Jump to content

Talk:Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Paragraph 2 needs attention

Current: "Concerns of Biden's age mounted in June 2024, following a debate in which Biden's faltering appearance, speaking with a hoarse voice and failing to recall statistics and express his opinion on several occasions. After what many deemed was a poor performance, he received numerous calls for him to withdraw from the election." (n.b. that the first sentence as-is is syntactically incorrect and does not read)

Change to: Concerns around Biden's cognitive ability mounted in June 2024 following a live television debate with Donald Trump. Biden's debate performance was universally criticised as being poor, something which he himself acknowledged. In the weeks that followed there were numerous calls for him to withdraw from the election."

Specific points: "Concern of" is grammatically incorrect. Should read "concern about" or "concern around". The concerns were not about Biden's age per se. They were about his cognitive/physical health (which are often correlated with age). Should his hoarse voice be mentioned? That doesn't really signal anything in itself. "he received numerous calls.." isn't really correct. Calls for him to withdraw were generally made publicly in the mass media.

A general point I'd like to make is that (if this isn't already included) the article should mention how this announcement was made, and I personally would like to see the exact time of the announcement. I think this is a groundbreaking moment in global history and that the exact time is noteworthy (if merely for posterity). Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Withdrew from race, or what?

The lede currently says Biden withdrew his nomination but I don't think he nominated himself, so technically he can't "withdraw" his nomination. How about "dropped out of the race" or "withdrew his candidacy"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole article is a con. It was rushed by someone looking for glory on the front page. FloridaMan21 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Gaza war in background

considering the Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements article exists, the "Uncommitted" campaign during the Democratic primary should definitely be included in the background section of the article (not in the least because it received more votes than Dean Phillips). Its not like Democrats were unanimously backing even before the debate performance. — jonas (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

“Palestine has nothing to do with anything. It was age and age alone. Remove any references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.11.15 (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

File:President Biden letter on resigning from reelection.png

FYI, File:President Biden letter on resigning from reelection.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion at COMMONS:Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Biden letter on resigning from reelection.png -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This page is unnecessary

AFD is this way EvergreenFir (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Why does this page exist. Sertyt (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2024 (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.

Lede

Lots of the text in the lede is repetitive and says the same thing a few times over. Volunteer Marek 02:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Did Biden actually post the letter?

Leave your conspiracy theories for Twitter. Also BLP violations. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article seems to very credulously claim the President Biden personally posted this letter, at a time when he is widely known to have dementia and also reportedly in isolation sick with COVID, and after stating numerous times that he had no intention of withdrawing from the race. He tweeted numerous times during the debate which indicates that someone else controls his X account. Shouldn’t we wait until Biden personally gives a statement before definitively stating that he personally withdrew from the election? rdl381 (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Came here to express this exact sentiment. For all we know, Joseph R Biden has been arrested and executed – at the very least, there is good reason to suspect that the post went up on X without his cognizance. Many are questioning the means and possible motives, and that this letter is being taken at face value is absurd. The DNC speaking for Biden while he is trapped in his vacation home in Delaware comes from the same playbook as the politburo speaking for Gorbachev while he was isolated in his dacha in the Crimea. We may well be watching a color revolution play out in real time, and Wikipedia must take greater care to maintain NPOV. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Good lord. I genuinely can't tell is this is some intellectually advanced form of sarcasm or if you are dead serious. Either way, this was 100% the best possible response to rdl381's statement. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It might be the case that I can't tell either but until we get proof of life it can't hurt to play it safe. It's not like the article loses anything by implicitly allowing for the fact it does seem odd that a sitting president would choose to end a re-election campaign via a post on X. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm on the floor laughing right now, I had no idea that an "Is Biden Still Alive" website actually exists (LMAO). Anyways, I need sleep. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rdl381
There is no proof Biden has dementia, him stumbling his words is just a symptom of being old. MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
What exactly is the difference? rdl381 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

irrelevant

Re [1] and [2] @TinaLees-Jones:: What does Trump's call with Zelensky have to do with the subject matter of the article? — hako9 (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think it's a great coincidence and result, driving by Mr. Zelensky? TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I think a lot of things, but I keep it to myself unless I find reliable sources to back them. — hako9 (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree, I think those are completely irrelevant lol Coulomb1 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2024

71.181.117.47 (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 Not done, please make requests in clear "please change X to Y" format. TarnishedPathtalk 12:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments of Joe Biden brother about his health after withdrawl

Frank Biden told CBS News that ailing health “absolutely” played a “considerable role” in Biden’s decision to withdraw.

This is notable as it is counter to official statements and the long standing narrative of no health issues for Joe Biden.

This should be included. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Signature

Not a forum to spitball conspiracy theories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The signature on this letter does not look like the signature on the Joe Biden page. I think there should be a note about this. 206.0.71.9 (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Signatures are never identical unless it's a traced forgery. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Why Malgorzata Kidawa-Blonska?

Why is Polish politician Małgorzata Kidawa-Błońska listed, "added an analogous situation to see also"? Neither related to Biden nor to US presidential election. Namedropping by a "user is a participant in WikiProject Poland". 2003:C6:3742:EE07:680F:7B94:ED1B:68AC (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Joever should have its own article

In the same way Sleepy Joe has its own article, Joever should have its own article too because it’s been a heavily used term for both political and non political terms for almost half a decade now and it’s a meme with a lot of staying power. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it has enough notability to warrant it. I'll also throw in Let's Go Brandon and I Did That! as other examples. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely Vinnylospo (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
You need to provide reliable sources stating it's importance and staying power EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
No problem Vinnylospo (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I have made a page here: Joever BakedintheHole (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign until a consensus is reached. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relevancy of the slo-mo video

I don't think the slo-mo video on this article has any relevancy to what's being talked about. I wish to come to a consensus for the removal of this video from the article as per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Coulomb1 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it now, there is literally no reason for the video to be in there if we have an image of Biden and Harris together already. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the image. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Sir MemeGod, thanks. I also think that other video is weird; I've never seen a clip from the news on an article before. Is this even allowed or follow MOS? Coulomb1 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure. I have seen other articles with Voice of America publications on them however, so I'd lean toward saying that it's okay to include it. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

How is Kamala Harris going to be listed at List of female United States presidential and vice presidential candidates?

How is Vice President and presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris going to be listed at List of female United States presidential and vice presidential candidates since she is expected to win delegate votes but didn’t win any primary votes? cookie monster 755 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll say we should just wait till she is officially nominated. LuxembourgLover (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
What's the issue? She doesn't have a place in the primary election candidates table, as she has not stood in any primaries to date, but as things are going will in time belong elsewhere on the page. U-Mos (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Please remove the "congratulated" word under Political Response>International Response>United Kingdom since Rishi didn't congratulate Biden in any way which could be misleading. I suggest reverting it back to "Leader of the Opposition and Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also gave his remarks on X." Sratcao42 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I replaced congratulated him with remarked on Biden's accomplishments as this is the majority of the tweet. Jamedeus (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A better title would be beneficial

The current title is very long and cumbersome. This article could benefit from a shorter and more concise title. Something like 2024 Joe Biden Campaign Withdrawal would be much better. Tomhol811 (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Procyon117 (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I also agree. MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree in general. But maybe something like Joe Biden's withdrawal from 2024 United States Presidential Election could also be a better title in general. Of course that's not much shorter than the original title lol. NewishIdeas (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Fully agreed. And I also agree with @64.18.11.15 this shouldn't be protected. Frozen902 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be something like “Biden replacement crisis,” or better yet, “Emergency Democratic nomination replacement crisis.” Expand it to include everything up to and including the online balloting the first week in August. The closest anything like this happened was shortly before the 1844 Whig National Convention, when John Tyler withdrew.

Also, remove the protection, the damn thing happened just yesterday. Jeez! 64.18.11.15 (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

currently the withdrawal section states "the official X account of President Joe Biden", which is false, "@JoeBiden" is his personal account, the official account would be "@POTUS" (it might be official because its verified, but not the official presidential account. This could get further complicated by some of the things the National Archives have previously said about Trumps personal account and him not being allowed to delete tweets under the Presidential Records Act.).

Because of that, people in the Commons:Deletion_requests/File:President_Biden_letter_on_resigning_from_reelection.png discussion mentioned that the text would likely be copyrighted, as it is not an official government record (campaign activity does not count as "executive office material") und uses Bidens personal letter head, not the White House one. As such, the statement could not be quoted in full on this page.

People more knowledgeable on copyright should probably weigh in on the discussion on commons and this article should follow whatever the result of that discussion. — jonas (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

the official X account of President Joe Biden is correct, it's the offical X account of the person Joe Biden and the title given to Joe Biden is President.
It is a little misleading in how it's worded, though.
As such, the statement could not be quoted in full on this page I can't remember Wikipedia's rules, but I'm pretty sure you can quote an entire (short) document like this, as long as it's for the purposes of "...criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research", which Wikipedia does meet. Of course, it has to be presented as a quote, otherwise that would be plagiarism and copyright infringement.
The image is a different question, though, as the image itself is not being commented upon, merely the text within it. 185.62.159.164 (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Russian response

One of the earliest responses out of the gate came from the Russian FM, and has been documented on Wall Street Journal; [3]. Including national political responses critical of the endgame of the Biden regime should be as much of a priority as including those reactions lauding it, not sure why it's taking so long to be populated into the article. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. You can make an Wikipedia:Edit request. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
sorry, "regime"? Are you ESL, by any chance? 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:35AD:B505:DB58:8E22 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how it would matter if English was my first, second, third or even my tenth language. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why you find "regime" strange. "Biden regime" is found in article titles on Fox News and the Daily Mail. Based on the user's other comments, I think the user is merely Republican, not ESL. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't identify as republican and I don't see the relevance – fellas, is it Republican to request a response from the foreign ministry to be included on a Wikipedia article about US government activity? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

International response

Anyone else think the International response section is ridiculously long and amateurishly structured? Will it be significant in the long run that various heads of state acknowledged the existence of the event, or would it just be forgettable trivia? Oh wow, China said "no comment"! Poland acknowledged it happened! Even if we must compile every nation's 2 cents, we don't need to make a stupidly long list of tiny subsections magnifying the trivia. Look how the international response is handled much more tactfully at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#International. Embrace paragraphs! Shun WP:PROSELINE. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It does strike me as too long, compared to the rest of the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The section 6 Political responses could certainly be condensed into "Domestic" and "International," rather than have country by country listings under 6.2 International response, and eliminate the reactions to the effect of "this event happened." Nevertheless, international reactions are often included in articles on political events including International reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack and 2024 Russian presidential election. It is relevant, but in its current form a disproportionate focus.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This section either should be broken out into its own article, or shortened and cleaned up. The reactions portion is taking up a disproportionate portion of the article. Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Clear consensus to oppose renaming. WP:SNOW closing. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election → Withdrawal of Joe Biden – The current title is unnecessarily precise. Joe Biden has withdrawn his campaign before, but those aren't separately notable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Current title is sufficient, and this newly proposed title is too vague. Bayloom (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: Withdrawal from what? Intercourse, Afghanistan, mental health? It could mean any of those three two as well. OhHaiMark (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Note If page is moved, Withdrawal of Lyndon B. Johnson from the 1968 United States presidential election should also move to Withdrawal of Lyndon B. Johnson. This page was created yesterday (July 22, 2024). U-Mos (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose This proposed title can only cause confusion - withdrawal from what? When? It's far too vague, and while the current title is a bit long, it is necessary to prevent ambiguity. FiveInParticular (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Biden has withdrawn his presidential campaigns twice in the past. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: this is much too generic. While I'd like it to be more WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE has to take priority (and even encourages conciseness in it's guidance).
Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election
Possible shorter names and why they don't work:
  • Joe Biden 2024 United States presidential election - this doesn't explain that he withdrew, and is just a duplicate of the campaign article.
  • Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the United States presidential election - Which election - he also withdrew in 1988 and 2008.
  • Withdrawal from the United States presidential election - that would cover all the people who've dropped out.
  • Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the presidential election - including the United States is important to avoid US-centric WP:BIAS.
  • Withdrawal of Joe Biden - from what, and when?
In summary, I don't think there's a valid shortening. Given the overwhelming opposes I'd suggest this gets a WP:SNOW close. 185.62.159.164 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
so, vagueness is like the absolute opposite interest to the purpose of Wikipedia, so I really oppose this. do the snowball's chance in hell thing. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:RMEC, it might be better to let it run a day or so more, to see if any better alt titles are suggested ("It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to avoid precluding significant input and as a courtesy to ensure that it really will be a snowball.") - but I'm not an expert on closing discussions, so we'll see. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support alt 2024 Withdrawal of Joe Biden Precise and concise. Woozybydefault (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
2024 Withdrawal of Joe Biden from what? Gödel2200 (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The only thing that he withdrew from in 2024. We don't need to specify that it was the 2024 United States presidential election, because he didn't notably withdraw from anything else during that time. What could people possible confuse this withdrawal with? Woozybydefault (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
In fact, there was another "2024 Withdrawal of Joe Biden" (that time, from the public spotlight) just a few days before his withdrawal from the race! Gödel2200 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Still not precise enough in my opinion. If I didn't already know about this, I'd see the title and think "but what did he withdraw from?". And as 142.116.169.217 said above, it's against WP:CONSISTENT to use "withdrawal" without saying what from, considering how other articles are titled. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current title is better as it clarifies the topic of the article. It is helpful to explain what Joe Biden withdrew from, without that the title could be confusing. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Title becomes to vague. It's an overcorrection. It is clear that as a big news story, people are trying to put their stamp on the article. This is what happened with the January 6th attack article as well.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: meaningless without context. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:PRECISE. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, the proposed title is way too vague. Biden has "withdrawn" from things on several occasions. He's withdrawn from prior campaigns, from Afghanistan, from public spotlight after being diagnosed with COVID, etc. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (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.

Pls make a move request and ask for "2024 Withdrawal of Joe Biden"

NOT DONE
Given the WP:SNOW close of the previous RM, this is not going to be a useful request. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Fuzheado | Talk 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

precise enough while not being as unwieldy as the current title. Idk how to use that template fuckery to make this a proper move request, so I'm asking someone else to make one Woozybydefault (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Woozybydefault: Just comment under the existing one with '''Support alt''' [[2024 Withdrawal of Joe Biden]]. I don't think you can have two active RMs. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This would suffer from many of the same issues as the current Requested move. It's still not really meeting WP:PRECISE requirements 185.62.159.164 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2024 (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.

Another suggested name

I will simply preserve here for possible future reference another naming proposal that was made by Tomhol811 (talk · contribs) as part of the deletion discussion, to name the article "2024 Biden Campaign Withdrawal" (I amended the typo, but left the capitalisation intact). I think if a shorter name is ever desired, this might be a good starting point. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:AEA8 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary?

Pure WP:FORUMSHOP. AFD is this way. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oh come on, is it really necessary to create a separate Wikipedia page for something like this? That's a bit over the top. Cenbutz1 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Just because an event is notable doesn't mean it needs a separate article, as there's not much to write about for someone simply dropping out of a race. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree it should be merged with the article about his presidential campaign. Procyon117 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement that it should be merged. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
wait but probably merge, let’s see what happens. Some republicans like trump are calling this a “coup” (another source)
I just say let’s see we wait to see what happens, this is a historical event. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, it is a historical event, but there is no page for Lyndon B Johnson’s withdrawal in 1968, and much of this article isn’t even about what happened today. Can easily be merged into Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, but hold off from that for now, and wait for consensus Jason Ingtonn (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
we have I do not choose to run, dont know how similar that is. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Also with Harry S. Truman. I don't believe in sequel articles, not to mention something on his regular page, 2024 presidential re-election page, and now on this. FloridaMan21 (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is 100% not needed as of typing this (21 July) but some more info may come to light in the future on the whole thing. Candidates drop out all the time, so I see no logical need for an article that can easily be covered at Joe Biden or, as you had said, Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree sigmas — Rexter7890 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rexter7890 Very Interesting statement🤔 FloridaMan21 (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This has been AFDed twice now. It's not going to change anytime soon. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It's very essential to have a separate article. So, yes. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe so. This article is not needed, and I would say to merge it with Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@SteelerFan1933 I'd say we should wait a week or so. Let the fallout from this situation settle before we make that decision. MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
See also: Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign
Change the title. Turn off the protections and make this about “The 2024 Democratic nomination transition crisis.” We can turn most of the current article to background chapters, then go on to the technicalities that Harris campaign (and others) have to go through in real time. Reliable media reports state that the online balloting is still on for the first week in August and the Harris people say they’re going to have enough pledges to win the nomination by the day after tomorrow.
A sequel article to the primary campaign one is necessary at this point. It should go like this:
  • the June debate and it’s fallout
  • The growing crisis and pressure on the president.
  • The decision to go.
  • The withdrawal itself and the releasing of the delegates.
  • Harris’ announcement
  • The transition from the Biden Victory Fund to the Harris Victory Fund.
  • The emergency Zoom meeting among delegates.
  • Coalessing around Harris.
  • The possible opposition
  • The logistics of the online balloting.
While this event was somewhat expected it’s still a bit of a shock. Life goes on. 64.18.11.15 (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely a notable event, but perhaps not to the extent it needs its own article. Its apparent importance is being overinflated because it is such a big news story, and political football, at the moment. I would have thought it would be better placed as a section in the Joe Biden article, much the same as as Lyndon B. Johnson's withdrawal in 1968 is handled on his page. P M C 15:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Such debates are better considered a month or more after the event itself. Though, I seriously doubt a new AfD (we've had two already) would ever result as a delete or merge. Deleting it isn't going to happen, and merging it would be...awkward at best. The prose of this article up to the political responses section is already north of 10 pages. This withdrawal is an historic event. No sitting president of the U.S. who has won the primaries has ever withdrawn. The article itself is very likely to end up in the top 25 report for its week of creation, and with 100 cited sources and counting it certainly surpasses WP:GNG. Nevertheless, you're quite welcome to bring it to AfD, but doing so before a month has passed is ill-advised. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
You Americans always with your annoying [...] is the very first president who [...] and so on. Cenbutz1 (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Asserting I'm American (falsely or not is irrelevant) does nothing to refute what I've said. If all you can do is to attempt to insult me, your best course of action is to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In short, comment on content, not the creator. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Please have some civility. FloridaMan21 (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everything you disagree with is a 'conspiracy theory'

Biden gave an address from the Oval Office on July 24th. There's nothing further to discuss on the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

There has been two discussions prematurely locked on this talk page on the basis of being 'conspiracy theories'. This isn't really a great hill to die on, given it was only a few months ago that the idea that Joe Biden was not in great health was itself labelled an unreasonable conspiracy theory. Shutting down these threads prematurely prevents an opportunity for editors to collectively look into whether any reputable, primary sources are covering these topics. Whatever you think is happening in reality, the timing and manner by which the president announced he would end his re-election campaign is unusual. The lack of self-awareness on an administrator's part to lock a conversation with a rationale of "Leave your conspiracy theories for Twitter." when the event covered in the article pivots on the basis of a posts on Twitter should be noted by everyone reading this talk page. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. 73.184.232.224 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to posit conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussing that Joe Biden had not been seen in public for 10 days and his act of stepping down from his re-election campaign came not from an oval office address but from a social media account which is known not to exclusively be under his control is not the positing of a conspiracy theory, but discussing something I'm being seen asked about from people across the political spectrum yesterday leading into today. Are sources Wikipedia considers to be reliable discussing this? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on you to find those sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree. My objection to your action is that a conversation was terminated before an opportunity to look into such sources occurred, and hastily dismissed as 'conspiracy'. Now, are administrators always in the habit of closing conversations on talk pages as soon as a policy which applies to writing articles is not met? The haste with which administrators were shutting down the opportunity to even ask about these things has been noted and will hopefully not continue on as unreasonably as it has done so far. Good day. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@AVNOJ1989: See {{RBLPV}}. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Those two HATted discussions are conspiracy theories. They are completely unsourced. No <ref> for your WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim? You get a {{hat}}. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
"Joe Biden had not been seen in public for 10 days and his act of stepping down from his re-election campaign came not from an oval office address but from a social media account which is known not to exclusively be under his control." Please identify for me which part of this statement is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I was not talking about you. I was talking about the signature, which all reasonable people would assume is real. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe President Biden was last seen in public on July 17 getting off Air Force one, which was about five days ago.
Re: BLP violations, I don’t think anyone has suggested adding false or disputed information to the page, but rather being careful to stick to reported facts. For example, we know President Biden’s debate performance prompted calls to for him to drop out of the presidential race and that he stated that he wasn’t planning to drop out, and also that Nancy Pelosi put pressure on him to drop out (and it’s not publicly known what kind of pressure this was, right?). We can include the relatively non-controversial facts while avoiding doing original research, and in any case we’ll probably have more information about what took place within the next 24–48 hours. rdl381 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree (in principle); but the way Wikipedia works is by citing reliable sources. There is no reason to believe that, at some point, there will be a lack sufficient sources to support a "Conspiracy Theories" section. However, just not right at the moment. Give it time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2024 (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.

Speculation and conspiracy theories

Biden gave an address from the Oval Office on July 24th. There's nothing further to discuss on the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Matt Walsh tweeted:

  • If you’re shocked to find out that Joe Biden is dropping out of the race, imagine how Joe Biden will feel when he finds out.

There have been some publicly stated doubts (primarily from opponents of the Democratic Party) about whether Biden's withdrawal letter was authentic. He didn't appear in a live press briefing or speak in person with reporters.

There is nothing wrong with having the article say that a few prominent people have expressed doubts or revealing their reasoning. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have some sources like NYT, WaPo, APNews, etc. covering these tweets and opining, then yes, I concur. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Rep. Thomas Massie is suggesting this is a coup [4]. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC); as is Rep. Mike Collins [5]. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUBLISHED social media postings ... Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people 174.92.25.207 (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Per that policy, those posts should not be used to cite the coup as fact, but could be cited as examples that people are discussing the possibility that this was a coup. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That would be WP:OR, we really need WP:RS editorializing here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Newsmax quotes Michigan Rep. Bill Huizenga; "I don't believe this, but there's a lot of internet chatter and jokes going around about how we were all shocked getting the letter, just wait until Joe sees the letter, implying that he didn't know that it was happening. But, clearly, there was a palace coup that was happening between [former President] Barack Obama and [former House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and some others like that." [6] AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
See also; a Wired article citing several reputable individuals suggesting this as an unseemly coup, a FOX News video clip where Donald Trump says he believes that this was a "sort of" coup and JD Vance more definitively says he believes it was (NY Post covers that clip in an article, as does The Independent). AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@AVNOJ1989: See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, WP:NYPOST, and WP:NEWSMAX. Wired is outside its domain of expertise of tech. WP:THEINDEPENDENT is a somewhat acceptable source. The article you cited reports claims but does not assert the claims are factual. If you have a greater number of reliable (according to WP:RSP) sources, or if you're confident with The Independent's article, you can make a Wikipedia:Edit request. The other sources will likely be removed if added. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
They could be cited for a quote which is backed up by a video clip included in the articles and/or direct links to social media posts which are linked. That those who have determined what is a reliable source have cited some of these resources as generally unreliable does not mean editors have to take them as absolutely unreliable. I don't follow how Wired is outside its domain of expertise if it's covering what is being discussed on social media. I believe the goal here is to find reliable sources who are covering the fact the conversation is being had – if a coup is indeed in progress it would, as I'm sure you might understand, be quite difficult to find organizations covering it as such in real time. I agree with an previous post by User:Kcmastrpc under a previous section that it might be too early to incorporate this into the article, but it harms no one to gather preliminary leads to be ready for if/when that news breaks. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Ed Poor?? Ed Poor??!!? Did some kind of signal go out?? Is Rob next, ready to show how this all traces back to the Communist Party? 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:35AD:B505:DB58:8E22 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I found a source from the Washington Times talking about how Lauren Boebert, wants to see if Biden is alive. I think we could at least mention some of this in the reactions section of the article. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2024 (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.

"Joever" claim potentially original research

The content in the "Debate aftermath" section covering the word "Joever" might be original research; the sources used to support the claim that the word Joever [...] was used by critics and media to describe the state of Biden's campaign is just a collection of news articles that use the word. This claim is not supported by any secondary sources in the article. Evaluating the primary sources to make this claim seems to be prohibited by WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself (although it only says "a primary source", singular). I would suggest removing the material, but others might disagree with my assessment, so I'll ask here first. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

How about
−
the word Joever [...] was used by critics and media to describe the state of Biden's campaign
+
the word Joever [...] was used by critics and media.
? We can let the reader make the conclusion. I would say it's more to summarize for length than to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Concerns raised at Joever found no RS to support "a portmanteau of Joe and over" so let's remove that too. The AfD almost certainly going to pass so we can salvage the list of secondary sources there. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Typos on photo caption

I do not have the power to edit the typos on the photo caption--but it says, as of just a minute ago, "adress", and "24 July 2024", which are a misspelling and the non-US date format, respectively. I request those who can fix these issues do. Nasdaqpic (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Both have been fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Have a good day. my username ------> Nasdaqpic (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We should have a conspiracy theory section

Ever since Biden dropped out, there has been loads of conspiracies from suggesting he doesn’t have Covid to alleging that the Dems killed him. Vinnylospo (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Those conspiracy theories were a flash in the pan. They're too trivial to be worth mentioning, per WP:DUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove "non-primary source needed"

Bret Stephens wrote an opinion piece for the The New York Times saying that Biden had "betrayed his implicit promise to be a one-term, transitional president. Had he stuck to it, he would have been spared the humiliation of last month's debate and Democrats would not be the dispirited and divided party that they are today."[18][non-primary source needed]

"non-primary source needed" This is ridiculous, equivalent to saying that quoting people isn't allowed. The quote isn't supporting the claim that Biden betrayed his implicit promise, it's supporting the claim that Bret Stephens said so. Hikeddeck (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd have just removed it as WP:UNDUE. Why is what Bret Stephens said important to this topic? Opinion pieces are not RS themselves, we need to show that his opinion is both notable and that its inclusion supports the topic of this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

Remove the resignation letter as it’s going to be deleted from commons due to the letter not using official stationary. Instead quote the letter contents from the twitter post. 216.176.47.241 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If the relevant discussion results in the letter's deletion on Commons, it'll be removed here as well. For now, I think we need to let the normal discussion play out, especially since it seems like it could potentially result in the image being kept. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh Report

I found something from Seymour Hersh, I do not know how real it is, however as he is a well known journalist I thought I would present it. This is the story and this is a social media summery. I know twitter is not a RS, but they did link the article. Like I said, I do not know if it is real of a RS. However, as the author has a Wikipedia page, it has some bearing. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hersh is well known to be … erratic. Unless his reporting is verified by more reliable reporting, it should be left out. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"Biden crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Biden crisis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 29 § Biden crisis until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Platform neutrality

For neutrality/unbiasedness, it's worth mentioning that the letter was also posted to his Facebook, Instagram, and Threads accounts, not only to his X account. Alternatively, you could write something like, 'he withdrew his candidacy via a signed letter posted to his personal social media accounts,'.

The relevant sentence is in the last paragraph of the introduction: 'On July 21, 2024, he withdrew his candidacy via a signed letter posted on his personal X account,...'

I would edit it, but I'm not extended confirmed yet. WaterDrinkingHuman (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Age and health concerns about Joe Biden into Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election

The past AFD was shuttered because of Biden's withdraw from the election changing a lot of things. I opened up a second request, this time with a clear intent to merge to the recent article, now with hindsight in mind. I don't see why this article needs to be kept- and the few details that aren't covered anywhere else can be merged into his public image and withdrawal articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that article could just be turned into a redirect, and a few choice bits from it added to this article. I don't see much benefit in a formal merging. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Even the title of this article doesn't really make sense, these are all concerns of his health within the context of his 2020 Presidency and 2024 re-election campaign (which are already extensively covered in those respective articles).⠀tomástomástomás⠀talk⠀ 03:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree with a redirect or a merge into other articles. All of the information present in this article is duplicated (or can easily be slotted into) the public image, withdrawal, and even sleepy joe articles. Not much point in having this article. Yeoutie (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not large enough of an event to have its own article. Just add it to whatever article there may be about his 2024 campaign. Eg224 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per @Moonreach and @Iljhgtn. The age concerns did partially lead up to his withdrawal from the race, but that doesn't mean the articles should be merged simply because there is overlap. CharlieEdited (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose; these are two separate topics. The first, around Biden's age and health concerns, is more of a general and broader sense of the topic, whereas the second, on Biden's withdrawal, is an event that happened as a result of the former's concerns. Both fulfill WP:GNG and WP:N, so I see no need to merge the two.
--WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 22:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: Only a short time has passed since the last AfD; nothing major has really changed, and all previous reasons for retaining the article still apply. There's no reason to attempt to overturn the previous consensus at this time. Zylostr (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose it needs to stay because for many this was a defining part of his presidency. I would argue, Reagan deserves one too. Vinnylospo (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, this article has plenty of sources to stand on its own, as well as the coverage of this unique subject merits its own article at this point. While the subject is likely related to the Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election subject, it is not entirely dependent on that subject and this article existed before that withdrawal and was important independent of any such withdrawal. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Iljhgtn. The articles cover two different subjects which, while they do overlap, are not interchangeable. Nor is one fully a subset of the other. Moonreach (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose — per Moonreach Roasted (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - same opinions as Iljhgtn and Moonreach Wheatley2 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Support – This article is written pretty much entirely within the context of the 2024 election and his subsequent withdrawal. Do the 'age and health concerns' really have much relevance outside of that? Loytra (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Support per Loytra. The only context for this article could be easily a subset of other articles instead. Worst case, we could merge this into two separate articles instead of continue this as an intersection. Soni (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – like Iljhgtn. These are two different topics that are related but not so much so that they should be merged. His health concerns have relevancy outside of his withdrawal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqars (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Support Age and health concerns are now entirely notable within the context of the withdrawal that they demonstrably lead to. The scope of the two also overlaps hugely: the withdrawal article links to age and health concerns as the main article for one section within "Background", but the latter article only provides additional health information in its own "Background" section before moving onto the same time period (debate etc.), and then linking back to the main withdrawal article. Fix the structure of the withdrawal article to take health concerns and the debate out of "Background", add in the additional information from the age and health concerns article and redirect. U-Mos (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose - While His Age and Fitness was a concern during his campaign, there were multiple other reasons Biden had to drop out. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The article does not currently suggest any other reason than age/fitness. U-Mos (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: This subject is only meaningful in terms of the 2024 campaign and Biden's withdrawal. I can't imagine why a reader would want to learn about the "age concerns" without also being interested in his withdrawal from the campaign. Toughpigs (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. They are related matters, but the age and health concerns would have persisted irrespective of the withdrawal, and continue following the withdrawal with respect to Biden's fitness to continue as President for the remaining six months of his term. BD2412 T 22:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: The two articles overlap in content and focus. Drdpw (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Age and Health concerns are only a little part, just keep the article at this point. FloridaMan21 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments in the AfD from a few weeks ago: "How many New York Times op-eds about his age ran last year before there was any serious discussion about him withdrawing from the race? That makes it a completely separate subject from Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election."LM2000 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above which make much stronger arguments for opposing a merge than the support of a merge. 50.170.140.37 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there are other impacts that led to him dropping out so this major reason (noted as a developed subject in it of itself) would just muddle up the prose if merged as such, and, as should be said, these concerns affect other things than just him dropping out. BarntToust (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • oppose - there could be calls for him to step down from his office as president in the future. This remains notable independent of his withdrawal from the race Superb Owl (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I counted 16 opposed and 10 in support. Am removing the flags from both articles. Superb Owl (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    Still need a proper close if we're done here though.LM2000 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of article

This is an incredibly minor piece of a larger topic. Just have it as a section in his 2024 campaign article Eg224 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. It's a historic event and has more than enough weight to stand on its own. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment completely. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of this article has already been proposed, and failed. BD2412 T 22:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Withdrawal_of_Joe_Biden_from_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_1&oldid=1257518989"