate change is relevant, especially in talking about Biden's campaign.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted these additions. The phrasing is largely unencyclopedic, and some of the statements require further scrutiny. If that is the tone that the sources are taking, I would suggest quoting more directly from them to demonstrate this. BD2412 T 19:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have gotten into trouble for getting into edit wars when people.revert my stuff. The large headlines in every national newspaper and news-site say there are. Texas and California are in crisis mode, as are Florida, Arizona and a bunch of other states.The virus has NOT always been here. Most in the Red states THOUGHT it went away. 32 THousand new cases today. It's part of the story. Tell the effen story! Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of purple prose is appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: If you want to "tell the effen story", do so by quoting the sources, not by coming up with your own language that sounds like something out of a period film. BD2412 T 02:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Arglebargle79 that the increase in COVID cases is probably relevant, but I do think it should be worded more neutrally. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to content that is neutrally framed and properly sourced, for which the added content needed improvement on both counts. BD2412 T 22:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2020

Please change "the former vice president of the United States" to "the vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017" for context. America's Next President (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

To editor America's Next President:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

The last paragraph in the article, which discusses CNN refusing to run a Trump ad, has a technically wrong statement. Fox News didn't refuse to run a "false" Biden ad about Trump as the last sentence implies (it implies that Fox News treated Biden the way CNN treated Trump). Fox News actually refused to stop running a Trump ad that allegedly lied about Biden even after Biden's campaign asked them to stop. The last sentence should read something like "Fox News refused to stop airing a Trump ad that allegedly lied about Biden even after Biden's campaign asked them to stop". 45.251.33.54 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

On the infobox replace "Announced April 25, 2019" "Launched April 29, 2019" to "Status Announced: April 25, 2019
Official launch: April 29, 2019
Presumptive nominee: April 8, 2020" This would be consitent with Hillary Clinton's campaign page and it is quite relevant to the infobox. Nojus R (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not sure I am immediately able to discern the advantage. El_C 21:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

New Slogan // "Battle for the Soul of the Nation"

Looks like Biden's campaign has a new slogan: "Battle for the Soul of the Nation". Should this be added to the infobox?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/13/biden-and-harris-both-see-election-fight-soul-nation/3355971001/ https://joebiden.com/

CampWood (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread. CampWood (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes it should, it was even a plaque on a podium in which both Obama and Biden spoke in, as a matter of fact it was the first slogan used by the Biden Campaign in his announcement, "Restore the soul of America" didn't come on until later, don't know why this hasn't been changed. Biden has stated numerous times "Battle for the soul of the nation" is his primary campaign slogan, was used in the first announcement video and was even on podium as a plaque where both Obama and Biden spoke 68.189.4.21 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

First Vice President Nominated Since Mondale

That's obviously wrong.... Al Gore was a Vice President. He was nominated.

And George H W Bush?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

How on earth has this not been corrected by now? It's objectively wrong information on Wikipedia. It's not debatable. Take it out, fix the dang article. Geez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.71.5 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If you read the sentence properly, you’d notice it says “former” Vice President. Gore or Bush Sr were not former VPs when nominated; Biden is a former VP by 4 years. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I've removed that. It is confusing, it is not worth noting something so obscure, and there is no source which says this. This is not a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly confusing if you don't read the sentence properly. But no objections for its removal. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject

Page watchers may be interested in joining WikiProject Joe Biden. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Mandela

I have removed this:

His campaign communications director Kate Bedingfield clarified that “he was separated” from the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus delegation he was traveling with, not arrested.

This isn't a clarification. He was apparently separated at the airport because he was supposed to use the "Whites Only" exit. This has nothing to do with being arrested. He was not travelling through Soweto. He was not going to visit Mandela. Mandela did not thank him later. His whole story was false.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Ford was also a Vice President

"The two most recent presidents who formerly served as vice presidents are George H. W. Bush (elected in 1988) and Richard Nixon (elected in 1968). Biden, if elected, would fall into this category." Gerald Ford, who served as Vice President, was President from 1974 to 1977, while Nixon served from 1969 to 1974; making Ford a more recent President than Nixon. I recommend that we either change the sentence to "The two most recent elected presidents who formerly served as vice presidents are George H. W. Bush (elected in 1988) and Richard Nixon (elected in 1968). Biden, if elected, would fall into this category" or we list Gerald Ford as well as Nixon and Bush Sr. DrOwl19 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted this. It is speculative and arbitrary trivia.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

Remove "Asian Americans" from the beginning of the article. 2601:640:4000:3170:2555:197A:AD61:EA87 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done by User:KidAd. Sorry, when I originally declined your edit request, I thought you were asking for the reference to Harris being Asian American to be removed since the "Asian American" errant text had already been deleted. Thank you to the IP user for catching that and thank you to KidAd for removing. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry – I meant to update this request after I removed the text. I also initially thought that this was a reference to Harris's ethnicity. KidAd talk 04:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Downgrade of protection to Semi-Protected

This article should be released in it's usage of the extended confirmed protection because it has not been the focus of vandalism, sockpuppetry, or any other misdemeaning factor. The Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign only is semi-protected, so this does not require extended either. Please consider this request. Thank you! BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0000Editor, You would need to ask this on the talk page of the admin who protected it. (in this case Iridescent. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 16:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

::Asartea, Thanks! BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Biden controversies

New section needs to be created for this alone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc0vxsfcsSk AHC300 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• A YouTube video is not a reliable source upon which we can establish an article section. Can you provide a reliable source? bd2412 T 20:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• • https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics/joe-biden-senate-segregationists-civility/index.html AHC300 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Another controversy I didn't find on the article page that I believe is noteworthy enough to discuss is he's claimed he was arrested during a visit with Nelson Mandela in apartheid South Africa with the Congressional Black Caucus and other US officials. Here is an article source:Business Insider article, which turned out to be not true. Wanted to discuss this , but unless I get some resistance I'll probably throw it up there at some point. --PrecociousPeach (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have included this under gaffes.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. BD2412 T 01:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to this content, although more clarity was needed. I do object to using a verbal gaffe section as a coatrack for convincing readers that Biden is mentally unstable or for citing the "full of shit" comment he made to someone who was full of shit. - MrX 🖋 12:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

When did this article get a "controversy section"? These entries seem to violate WP:NOTNEWS. The "comments on segregationists" especially seems much ado about nothing. His opponents tried to score points on him saying "boy"? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that Biden’s apology to the US Black Chamber of Commerce be included along with his “you ain’t black” statement. Brian-crisci (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this material is valid, whether it is packaged like this or not. Certainly he has described himself as a "gaffe machine", and his gaffes have travelled round the world, so it is important to include them. I think his comments on segregationists are clearly offensive to black people.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Nelson Mandela statement was also featured on Politifact's "pants on fire" fact-checks for Biden, if it'd add to any weight. I'm not sure how that distinguishes from just his "false" statements for the site, though. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have eliminated the Controversy section, as per Wikipedia policy, by repackaging the material.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Post alleged email leak

This page includes discussion of the recent claim by the New York Post that emails from a laptop show Hunter Biden arranging meetings with his father and Ukrainians. At Talk:Hunter Biden (several sections), the consensus is to keep it out of his bio. Is there an inconsistency here that needs addressing or is it OK to keep the content out of the bio but in the campaign article? Fences&Windows 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion we have here is probably appropriate, since the Post story was clearly intended to influence the campaign and the election. The New York Post (not a Reliable Source per WP:RSP) has used its front page repeatedly (every week for months in 2016) to promote Trump or try to influence his election. I think our version here of the events is sufficiently hedged around with "allegedly"s, and rejection of the material by social media, that we can keep it. It certainly should not be in either biography IMO since it amounts to pure rumor. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a campaign issue in that it's an attempt at an October surprise, and the (potential) ties to Russian election interference. It's not biographically significant to Hunter, based on what we know at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the FBI investigation. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

While political influence was oblivious in the publishing of the article, I think it's inappropriate to leave out the following facts: 1) that major social media platforms censored the sharing of the document, the CEOs of these companies have since been subpoenaed for these actions. 2) The FBI has stated that this is not in any way a foreign disinformation campaign. Including that conspiracy is invalid. 3) I believe that the header should be altered to include Biden now to be Trump-Biden-Ukraine as we now know that the original Trump scandal regarding Ukraine was rooted in a valid Biden scandal. Mav214 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mav214: This issue could use broader community attention than the few who watch this page. I'd fully support you opening an RfC as per WP:RFC. Think that'd be the best bet to get these changes effected. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS MarcelloPapirio (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

822 Million

The campaign receipts are from july, Biden has already raised 822 Million dollars, even according to that link, the most in history. 68.189.4.21 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Biden 2020 Presidential Campaign Logo

The Biden President logo was the primary symbol for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

The logo is approachable and strong, leaning heavily on the visual recognition of the American flag. The logo particularly uses 3 stripes that were designed to represent the 3 branches of government and the value of unity. The 3 stripes also nod to the stripes used in the Obama 2008 Presidential logo designed by Sol Sender, where Biden became VP.

The original Biden Presidential Campaign Logo was designed by Aimee Brodbeck at ad agency Mekanism created and released in April of 2019.

In September 2020, Kamala Harris was added to the ticket and the font was updated by Jonathan Hoefler..

I can already tell you that this content reads like campaign material and WP:PUFF. I also don't think it's necessary. KidAd talk 00:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

It also seems like you're just trying to advertise your own work. That is a WP:COI issue. KidAd talk 00:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the open conversation, @KidAd. I do think it’s valuable information to understand design purposes and what visual identity brings to political campaign work. Hence why there is a Wiki page for Obama Campaign Logo. AimeemBrodbeck (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Obama logo page. First, the page was not written by the logo's designer. Second, the page is not advertising the logo with marketing copy such as The logo is approachable and strong. Per WP:PROMO, Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. KidAd talk 02:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-commissioned officers

Is that a typo in the source? If not, what does it mean?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:RECENT

I suggest an editor with better authorisations than me flag the article for recentism. I would do it myself, but it is all locked.

MarcelloPapirio (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, this article was deleted and should have stayed deleted. WP:NOTNEWS.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't be daft: it was deleted in 2017 as speculation. Now, the campaign is definitely notable. You have to be an extremist deletionist to want to remove this article. Fences&Windows 01:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Until we know the result, it's still speculation. Please see WP:CRYSTAL.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that this article about the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign be deleted for being speculation??? Or are you talking about the Biden Bus incident? 45.251.33.20 (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk about crystal gazing!!! The bus incident hadn't happen when this thread started. I have never seen so many policy violations in one section.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

So, what exactly should have stayed deleted and is still speculation? 45.251.33.20 (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

See? It's still not decided...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We routinely have articles on the campaigns, irrespective of whether the candidate wins (e.g., Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign, John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign) and often even if they don't win the primary (e.g., Mitt Romney 2008 presidential campaign, Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign). BD2412 T 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Edit Request

Can someone rephrase the statement "Donald Trump criticized the decision at a rally" in the section about the Biden Bus incident? The statement should make it clear whether Trump criticised the FBI for deciding to investigate the incident or criticised his supporters for deciding to harass the campaign staff and then backpedaled on his statement. 45.251.33.20 (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Asartea:, you can replace the sentence I had quoted with "Donald Trump criticized the FBI's decision at a rally". It makes it obvious that Trump was criticising the FBI and did not criticise his supporters and backpedal on his statement (italicised to make sure it is read as one phrase). Of course, it should be obvious but I was confused and Trump criticising his own supporters to appear sane might actually make sense. 45.251.33.20 (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello 45.251.33.20, I made this edit to try to add some clarity per your comments above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that fixes the issue I had. Thanks @Aoi:! 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

update receipts

Following the fec(https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P80000722/), Biden had has $952,239,369.70 receipts, but in the infobox i read 328,413,079.01. Can someone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:A19:4D00:7CD3:FDC2:5715:D460 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members

My preference would be to merge everything remaining to this Biden 2020 campaign article, and delete that page/redirect.

Very little remains after AfD, and Deletion Review, and intervening removal of all the speculation and nonsense. Most of the list entries are lacking citation, and will be removed promptly. At Deletion Review, it was generally agreed that "a merge with debloat of the target is what needs doing."
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Move "Cannabis" to "Economic issues"?

I used to sell weed, and can confirm it appeals to all sorts of people, not just the people who (sometimes literally) wear their loyalty to it on their sleeves. Now that Canada has legalized, I see "atypical" potheads everywhere, and I'd bet editors from one of the "cool states" see them, too. People over thirty, people with jobs, people with no criminal history. The only thing they and whoever else have in common is a willingness to give their money to pretty much anyone in exchange for a sweet deal.

Which way Biden leans into this does a lot more to affect his standing among bankers, brokers and marketers, I think, than appeal to any stereotypical social class of slacktivist revolutionary from TV. If only those people were buying it, it'd only be a million-dollar industry, certainly not mega-billion.

Anyway, I can't copy and paste. So I'm just asking. Do You Feel Like We Do? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This post gives me new insight into you. It's also legal here, all along the West Coast. It's like going to a bakery or pet store. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

See, cool states get it! Why can't your postal service just be cool? Less postal, more coastal, everyone else is eating cookies and petting hamsters, come on in, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove distinction altogether?

How are health and welfare not social issues? How are immigration and education not economic? They all seem socioeconomic to me, but it's a lot of work deleting all those equals signs on this doodad, don't wanna be undone, so consensus first, for or against? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If nobody tells me not to do it by the first of the month, I'm gonna do it, I tell you, and nobody can say I didn't tell you so, so speak up on these issues now or forever hold your reversions. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree the distinction doesn't make sense here.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there's no reason to split them into two categories. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I know I said I'd do it, but I've semiformally sworn to resist drinking from or gazing into "toxic" topical environments this definitely resembles, and now I won't, it's your generation's problem. If Jack tackles the social issues and Naddruf crunches the numbers (or vice versa), you'll provide a brighter future for this article's readers in half the time. That's the combined power of united division, works for literally any problem, big or small! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. As far as I can see, it's a one person job: remove the headings and reorder in alphabetical order.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See? Takes two to respond. To be clearer, I asked Jimbo for an AP2 topic ban, and he gave me the next best thing. An indication that we'll both be disappointed with my site-wide performance if I continue to make people and myself unhappy by disagreeing with them on whatever. He called me IndedibleHulk, so am I forever indedded to his priceless advice? I don't know, but I'm proud of you two for getting this job done! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden won the the election on 3 November

It is wrong to say that Biden won on 7 November. It is true that he was declared winner on that date by most experts but it is misleading to say he won on that date. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have made this edit Gershonmk (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Texas Bus Incident

This definitely falls under WP:RECENTISM. It was not significant to his campaign, and certainly isn't notable for it's own subsection. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Stacey Plaskett just went over the Texas bus incident during the impeachment trial moments ago. It's WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An IP user readded this material (in a weird location--I moved it back to where it was originally). Not sure what other editors think about this, but I do believe it's significant enough for inclusion here. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It definitely does not fall under recentism, is supported by a plethora of significant sources, and involves major players who organized both the ambush of Biden's campaign bus and the Capitol insurrection. David Corn:

In October, a pickup truck caravan of Trump supporters surrounded a Biden campaign bus on a Texas highway and nearly drove it off the road. Afterward, as Plaskett noted, Trump tweeted: “These patriots did nothing wrong.” Keith Lee, the Trump loyalist who was one of the organizers of that caravan, she said, was at the Capitol on January 6. He reportedly had cased entrances to the Capitol that morning, and when the mob arrived he used a bullhorn to encourage rioters to break into the building. Two months earlier, Trump had given his blessing to Lee and his extremist methods.

Furthermore, this section is currently unbalanced and fails to mention the known names of the Trump supporters involved, and whitewashes the ambush as "harassment" when reports indicate that people were in fear for their lives. This deserves its own article named "ambush of Biden campaign bus by Trump supporters" per the reality-based community. This was not a "Texas bus incident". This was one of more than 50 known violent attacks incited by Trump and his supporters with the goal of undermining democracy. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Had you suggested this three days ago I would have opposed it, but this has since made headlines again for being highlighted as part of the impeachment case against Donald Trump, so is probably now independently notable. BD2412 T 21:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

So a house manager brings it up once and now it's worthy of an entire subsection? This incident was a few trump supporters driving around a Biden bus, no major conflicts happened. This is not worthy of it's own article. Having an article called "ambush of Biden campaign bus by Trump supporters" is the most laughable melodramatic thing I've ever heard. This incident is not notable of a subsection, maybe a sentence or two would give justice. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed title is excessive. If it becomes a separate article, I would go with something like Texas Biden campaign bus incident. The fact that the House managers brought it up is not the driving factor, but that this then received coverage in reliable sources. BD2412 T 03:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The ambush of Biden's campaign bus by the Trump Train group received an enormous amount of coverage in reliable sources during and after the incident occurred in 2020, and was the subject of an FBI investigation. The subsequent senate impeachment trial has nothing to do with its notability. What is notable, is that Donald Trump Jr. is on record telling supporters in Texas to give the Biden campaign the "Trump Train welcome" two days before the ambush, and that Trump 45 openly tweeted his support of the ambush after it happened, and that organizers of the ambush were also involved in the Capitol insurrection. This ambush is notable for its incitement and planning by the Trump family, the celebration of violent criminality (Trump 45 tweeted "I love Texas" after the bus was ambushed, along with a video of the ambush), and for being one of more than 50 separate instances of incitement to violence connected to Trump. Lastly, this ambush was not conducted by a "few people" as the OP argues, but was conducted by upwards of a 100 people/cars in the Trump Train convoy, who organized this event to surround the Biden bus and stop their campaign, and tried to stop the bus on a busy highway and run it off the road. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Biden Harris" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Biden Harris. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Biden Harris until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Biden/Harris" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Biden/Harris. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Biden/Harris until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite for currency

Entire sections are out of date, out of order chronologically due to multiple edits by different editors, and the tenses don't make much sense in this context. We need copyeditors to go through this article line by line and correct it. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Language of Edit, What's YOUR Opinion?

I added the following to the article:

"A pro-Trump super PAC released an ad called "Creepy Joe" which includes footage of Joe Biden putting his face close to the hair of pre-adolescent girls and kissing them at the Senate Ceremonial Swearing-in in 2015. At the swearing-in Biden touched, whispered in her ear, and kissed the daughter of Senator Chris Coons. C-Span video foot‎age of this incident went viral prompting a statement by Coons, a Democrat, in defense of Joe Biden's conduct."

User:BD2412 reverted my edit and wrote: "Given that this is contested content regarding a BLP subject, it is probably best to discuss on the talk page and arrive at consensus language first."

So... I'm here. I cited reliable sources for all the information. This info is relevant to the campaign and it was in the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section. So it belongs. As User:BD2412 wrote, the question is about the language;

Any thoughts?

Proud Novice (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu initially reverted the entire addition, which is what makes it controverted in the first place. That was the point at which a discussion properly should have been initiated. That said, over the course of the campaign dozens of PACs released hundreds of ads, so it seems overly trivial. Do sources indicate that this was a particularly significant ad to the campaign, or that the referenced C-Span footage "went viral" in more than a transient sense? BD2412 T 01:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It just strikes me as a way to add Trump POV to the Biden article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces

I propose to merge the article Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces into Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. The long term notability of the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces is unlikely to be substantial (see the 10-year test – the task forces are unlikely to be sufficiently relevant to warrant an article in ten years), and to the extent that its content should be kept in any article it is most relevant to this one (Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign). In any event there's quite little present content other than the names of the members of the task forces. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(I another user do agree that Wikipedia merges Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces with this article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M1MacBookPro (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This task force has no notability outside of the 2020 presidential campaign. A brief mention on the Biden page (and perhaps the Sanders page too) is all that is necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I support this merge but the larger issue is the total lack of information on either page about the actual content of the Task Force recommendations. Gershonmk (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm the original author of the Task Forces page, so potential bias here, but I think that the information is important. The Biden campaign's policies shifted measurably after Sanders dropped out, tacking strongly to the left. Maybe it doesn't need to be its own page but if they are merged, the chairs should be preserved, and the impact that the taskforce had on the administrations priorities must be highlighted. TimeEngineer (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. maintaining the content for now. Perhaps it could do with some trimming should others (more expert) think that this is necessary. Klbrain (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)