Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 12

The actual May 10 version
This version I believe addresses all of our disagreements.

The purpose for this proposal can be seen through the edit summaries in my series of edits beginning here.It was reverted without comment on the content. Please comment below Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The beginning of the last sentence can be changed to "Over the course of". One important goal is to separate this from the Reade paragraph. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternate version

 * I will simply edit it this new version:


 * I still prefer the abbreviated version favored by SPECIFICO, but I can live with this is well. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence about what The Times found is not about the Reade allegation itself; it is about Biden's history which came up during the investigation, that's why I made it a separate paragraph.
 * The word "clarify" is unsourced. It is unneeded; it is clear from the context that she made a new allegation.  "Clarify" is inaccurate; these are two separate things that happened to her while at Biden's office.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT sentence does not need to be in a separate paragraph, because their investigation was predicated on Ms. Reade's complaint.
 * "Clarified" does not need to be sourced, because it isn't a quote. It is presented in Wikipedia's voice. If you prefer something sourced, "the story that both she and her corroborating witnesses are telling has changed dramatically." is available, so how about In March 2020, Reade changed her story dramatically, accusing Biden... instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you oppose The Times sentence being in a separate paragraph? You don't find my solution for compromise over this very contentious text to be reasonable?
 * I understand that you believe Reade's story is dubious, but we're not going to use a single Vox source when we have better sources, but we can discuss your Vox suggestion in another discussion. We're not going to use the contentious word "clarify" without sources.  Again, "clarify" has nothing to do with this discussion; the word was neither in the previous version nor my suggestion.  Please comment on my proposal.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need to have a one-paragraph story spread out over two paragraphs, and since they are linked it makes perfect sense to keep them in the same paragraph.
 * "We're not going to use..." - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You don't get to dictate what is or isn't in an article. Reade CHANGED her story, which is HUGELY significant. We cannot possibly exclude such a detail while having all the other stuff you insist on having. I've SLIGHTLY edited the version you proposed, and THAT is my comment on your version. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't tone-police me. We are not going to achieve consensus with unsourced contentious text.
 * No, you have not edited my proposal, you have suggested an edit to the existing text that is unrelated to my proposal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I literally copy/pasted your "My Proposed May 10 version" text and then edited it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's pedantry. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fact. I've made very few changes to your proposal:
 * I changed a "Biden" to "he" (too many Bidens).
 * I added the "clarified" bit.
 * I removed the "Capitol Hill" location (such details are best left to the main article on the allegation).
 * I shortened Biden's response (there was redundancy).
 * I rearranged the NYT bit and pulled it into the paragraph.
 * That's all I did. Nothing more complicated than that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. No need to continue.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To Kolya Butternut - you copied this subsection on the WP talk page (here ) and asked people there to come here, to this subsection, and comment. Here's my comment:
 * Your edited text While The New York Times was investigating the Reade allegation, no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found. is ambiguous so may cause the WP reader to incorrectly infer that after the NYT investigation more allegations of sexual assault were found, and that would be a false inference.
 * Your edit was reverted to: "The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." This reverted text is very clear, not ambiguous at all, and it does just what you said what you want it to do on the other WP talk page where you wrote: "give information about Joe Biden's history, which is that nothing else like this is known to exist." So I support keeping the reverted text within this Joe Biden WP article. ~Respectfully BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's missing the point of my edit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the point it's missing? I also think the way it was reverted is much better. Smeat75 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried to figure that out as well. As far as I can tell it's the word "clarified" - which I object to as well but I'm guessing not for the same reasons:  She did not clarify her story, she changed it.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was to address the concerns in this discussion. This alternate version is taking my proposal out of context.  We cannot discuss it if its purpose is ignored.  Look at my edit summaries.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To Kolya Butternut - There's an old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The reverted text is perfect as is and does exactly what you claim you want it to accomplish. I support keeping the reverted text within this WP article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I assure you that your preferred text in no way addresses my concerns. In addition, there was never a consensus for this text.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's substantially the same stable text that was in the article for about two weeks. The poll above was considering whether to keep that or to shorten it to a simpler bare-bones version. Consensus seemed to be going toward the latter. There's been no support for additional text that deprecates the NY Times. Quite the opposite on the talk page, at RSN, or, per several Admins at [here BLPN. I suggest we get back to the intial question, namely, the poll on Scjessey's proposed text here vs the current text. [[User:SPECIFICO | SPECIFICO]] talk 20:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That text has not been stable. Additional text is not equivalent to deprication.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can check a diff around 12 days prior. Very little change. I think there was one other bit that was added or removed in the meantiem. At any rate, we have a poll in progress on Scjessey's original minimalist text. Let's resolve that firs and then if it does not prevail, we can work on other alternatives.  SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Updating NYT reporting
Since the original NYT investigation, more reporting has been done, and their latest piece includes the earlier work as well as the latest findings. Can we move forward with a proposal that includes the current state of the case, as well as Biden's responses? In their latest piece, the NYT wording doesn't use the Biden talking point about the "pattern", so this updated reporting is preferable for our use in that it is not outdated, and doesn't include COI. We could quote this verbatim and call it a day.
 * The New York Times interviewed dozens of workers in Mr. Biden’s office in the early 1990s and was unable to find anyone who remembered any kind of sexual misconduct against Ms. Reade or anyone else in the office. Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that quote would go after the text "penetrating her"? If so I would support that instead of my proposal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Kolya Butternut. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reset the reset
This is gone beyond the ridiculous. There are now umpteen versions, claims, counter claims and even arguments over text not even worked out on this talk page. It's become almost impossible to understand what is going on. Yet again, I find myself proposing what I first proposed:

This is the only way we can introduce stability into the article. Let the main article about the allegation be the battleground, not this BLP. The POV-pushing, edit warring and false claims of "consensus" must stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree Scjessey, just put that into the article with a reference, remove the rest of it and have done with it for the moment.Smeat75 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting a new version in that clearly has no consensus and will get reverted will not be helpful. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Except now it has the support of 6 editors (7, if you include 's support in the original reset thread). That's quite the consensus already. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what consensus means. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After 15 years and 28,000 edits, I have a pretty good understanding of what "consensus" means, just as I hope you have an understanding of what "tendentious" means. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a contest. Making a decision about what to add without discussing the concerns of others is not how you form consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What "decision" are you referring to? I have simply stated there are 7 supporters of my proposed text, and perhaps 2(?) opposed. I haven't acted on the apparent consensus forming around my proposal, which is evident from both weight of argument and weight of numbers. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not support your proposal. You have been part of this edit war when you restored The Times quote which was never a consensus.  Reducing the text to your proposal encourages edit warring to acheive the desired results of less text.  I worked very hard at a compromise, but your suggested changes did not address the changes I was making to the existing text.  We cannot address disagreements by introducing more disagreements.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again with the revisionism. You keep on doing this, and it is why every attempt that every editor has made to negotiate with you has failed. At least pretend to want to cover this neutrally and in the proper weight. It's exasperating. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? My proposal was an extremely modest change.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

* Support - the version posted by Scjessey "In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation" should be used. It seems to me that if we're going to put in-depth details of Reade's 2020 story, then for balance we'd naturally need to put in-depth detail of Reade's 2019 story. For example, we'd have to include the fact that on 4/6/2019 Reade wrote that her story about Biden, “is not a story about sexual misconduct.” Reade wrote that in her essay (published at The Union ) as a follow-up to her 4/3 Union interview  where she told the Union  that Biden touched only her neck and shoulders. And, since there is no in-depth detail of Reade's 2019 story, there should not be in-depth details of Reade's 2020 story. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - the version posted by Scjessey. I agree with BRM's concerns as well.  Also, above Petra suggests adding "Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment." That makes it sound like what with five people all saying he's guilty, who could doubt that there must be some truth to her story?  So then we would need to get into a lengthy report about how not only did her story keep changing her corroborater's stories kept changing right along with hers. Etc.  IMO Scjessey's suggestion is the best one to use at least for now without getting into a long drawn out  narration.  After all, it's not as though our readers will be cheated of the full story and in fact are more likely to read the split article if only a couple of sentences are used here.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a direct quote from The Times summarizing their findings. If you would prefer fewer details, I feel my initial proposed compromise is generous.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT article from Petra above is dated May 8,2020 where, within the paragraph Petra quotes, the NYT authors link to their "updated May 8, 2020" original NYT article where they say they did not interview Reade's brother, NYT writes, "Ms.  Reade said she also told her brother , who has confirmed parts of her account publicly  but who did not speak to The Times " So, it seems to me we should stick with the original NYT article which is dated the same date as the NYT article Petra provides and keep Scjessey's version. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Support - version - "In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation". That's all that is needed at this point. Takes care of any POV and WP:NOTNEWS issues. CBS 527 Talk 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Scjessey version. Clear and to the point. Manannan67 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Both Biden and his campaign" is unnecessary because of course Biden and his campaign will say the same thing. We can remove the word "both" but even then I'm not sure I support this proposal. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , what about the other proposals? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Joe Biden would be best kept as it is until more, truly important information is released that is significant to the overall story &mdash; I wouldn't consider a NY Times investigation with inconclusive results significant to the overall story. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

- Just returning to this after checking a different part of the article. It appears there was consensus for your minimalist text above. I suggest you do the honors and place it in the article.  SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support version. Sometimes less is more. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the police report?
closed the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#RfC:_Should_this_article_include_Tara_Reade's_criminal_complaint_against_Joe_Biden? RfC] with ''That text is in the article now, two weeks later, and at least that part seems stable enough, though I admit I only looked at a few samples from the article history. At any rate, it's pretty much split down the middle, on political lines it seems (I'm shocked!); there are acceptable arguments on both sides. I'm going with "close as no longer necessary", for practical reasons; if edit warring starts over this, a new RfC should be started.''

"That text" refers to "Reade filed a criminal complaint over the alleged assault on April 9 with the Washington D.C. Police."

I don't see the text in the article, and am wondering whether its removal was done with community consensus (and what was used for justification?).  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to "...Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall..." In the earlier discussion, the first section of Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 10, you pointed to the RfC below, and so it seemed to me that that was the main matter of contention, the fingers. Are you saying all that talk, over two long sections and an RfC, was about the technicality of "criminal complaint"? Because that phrasing was actually somewhat doubtful, according to comments in that RfC. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I didn't realize the link doesn't go directly to the proper RfC. I'm speaking of: "RfC: Should this article include Tara Reade's criminal complaint against Joe Biden?" As you'll note, that's where your comments are to be found. I'm asking the editors here about the fact that the lawsuit is not in the article at all. From this RfC close, it's removal doesn't seem to have consensus.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What lawsuit?  SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What lawsuit?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 05:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Petrarchan47, why did you use two fonts and font colors in that RfC? Maybe you should re-insert what you want in there and see if it flies, or simply start another, brief, RfC for that particular question. Sorry, I seemed to have missed that. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Not sure about the font. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 22:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not hearing a response from as to the use of the word "lawsuit" here. I'm also at a loss to understand why the term "criminal complaint" is still being used when several editors have pointed out in some detail that a citizen's report to a law enforcement authority does not fall within the meaning of criminal complaint. Even for a public figure, these strike me as being BLP violations and certainly as confusing or misleading to our readers and to editors who come to this talk page for discussion. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are we not mentioning the fact that Reade filed a police report? It seems to have been removed from the article and I’m asking why that is the case. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 20:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you back here . Please respond to my question. To my knowledge, there has been no citation to document the existence of a "lawsuit". If you used that word to refer to Reade's having made her report to the police, the word "lawsuit" is false and should be stricken and not repeated here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably because per weight articles should not get into excessive detail about minor aspects. TFD (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh that was a complete misspeak. I meant the report - it was in the article, and the RfC in question was simply to determine how we would refer to it. Now the entire thing is missing and I’m not seeing where the community discussed this. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 22:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The outcome of the discussion above (Talk:Joe Biden) meant that all such things were shunted to the linked article per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with Scjessey's assessment above? I just reread your closing statement (at the top of this thread) and don't see how it jives with the contention that mention of the police report should not be in this article, and that, somehow, the RfC supports this. Deciding to "shunt" everything but "Reade said A, Biden said B" was never discussed AFAIK. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 23:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion on Scjessey's assessment. Fun fact: I learned recently that it's "jibes", not "jives", which came as a surprise to me. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

- I've formally closed Talk:Joe_Biden. You can read my assessment.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Racially Insensitive Comments
Biden's comments about black voters recently received a lot of coverage. Should we include something about this and the subsequent apology in the article? Some sources:, , , (NBC News on Youtube),. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , you might want to sign your comment. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. WP:NOTNEWS. By tomorrow if not already people will forget about this and move on to the next fake outrage.  Volunteer Marek   08:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CornPop was a bad dude.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh gzz I forgot about CornPop! PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How could you forget! Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I saw this, and it was nothing. The Beltway media tried to turn it into a Thing, but failed dismally. Notably, Chuck Todd tried to make it into a Big Deal and got his ass handed to him on live TV. In stark contrast, the man Trump described as "my African American" is now so disgusted with his behavior he has left the Republican Party. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. - I agree with Scjessey on this. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No - The comment wasn't racially insensitive. It was typical Biden bluntness. It certainly isn't worthy of including in this biography. - MrX 🖋 14:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No A similar issue has come up on the article about Trump and a number of other politicians. If someone makes frequent stupid comments that get reported, we need to be selective in which ones to report, otherwise the article would quickly turn into the sayings of Joe Biden. We already mention his comments about "put y'all back in chains" and have whole sections on busing and Gaffes. TFD (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No - Just typical Uncle Joe not understanding what he is saying. Keep an eye out if it becomes something but I doubt it will. So NOTNEWS and UNDUE for this article at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No Black voters know the difference between an awkward ally and a virulent racist. This is a nothingburger that will pass in a day. Zaathras (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Isn't there already a section on his tendency for gaffes? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that an argument for inclusion in that section? PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow you. Do you think this short blurb should be added there instead of a new section? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the section should not start reciting every gaffe, just as sections on Donald Trump's racism shouldn't list every single racist thing he's said or done, the section on his lying shouldn't list every lie he's stated, or sections on all the sexual assault allegations shouldn't list every single sexual assault allegation. It's bad writing and a ridiculous way to restructure Wikipedia articles that are already large. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No This is one story that has already gone through the 24-hour news cycle and been resolved. There's nothing new here, Biden often puts his foot in his mouth, and we already have a good section on it that does not need to document every WP:FART his mouth utters. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not now. This is a developing story. If this continues to receive significant coverage in reliable sources over a longer period of time, we may need to include this, but so far inclusion would be premature in light of WP:BALASP. In light of Biden's many race-related comments it may be appropriate to have an article such as Racial views of Joe Biden or Joe Biden race-related controversies. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, no to creating either of those articles. We don't need to be making WP:POVFORKS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am 100% against POV forks, but we may have subarticles if a) there are sufficient sources dealing with this topic, and b) if it's too much to cover in a balanced way in a biographical article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have the section in this article on his gaffes, which is sufficient. We have zero evidence that Biden holds any "racial views" outside of the norm, or that he's involved in any "race-related controversies". He's not out there refusing to disavow David Duke, or calling white supremacists "very fine people". He said something stupid about blackness and apologized in less than a day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there could be further discussion apart from his gaffes, like talking about black kids and roaches or Indians at 7-11, or calling Obama the first clean-cut articulate African-American ("that's a storybook"). For example, he's also referred to the possibility of integration leading to a "racial jungle" at one point, and I'm not sure that can be called a gaffe. He's also repeatedly made questionable claims about having been in the civil rights movement that we cut from the article previously per WP:BALASP, while a separate article on Biden and race could include discussion of those claims. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Give the old misleading talking points a rest. What happens with Trump is not relevant here. PackMecEng (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's no talking point, it's an apples to apples comparison. Once the media starts analyzing Biden's racial views, which if I'm not mistaken they haven't, we can think about how to cover it on Wikipedia, starting this article, not a content fork. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The talking point is implying he never disavowed him or the context to the fine people quote. For the record I do not think Biden needs a racial views article either, I don't think anyone should have an article like that honestly. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Has Trump clarified his comment on Nazi-sympathizer Henry Ford's "bloodlines" yet? Has Biden made any dog whistle comments? Not talking points, only pointing out the reality of disparity. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, what does any of those talking points have to do with this article besides WP:OTHERSTUFF? At this point you would be hard pressed to explain why this section should not be hatted as off topic and forum. PackMecEng (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we have a Racial views of Donald Trump page, I'm demonstrating how there is zero need for a Joe Biden version. Very much on topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, do you really think a Racial Views of Uncle Joe is something likely to happen? Of course not, so stay on topic. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Will Black Voters Still Love Biden When They Remember Who He Was? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden’s history of controversial racial comments Sir Joseph (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You found one piece that talks about his policies over the course of his career, which is best covered in the Senate career section, and another piece from Fox News trying to throw together all of the verbal flubs Biden has made, which we shouldn't touch. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , "Racial Views of Joe Biden" have been covered for decades, since he was in Delaware. Let's not keep pretending to be unbiased when we have 30 zillion articles on Trump and we all know this would have been in the Trump article within minutes of him saying it, as many of his other statements throughout the years. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Racial views" haven't been covered anywhere. Legislation that affects race has been. Those are two different things. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is from January. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And what do you think this Huff Po piece is telling us, exactly? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes- this is not just a one time thing. He has a history of making comments like this.  --Rusf10 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. KidAd (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - his comment was racially insensitive, and I agree that he has a long history of making racially insensitive comments. Calling it a "gaffe" does not make it not a racially insensitive comment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes of course this should be included. As Rusf10 points out, this is not the first time he has made such remarks. Remember how he called Obama "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden's description of Obama draws scrutiny We all know this would be in a Trump article within minutes, let's not give those who say Wikipedia is biased any more ammunition. Biden has had many more gaffes, even from his Delaware days, so much that it can have its own article. Don't forget this one about Indian-Americans and 7-11,  and this, which has links to more offensive comments  "Recently, during an interview with the New York Times editorial board, he argued that poor black parents feel ashamed because they cannot read and skip parent-teacher conferences." Sir Joseph (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To Sir Joseph - I read the Guardian article you linked to, and then clicked on the NYT link within that Guardian article to see for myself if Biden actually said what the Guardian author claims, and Biden did not. Biden did not say and did not argue "poor black parents feel ashamed because they cannot read and skip parent-teacher conferences" to the New York Times editorial board. In fact, Biden did not say anything even closely resembling that. WP editors really need to be very careful when accusing someone of being "racist" or making "racist" comments. BetsyRMadison (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Guardian opinion pieces are generally not worth the paper they're not printed on. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's harsh, but opinion pieces rarely meet rs anyway.It makes little sense to use them anyway, because their authors are generally writing about stories in the news. Why not use the news source directly, if one mentions it at all, rather than second hand through an ideological filter? TFD (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No This falls under undue, sensationalized news. RedHotPear (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No I can hope that WP will not hang onto every word uttered by Biden and try to cram it into his bio when it is reported in the media and used by the opposing party to show how utterly biased, stupid, too old to lead our great nation, and kerist who knows what else, until election day. But I am not keeping my hopes up, not one bit. (Please pardon my sarcasm.)  Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - to not include it is whitewashing via censorship. Considering the coverage, I see no valid reason to not include it, at least no reason that does not appear to be politically motivated which is why the neutrality of this article has raised question. He said it, and we should acknowledge it, not censor it. The disparity in the way this article is being handled was even mentioned by Jimbo and some in the media. Oh, and he used Other stuff exists for the comparison: Having said that, I think that many (not all) cases of apparent political bias in Wikipedia are better understood against the backdrop of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is to say, the media outlet above made a direct comparison between our articles on Brett Kavanaugh and Joe Biden. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 18:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)  Adding RS: The Hill, WaPo - politiciansplainin, Fox News, BBC. Hopefully the closer will take the necessary time to weigh the reasons carefully.  Numbers don't count - valid reasons do. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 18:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's comments sound to me more like him suggesting editors threw too much into Kavanaugh's article on those allegations, not that there's not enough of allegations here. And yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFF on the comparison of Biden and Kavanaugh. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I took it to mean just the opposite, Mubo. It has to be taken in context with what he first said and the discussion I began on his UTP.  Start with Jimbo adding his prior quote: "We have chosen a very tough job: NPOV. Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must.  I happen to personally think that given the decline in quality of the media across the board (there are still fantastic journalists out there, but overall the landscape isn't great) the best way for us to help the world heal is neutrality."  Adding the unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh who was relatively unknown is what he's referring to whereas Biden is a public figure so a different set of rules apply.  There is also corroboration regarding the Biden allegation whereas with Kavanaugh there was not.  The neutrality of this BLP has been challenged, and the clean-up tags need to be resolved as well as article length - if we can get those issues resolved, we're on our way to renominating it for GA - provided of course we can keep it stable throughout the process and remove the protection. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 18:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see that. But, Biden and Kavanaugh are both public figures. Kavanaugh as a federal judge was a public figure before his SCOTUS nom, but much as Bork and Thomas experienced, being a SCOTUS nom puts a huge microscope on you. The clean up and neutrality tags were added by you, just now. What exactly are you thinking "resolves" this? Adding to Joe Biden? I acknowledge that section may be too short. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, I only added the neutrality tag at the top of the article, nothing else. The section clean-up tags were already in place. I understand and respect your position and POV, and want to help make the article better but at the same time, I don't want to be involved in the ongoing POV wars and controversies. When editing WP, I am divorced from politics and see only GA/FA status/promotion in our articles which should come as no surprise because it has been my objective from day one. I have long since learned to recognize POV resistance, and when to stop arguing, and it appears I have reached that point. I do appreciate that you recognize the shortfalls of the gaffe section, but we must be careful when adding more to a section because, at the same time, we are adding more to overall length which is another concern. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I said the gaffe section is too short, how is that POV resistance? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - the article is whitewashed. There is nothing in the lead about any controversy, as if none exists. There is nothing about his inappropriate behavior which dates back to his Senate days - nothing about the sexual abuse allegation per WP:LEAD which states ...summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It's an extremely prominent controversy, and it will not go away by ignoring it. The latter also refers to NPOV and DUE. There is nothing about the Ukrainian investigation, despite coverage by WaPo, and AP, etc. Another issue is the attempt to keep his racist comment out of the article despite WP:PUBLICFIGURE: ...which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.  There are quite a few issues, some of which I referenced in the GAR. The denials of noncompliance with NPOV that I read during the GAR and now with the removal of the NPOV tag I added to this article because of the lead, the body text, the revert of my edit and attempt to hide the many inappropriate behavior claims in a sub-section where it doesn't belong, the opposition to the inclusion of his racist statement(s) - all of it is quite disturbing...and it is getting quite a bit of negative attention from MSM. I was simply trying to help get this article fixed but it isn't happening because of the POV issues - POV issues are noncompliant with NPOV, and it certainly doesn't represent a stable article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 11:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Biden's lead is already five paragraphs, which is beyond MOS guidance for leads. Adding would require subtracting, and I do not believe that Joe's questionable behavior, off the cuff remarks, or the sexual assault allegation are significant enough for the lead. Just for comparisons sake, George W Bush was highly known for his malapropisms. His lead makes no mention of it. Donald Trump has been accused of sexual assault by about 40 women. His lead makes no mention of it. The line has to be drawn somewhere. One sexual assault allegation that looks dubious on its merits shouldn't be included in the lead. The Ukraine story is a complete nothingburger, aside from Trump's attempts to pressure a sovereign nation to interfere in our election, and it has no bearing on Biden. The Ukraine story is the impeachment. Adding it to the lead would appear to me an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE, which violates NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ...with the utmost respect, and for the sake of clarity, please confirm - you believe the sexual assault allegation is not significant enough for the lead, correct? I certainly hope our encyclopedia has evolved beyond the politics of a sexual assault per that woman's allegations but if it hasn't, I just want to know what rules I'm supposed to follow because DUE doesn't appear to be gaining favor, and I was of the mind that NPOV is a core content policy. As for the lead, at least 2 paragraphs of promotion can be eliminated, and that would allow room for the substantial controversies that warrant inclusion. If we are going to maintain WP as a reputable encyclopedia (maybe not reliabe but reputable nonetheless), we should not sweep controversies under the carpet and keep only the glowing reviews in the lead. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 20:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , given the extent of Biden's career and what we have experienced with the Tara Reade accusation, I don't think it's DUE to include. I don't think I'm alone in believing that. I don't see two paragraphs of promotion in the lead. The last paragraph suffers from RECENTISM a little bit and can be trimmed, sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , have you read this article? Media sees the problem, and mentions WP's treatment of the Biden - Reade issue. I was embarassed by it, and the problem isn't even my doing. It just is not good for the project to have such a dichotomy (or blatant partisanship) in the way we treat political BLPs. I'm done here. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , assuming that there is a problem with the coverage, it's still not on us to right great wrongs. Wikipedia reflects the sources, which have been much more skeptical of Reade than Blasey Ford. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and this has nothing to do with politics, or whether I personally find Biden to be racist - those opinions have no bearing on what constitutes encyclopedic fodder. NPOV is the law of the land. We all have biases, and the remedy is to abide by policy. It was covered by CNN, WaPo, Vox, NBC, Politico (and many more - a Google search of "Biden, You ain't black" returns 82,900,000 results); it deserves mention here. He's been called out for similar stuff before, as Columbia University's John McWhorter says, Biden holds "views on race minted in another time". He writes in the Atlantic August 2019,
 * ...but still—“white” kids versus “poor” ones. The reason even Biden’s fans are cringing at this remark is that it implies an equation between being poor and being a person of color, and perhaps also that all high-achieving students are white.
 * And it isn’t the first time Biden has let slip sociological assumptions of this kind. Who can forget Biden sunnily crowing that Barack Obama, when first running for president, was a godsend in being a “mainstream” African American who combined the traits of being “articulate and bright and clean.”*
 * The instances that have made major news should be in this article. Political implications cannot be a consideration in an encyclopedia.
 *  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea what Sanger has to do with any of this.  Volunteer Marek   07:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing, so I took the liberty and deleted it. WP:NOTAFORUM 46.97.170.78 (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't really intend for this to be a vote type thing, more of a discussion, but since we're doing it yes, per Atsme and Rusf10. It's well known that black people overwhelmingly vote for democrats, , , , and a comment like that seems to take that for granted. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were to accept Mr Ernie's premise -- that Biden was merely stating the obvious -- that would seem to be a decisive argument for no, i.e. against any mention in this bio article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes Per above. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:613B:2D52:478A:8631 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC) — 2A00:1370:812C:1186:613B:2D52:478A:8631 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No. I don't like the attitude that Wikipedia should bend over backwards to avoid inevitable accusations of bias from people who are wrong/partisan. I find it silly to entertain the idea that the main article on a major public figure would include an off-the-cuff statement that was walked back within 24 hours. (To make this a "policy-based argument", I'll cite WP:RECENTISM). userdude 16:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it silly to entertain the idea that the main article on a major public figure would include an off-the-cuff statement that was walked back within 24 hours. Echoing this; it is a good point. RedHotPear (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it silly to entertain the idea that the main article on a major public figure would include an off-the-cuff statement that was walked back within 24 hours. Echoing this echo. It's patently absurd that we should even be considering inclusion of this. WP:NOTNEWS was specifically written to handle exactly this kind of situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This is wikipedia, not some alt right propaganda outlet. We don't cover irrelevant, politically motivated rumors. I don't understand how anyone could even consider this. On a sidenote, user: Mr Ernie has a history or making politically motivated edits to whitewash the GOP. Maybe some of the moderators should investigate him. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to point out what you think are problematic edits at a noticeboard, if you think I need to be investigated. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a forum. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No UNDUE NOTNEWS - This is why it's pointless to launch a poll before some discussion and some plausible rationale. It was gone from the news by the following day. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It would seem "no" is the prevailing view, with very little support for inclusion. This is basically a WP:SNOW situation, so I will shortly be closing this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'm sorry, I've reverted your close. You've weighed in, I don't think you should be closing it the same way you voted. I've asked for an uninvolved close at WP:ANRFC.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty clear consensus for "no" here. Also, it wasn't an RfC, so I would argue a more formal close would be unnecessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'm aware that it wasn't an RfC, unfortunately, this page has become very controversial, and I feel that an uninvolved close would be a more definitive outcome for all involved. Also, if the outcome is so clear, it shouldn't be hard for someone else to close it?  starship .paint  (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you are the only person who objected to the close, which is weird because I suspect you agree entirely with the outcome. Seems like a waste of time to me, when the outcome is so obvious. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - I have not judged the outcome for myself.  starship .paint  (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert of main link addition
This edit reverted a main article link. The editor that reverted says the article is linked below and the consensus is against the main link. Is there a consensus against a main link form this section to its main article? Also i do not find the link “below”. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in the third paragraph: In March 2020, Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Biden and his campaign denied the allegation. As far as consensus is concerned, the "main" link is just another version of the "see also" link discussed in above. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Third paragraph of the lead? it is not in the See also or a see also template. Wherever it is it is well hidden. i have scanned the article multiple time. perhaps it is time for an RfC on the more typical main link. —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This proves my point. If you're looking for it and can't find it, then what are the chances that the average reader will click on it?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's right there in the third paragraph of the section. How can you guys not see it? I even included the text (with the link) in my response above! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not interested in rehashing this again. It's all been discussed before, and it is in the archives. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the original consensus????? The discussions pointed to above do not even mention having the link there. The link was there for nearly 2 months (around the time the spinoff article was created and survived an AfD) without any debate. Now, all of a sudden there is consensus to remove it? Trying to diminish the allegations by burying them in the article is a violation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE which says "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. " The alleged incident was clearly notable enough to create a spin-off article, so it needs to be linked in a place where our readers can easily find it. Removing this link and whitewashing the article is really doing a disservice to our readers.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely not consensus against it. There may not be consensus for it, but there is certainly not consensus against it. userdude 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in the archives, the existence of the link was never discussed before.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparent consensus
Please, point out the apparent consensus for the "See also" link because it is not apparent to me. Also, you moved the section back into Post vice presidency without mentioning it in your edit summary and without stating a reason. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I stridently object to this "apparent consensus" and I have just removed the offending and redundant "see also" link. We already link to the article in question in the body of the section, so this was merely a "badge of shame" situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider the results of Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_11 and Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_11 consensus for including the template. There is no, so you may reasonably disagree that there is a consensus, in which case consider my revert part of the WP:BRD process. Linking to a full article about an event at the top of a subsection about that event is a quintessential use of WP:HAT. userdude 13:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As for moving the subsection, I apologize — this was an accidental result of an edit conflict that I didn't notice. I am (currently) neutral to the position of the subsection. You have my blessing to move it back without violating WP:1RR. userdude 13:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus for that link. It's the same kind of conflation and innuendo that has been decisively rejected at the current RfC on the section header. The Reade assault allegation is an increasingly marginal bit. We have gone to great effort to treat it fully and fairly, but it has not turned out to have legs.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Who are you to judge whether it has legs? Sure we do not if the allegation is true, but it doesn't have to be. The fact that multiple reliable sources have reported it means it get include. Editors cannot chose to not include something because it makes a public figure they like look bad. As per WP:PUBLICFIGURE- If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. For example, "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred."--Rusf10 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We ALREADY had this discussion. The consensus was to NOT have "sexual assault" in the section title, and trying to get it in there by means of a "see also" or "main" link to circumvent that consensus will not fly. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First that RFC has not been closed yet. Second, the RFC is on the title, not anything else. You cannot have a consensus on something that has not even been discussed. Stop trying to act like the link was inserted later to "circumvent" the consensus because the fact is the link was there before the discussion even started.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The link is unnecessary. It is ALREADY in the section. The only reason to duplicate it in the way you are suggesting is to pursue an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pursuing an agenda? (I guess you don't WP:AGF) What's yours? It is to bury negative information about Biden? (to the point the entire allegation is reduced to two sentences) I hope not, I really want to believe that you are better than that. We have a policy, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, that says to include allegations even if they are negative and haven't been proven, as long as there is reliable source coverage (In this case there is plenty). I guess I missed the part about the policy that says it doesn't apply to Democratic presidential candidates. Certainly every allegation ever made against Trump, no matter how trivial is included in his various articles, but surely Biden needs to be treated differently. As for my "agenda" here, I don't strive to make Biden look bad, I just want the article to have WP:BALANCE. The topic was important enough to write an entire spinoff article, it deserves more than two sentences and a buried link.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ((ping|Rusf10}} Your remark to Scjessey, is a personal attack. As you are well aware, there was an extended poll and overwhelming consensus to limit the assault allegation to the current 2-sentence article text. I suggest you strike your remark and take care not to repeat such attacks in the future. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please give me a break. It's no more of an attack than (and you took my comments out of context by removing the sentence before and after) and you know that.  Back on topic, what Scjessy said was Let the main article about the allegation be the battleground, not this BLP. Okay and leave the details to the other article then we can't bury the link the that main article about the allegation. I thought the entire point of keeping it short was to direct people to the other article, but no one said let's remove the link at the top of the section which was already in existence at that time.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:BLP trumps WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It's clear from the coverage in reliable sources that Ms. Reade's claim is dubious at best, so that is why we settled on the two sentence language that we did. Neither of the proposed hatnotes are necessary, since the article in question is already linked. No, it is clear this is just an attempt to label Biden with a "badge of shame" and we're not falling for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, one does not trump the other, PUBLICFIGURE is part of BLP. So how can BLP say something different when PUBLICFIGURE is literally part of BLP? (It's on the same page)--Rusf10 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The body of WP:BLP trumps the single part. Consider this important part of the summary:
 * Unnecessarily doubling the number of links to an article covering a highly dubious and controversial claim violates the part where it says Wikipedia should not be "the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims" by elevating the prominence of this dubious claim. Even WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "BLPs should simply document," adding "denial(s) should also be reported." That is exactly what we have done here. We have covered the claim in the prominence it deserves, in language painstakingly worked out in multiple discussions and an RfC. What you are proposing is basically an abuse of a hatnote. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unnecessarily doubling the number of links to an article covering a highly dubious and controversial claim violates the part where it says Wikipedia should not be "the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims" by elevating the prominence of this dubious claim. Even WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "BLPs should simply document," adding "denial(s) should also be reported." That is exactly what we have done here. We have covered the claim in the prominence it deserves, in language painstakingly worked out in multiple discussions and an RfC. What you are proposing is basically an abuse of a hatnote. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Prez nominee or presumptive Prez nominee
Though he's now got a majority of the pledged delegates for his party's presidential nomination. He's still the presumptive nominee, until the majority of delegates 'actually' vote for (i.e. nominate) him in August (at the convention). GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is absolutely correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors keep removing "presumptive ". I reverted it once but can't do it again due to the 1RR rule. Delegates haven't voted yet, he might die, the world might come to an end first, who knows? He is the presumptive democratic candidate at the moment. Smeat75 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct. There are enough editors here to keep a check on this, despite the 1RR rule. It's very annoying, and it is one of those things that makes the 1RR rule very frustrating. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Calls on Facebook to Stop Allowing Lies in Political Ads
Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Calls on Facebook to Stop Allowing Lies in Political Ads Cycent (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Maybe something on this belongs at Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, but not on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be a BLP violation in this article
These specific lines, I believe, should be deleted:
 * Kinnock's speech included the lines: Q:


 * Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?


 * While Biden's speech included the lines:


 * I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience] Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest? /Q

This is no plagiarism or ethics violation. Ideas are not copyrightable; exact wording is. But I have no objection to documenting any falsehoods uttered about his education & the Sam Donaldson expose. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC))


 * The interpretation in reliable sources is that Biden copied the story from Kinnock. Are you saying that he came up with it as he was coming over? TFD (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We don't need opinions (interpretations), but facts. Negative opinions on Biden should not be part of the article.  The wording in the two comparison paragraphs is different.  Can't you see that?  "Copy" is a weasel work in this context.  Using the general idea somebody puts out is quite ethical and not plagiarism.  Using exact wording is plagiarism and unethical. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC))
 * If you feel the article text misrepresents RS accounts of this, you can remove it and take things from there. The article doesn't accuse him of plagiarism -- it says the incident hurt his candidacy. Especially when the more serious accusation arose shortly afterward. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Plagiarism, according to Webster's, means "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source." It doesn't require exact wording. When there is consensus in expert opinion, we usually report it as fact, whether it's global warming or where Obama was really born. TFD (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

New leaked phone calls Poroshenko-Biden about Naftogaz of Ukraine (from 3 hours ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZfOYYbS5hc, english https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6O14Td89g Even more disturbing than the first part so far (I watch it right now). So the 6 million $USD Burisma was fake news! It was actually 50 million $USD! 2A00:1FA0:4486:F040:C5A6:86D2:DC14:CAF3 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Find reliable sources. Like this one: – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I Googled this: it's more of nothing from Andrii Derkach. I'm sure we will continue to see snippets of leaked audio from him for the next five months, and it'll continue to add up to nothing. But, if a reliable source covers it, we can discuss it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this does not look like nothing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GQ_4w287LdCXVyuTlinoPhMNxqvfPmgT/view (vector pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vB1thHR9cPCyutBFpcEzRJDu4gC1vH6u/view) IMHO, this will be even more cool than Clinton emails were. 👏👏👏2A00:1FA0:4486:F040:C5A6:86D2:DC14:CAF3 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The last few reverts
, you just reverted 2 hours of diligent research and editing to include material the lead and body that clearly belongs, and you used a misleading edit summary of RECENTISM to justify removal when the cited NYTimes is dated 2019, a year ago: (this wording needs to be discussed, too much WP:RECENTISM here) which doesn't even apply to the material. Your other revert also included a misleading edit summary (no consensus to include Reade in the lead); i.e., if you are referring to the RfC close I recently challenged because there was not a consensus to censor the Reade allegation in its entirety from the lead - only specific language was at issue - and if you review the actual RfC statement, it will confirm what I just said about specific wording (which I was careful to avoid). There was not an RfC or decision to censor Reade's allegation in its entirety. See the discussion at User talk:S Marshall. was very thoughtful, polite and quite willing to help by asking for further input at WP:AN. I have been working on the Biden GAR reassessment with, and among others, but your instantaneous removal of content for no valid reason is why the article was demoted, and it looks like it will stay that way. Attempts to whitewash and protect the lead from all controversy is noncompliant with NPOV, a core content policy. I do wish you would self-revert because it does take on the appearance of WP:OWN when the same few editors keep removing notable, well-sourced criticism from the lead. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , everything here runs on consensus and I know of none that supports including any mention of Tara Reade in the lead. In fact, my recollection of the last time it was talked about here was explicit in keeping her out of it. I can't speak to discussions about this page that aren't happening here, on this talk page, the place it should be discussed. The RECENTISM is about the present recollections of the Thomas/Hill hearings, and it's not the best tag to put on, I should have said that the way it was done was to include too much detail that is not appropriate summary style for the lead. And I stand by the revert. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP also runs on bold editing, Muboshgu, so what is your policy-based reasoning for reverting my work? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 21:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To expand on my comment, here's what was added to the lead about Anita Hill: Then Senator Biden presided over the senate confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill came forward with sexual harassment allegations against the SCOTUS nominee. In April 2019, the New York Times said Biden “knew Anita Hill was going to be an issue for him” in his 2020 presidential campaign. Biden attempted to reach out to Hill with deep regret and an apology for what happened to her. In response, Hill told The Times that his call left her "feeling deeply unsatisfied", and she was not convinced that he has taken “full responsibility for his conduct at the hearings — or for the harm he caused other victims of sexual harassment and gender violence.” This is fine detail for the body but much too much for the lead that you said you're trying to cut down to size. The commentary on Hill being relevant to the 2020 campaign is conjecture and totally irrelevant. We should mention Hill in the lead, but in one sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I conflated Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_12 with this RfC "... alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers". So where is the RfC that determined all mention of Reade and all notable criticism should be censored from the lead? As for RECENTISM, no - Hill said what she said in response to Biden's apology last year and it belongs in the lead, and the WEIGHT of what happened should absolutely be presented with accuracy not brevity as if swept under the rug. That leaves me with the impression that it may be stemming from Systemic bias in Wikipedia, and that has to stop. Your reason for leaving it out now - "excessive detail" - is quite a very weak argument. Facts are facts - quotes are quotes - but censorship is against WP:NOTCENSORED policy. Also, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to revert something that important and notable from the lead. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 20:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADNO is the right policy. It's not "I don't like it", it's that that's too much on Hill in the lead (and I've said she should be mentioned in the lead), and that the Reade allegations are not significant enough to be in the lead. You and I had a back and forth on that a few weeks ago I seem to recall. It's fine for the body, not for the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken because
 * MOS:LEADNO is simply a guideline, not a policy.
 * WP:NPOV carries far more weight because NPOV is a core content policy.
 * WP:BLPPUBLIC is a policy that clearly states: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
 * MOS:LEAD is a guideline which clearly states (my bold underline): It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
 * Reverting important content from the lead for no policy-based reason actually makes the revert noncompliant with policy is WP:TEND.
 * How can you say the Reade allegations are not significant enough for the lead when they are significant enough to have a standalone article? How can you say the Anita Hill comment after Biden apologized is not significant? No, your argument is not policy based, and you should self-revert. If you thought it was too much detail, then explain all the detail that comprises 5 paragraphs in that lead without one valid criticism about his behavior with regards to women. Now you're bringing in another problem as I stated below regarding systemic bias. Are you comfortable with your position if this elevates? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable that the Hill detail is excessive and the Reade bit doesn't belong. I'm waiting for more feedback from others to develop consensus. You accused me of OWN and TEND in your edit summary, which I do not appreciate. I'm not the one making edits without consensus, a policy you bypassed on a contentious article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoa...back up, Muboshgu - following are my exact words about OWN: I do wish you would self-revert because it does take on the appearance of WP:OWN when the same few editors keep removing notable, well-sourced criticism from the lead. And in #5 regarding TEND, I said: Reverting important content from the lead for no policy-based reason actually makes the revert noncompliant with policy which is WP:TEND. You accused me of making edits without getting consensus first, saying that I bypassed a policy? I've asked you to provide that policy. I reviewed some of the edit history for this article, and I'm not seeing any consensus-first discussions on this TP that align with the multiple edits of added material. I also see alot of revert activity that primarily involves notable, well-sourced controversial material (NYTimes, NPR, Politico), such as this revert where you removed the entire section Stances on racial issues and stated in your edit summary: (→‎Stances on racial issues: fails the WP:10YT. Harris scored a good 24 hour news cycle. Where is her campaign now?) Nothing in that section failed WP:10YT. Biden's position on race dates back to his early senate days, and it is neither new nor is it going away anytime soon. His past will continue to be brought up throughout his entire campaign as it has in the past, and it will be noted by historians in the future. I just provided evidence of you making two reverts with two misrepresentations in the edit summaries. The edit history for this article shows a pattern of consistent removal of notable controversial material by certain editors while keeping only positive material, and it makes the article read more like a campaign ad than a BLP for a presidential candidate, see WP:TEND. The latter has made this article unstable and noncompliant with NPOV, which is a big part of the reason it was demoted at GAR. Add to that, DS and 1RR editing restrictions, and we have editors getting bogged down in interminable discussions whihc make it nearly impossible to restore the reverted material without calling a lengthy RfC. Considering the pattern of reverts demonstrated in the edit history, the sheer number of RfCs we'd have to call brings Abuse of process to mind. Let me know when you find the policy that you claim I bypassed by adding material per WP:BOLD without getting consensus first. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 02:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Excessive detail in the lead is very much a valid concern and NOT a weak argument. I supported the inclusion of the Reade allegations in the body in a previous RfC, by the way. If you wish to include it in the lead, then the WP:ONUS is on those who support the inclusion to gain consensus. Please avoid reading into the behavior of another editor and turning it into an allegation of censorship and bias. It is not helpful in the consensus-building process. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The version on the right is superior, IMO:, as it avoids excessive level of detail in the lead. In general, arguments about 2 hours of diligent research and editing are not helpful to make a case for inclusion, as we are all volunteers and are free to spend our time however we wish. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not appropriate for the lead per WP:UNDUE. Biden's conduct with respect to Justice Thomas' confirmation nearly 30 years ago is simply not a significant point. - MrX 🖋 03:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I share MrX's concerns about WP:DUE weight. The version before these most recent edits was more balanced and a cleaner summary of the article. RedHotPear (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Anita Hill controversy is not significant enough for the lead. Anything with Reade is so controversial on-wiki, it is essentially bound to go through an RfC.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Add sentence to "Family deaths" section
I suggest adding the following sentence to the end of the "Family deaths" section: "He later apologized for these claims." And add the following reference: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/25/joe-biden-2019-profile-grief-beau-car-accident-224178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.144.235 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you be specific with the "he," it took me a second read through to understand what you meant via a skim. I have been on here for a different issue and I was told that most editors see this page as too large anyway so keep that in mind as well. Over all I don't think your addition is bad in and of itself but not sure how relevant it is or whether you could generate justification to add more to the page. Bgrus22 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

What about: "Biden later apologized for these claims.", referenced by the previous mentioned reference. I think the current text is misleading, because there's a difference between someone accusing someone else without basis, versus someone first accusing someone else without basis, but later apologizing for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.150.153 (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Actually, that whole sentence about the drunk driver thing isn't biographically significant at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC) I would like to comment that the "Family deaths" section also appears on the article for the United States Senate career of Joe Biden. I see two options: FunnyMath (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) We add that information to the Senate career article, but not this one because it is too long.
 * 2) We omit the drunk driving accusation from both articles. Right now, the drunk driving claim is still in the Senate career article.
 * What is undue weight for one article may not be so for the other. For this article, it is biographically insignificant. Whether it is noteworthy enough for the other article is a matter for the talk page there. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it to the other article. But the remove option is also fine for me if someone prefers that. 79.213.150.153 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Presidential Campaign Gaffes
The Gaffes and dicey remarks made by vice president Biden during this campaign have been news worthy and would appear to merit mention on the wiki page. For instance the "you aint black" statement by him was met with wide criticism. Bgrus22 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is not a campaign (for or against) platform. El_C 00:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - there's space at Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. Only sustained controversies warrant mention here.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * and Thanks for linking the campaign page, but considering that the gaffes have been linked to a so called "cognitive decline" that his opponents and skeptics point towards regularly. I'm not saying this should be portrayed in a biased way, but if this page makes reference to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact...with women at public events" and can cite how he was "accused of withholding $1 billion in aid from Ukraine" while retaining a neutral tone then the page should be able to highlight this continued and prominent criticism of the vice president as well. It shouldn't take more than a line or two to explain he has denied any health problems and that his opponents use these gaffes as an indication of some underlying health condition along with jumping on them as indicating racial insensitivity which he has also denied. Like the others it is simply a case of claim, possibly an example like the most prominent, ie "you ain't black," and Vice President Biden statement refuting the claims.Bgrus22 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , reiterating any concern of a "cognitive decline" without concrete evidence is at best a borderline WP:BLP violation we will not tolerate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly would stating that several gaffes have occurred, some of which becoming notable events in the news cycle not be evident or borderline? Similarly I am not saying we push a narrative that the vice president is ill in any way, I am stating that just as the page highlights allegations of inappropriate physical contact and an allegation of misconduct with the Ukrainian government we could add the prominent allegation of "cognitive decline" that he has already denied and state there is no factual basis for the allegation. I do not see how that is outside of the scope of fully covering an issue in a neutral manner. I am not stating we should include something like the "false statements" list from the campaign page since I do not think it has borderline relevance with regards to the depiction of the former vice president; however the notoriety of this issue is obvious. The way I see it is that we can either include this in a neutral format as other unverified or disproved controversies have been, which would be within wiki guidelines, or we can remove all allegations made against the vice president that have been proven inaccurate or are in limbo, referring to the Ukraine and inappropriate physical contacts respectively. If I am misunderstanding wiki guidelines, however, please inform me; I am only seeking to better wikipedia by the standards set forth within it and from my understanding of the rules it would seem that this change is definitely tolerable.Bgrus22 (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have had someone explain to me why we should not include the cognitive decline portion and I recognize that as borderline now, but that still does not address the notable presence in VP Joe Biden's gaffes which could be describe in a neutral manner without adding narrative driven attacks like "cognitive decline" Bgrus22 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , good, I'm glad to hear that. How are Biden's gaffes biographically significant? He has had a stutter to deal with throughout his life, and we include that in the article. What else merits inclusion here? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said the "you aint black" gaffe would be the most obvious one. They warranted being mentioned in his time in the senate in general terms, so there is precedent for this, also gaffes are not the same as a stutter as seen by the previous example. Considering that the page only depicts the gaffes as being prominent in his years in the senate I would add that they have become a defining feature of his campaign for presidency, with him going as far to claim he is a "gaffe machine." Bgrus22 (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , "you ain't black" got play in the 24 hour news cycle, but what lasting impact does it have? It's been mostly forgotten about. We don't need to add negative things for WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been in the news cycle for much longer than 24 hours and remains in memory. It was given attention by the founder of BET almost 2 weeks ago and has been revisited today by Kanye West. It has been a key criticisms from both sides of the aisle and the rallying point along which they both mark problems in the former Vice Presidents race relations. While it in and of itself may not be an especially amazing event, it is an example of gaffes continuing throughout the campaign and being used to symbolize historic issues of the Vice President's career. I would say critisism via the gaffes are as large an aspect of attacks on VP Biden as criticisms of hyperbole and bravado are for President Trump. With regards to false balance, I do not believe that stating this has been a continued point of criticism for his campaign or stating that it has been used as a rally point by both figures left and right of him would be a fringe opinion considering how that one gaffe in particular has been treated. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We should also catalog every lie Donald Trump has ever told on his BLP. Deal? soibangla (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say to state all of the gaffes but I have no problem with the President Trump page having a subsection on "false statements" as it currently does under public profile. Given that it exists should I take this to mean you support adding the small addition I have recommended?Bgrus22 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What happens at Donald Trump has no bearing on what happens here. "False statements" are a defining characteristic of Donald Trump, so his BLP has a section on them, but that is most certainly not the case for Joe Biden, with whom false statements are a rarity and not notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not bring up the other page originally someone else did and I simply stated that the page they referenced already does what they requested of it. As for the false statements I agree, the Vice President's campaign has not been characterized by such statements in the same way as president Trump and I said above that I would not include Vice President Biden's false statements for that reason, but I would say that the gaffes have been a running occurrence with each individual gaffe gaining varying levels of sustained coverage which is why I would view them as comparable to President Trump's false statements and therefore be worth adding. I hope that clears up the above and that I can count on you to support this small addition in a way that would have no underlying narrative in favor or against the VP Biden. P.S. it would definetly not include any of the cognitive decline language I used above since I have since had that explained to me as not having a professional diagnosis and therefore truly borderline material Bgrus22 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I would not support the addition you propose. While it is true Biden has made the odd verbal gaffe (many of which are related to his well documented stutter), their prominence owes much to concerted efforts by his political opponents to make the proverbial mountain out of a molehill. The "you ain't black" comment was grossly overinflated in the conservative media, but despite that it was still forgotten after 48 hours. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let’s add Trump Fans Manufacture Biden ‘Gaffe’ By Falsely Claiming He Said ‘I’m Joe Biden’s Husband’ soibangla (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally had never heard of this till now but if you think it was a newsworthy event go for it, add it to Donald Trump Jr.'s page while youre add it since its a shame he took advantage of the audio glitch. Bgrus22 (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

- I will comment that attempts to discuss Donald Trump's mental health have thus far failed to gain consensus for inclusion. I believe that was so due to a lack of diagnosis by professionals who have actually examined him, in spite of the many comments by professionals who have not personally examined him. The same may very well occur here for "cognitive decline".  starship .paint  (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadnt considered that, but youre 100% right with regards to those allegations and I can not in good conscious vote to add those allegations to either page, they do seem irresponsible and narrative driven. That being said, would the same apply to highlighting gaffes? If we include them as simply being an aspect of the campaign without mentioning "cognitive decline" it could be a simple sub point without any narrative tinge on mental disease. Thanks Starship, youre probably my favorite person on this talk page right now! :) Bgrus22 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - we do have a section on Talk:Joe Biden - is that not sufficient? What do you think is missing from there? I appreciate the sentiment, but I would caution you not to rush to judgment.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would update gaffes to include more recent examples if its separated thematically or include a portion in campaign if the page is set up temporally. Bgrus22 (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - it's up to you to prove that any individual gaffe has lasting significance. Or, if the gaffe is very recent, if it spawns several (let's say five) articles examining Biden's overall history of making gaffes, then that would be an indicator of significance.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is impossible, because it has no lasting significance at all. It's laughable that this is still being discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * and Ive already demonstrated above that just one of the gaffes has remained in the news cycle over a 2 week period. But here is a list if that will settle things. A NYT article from 3 weeks ago claiming that the Trump campaign wished to use the gaffes as a line of attack (1). A NYP article from 2 weeks ago with Steve Guest, RNC rapid response director, claiming that it is emblematic of different standards by the media (2). Seeing as this is tedious I'll be quicker with the rest. Back in may NBC used the you aint black gaffe as an example of why African American youth are hesitant to support the VP's campaign (3) and was joined by WaPo and CNN earlier that week (4&5). 2 weeks ago the Hill wrote about how the founder of BET criticized the VP's racially charged gaffe (6). And to give some room for safety USA today covered the VP Bidens relationship with Frican American youth yesterday, using his "you aint black" as an example of tension (7) while Kanye, an individual prominent as a cultural leader and posturing for a potential run, was described in a forbes article as using said gaffe as grounds for criticizing VP Biden on his race relations (8). This goes as far back as December of 2018 when CNN reported on VP Biden stating he is a gaffe machine (9). That should demonstrate that his gaffes been covered extensively over a wide period of time and deserve to be mentioned, not listed or used as criticism but acknowledged as still occurring and being commented on; something we should be able to say in a neutral manner. Bgrus22 (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody agrees with you on this. In fact your linked article up top does not even call it a gaffe. Time to move on.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gaffes are ALREADY COVERED. This one will ABSOLUTELY NOT have any effect on Biden's LIFE STORY, which this article covers. Time to let it go. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - your provided NYT source in fact indicates that (a) Biden has been making much fewer gaffes and (b) Biden's "ain't black" gaffe wasn't significant: Mr. Trump’s campaign took comfort in the expectation that Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s penchant for gaffes would at least offer them dependable fodder for attack. The pandemic, and Mr. Biden’s play-it-safe campaign, however, have starved them of even that ... Mr. Biden’s “ain’t black” gaffe, just days old, was out of the news. As for (1) the New York Post is a publication of questionable reality. For (2) to (8), your descriptions highlight that this gaffe was related to racial relations, instead of a history of making gaffes. It seems that if this is to be included, it should be in somewhere which discusses racial issues. (9) is irrelevant to this current gaffe.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to add a single specific gaffe we can discuss that. I would say that that one in particular has been prevalent in discussions surrounding race relations, but that cumulatively these articles indicated discussions both attacking and defending the Vice President. I am not trying to show we should criticize him, but that we should include that this is a talking point that has surrounded him. If a news source goes out of its way to talk about it, it must mean it was in the news long enough to draw attention. As for the New York Post article, it is relevant because it is citing a spokesperson for the RNC pointing to the gaffes, not because the news site itself is providing some material of worth. If you'd rather we could just reference tweets from celebrities and quotes from politicians, but as I understand it Wikipedia prefers but does not require secondary or tertiary sources. Overall it still sounds like we agree that there should be an addition somewhere and I am glad we can agree on that. By the way, I recently realized we spoke on the Antifa talk page a while ago where you explained to me a lot about wikipedia guidelines and ensuring neutrality, so glad to see you're doing well Starship! Bgrus22 (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - thanks for the good wishes. I'm not the one asking to add something, you are. Thus, it is up to you to first propose exactly what you want added and where it goes, while also, you should be substantiating why should we do it. If a spokesperson for the RNC points to the gaffe, is that necessarily meeting the standard to be featured in his personal article? I don't think so, honestly. I do think it meets the standard for the campaign article. Also note that this article, according to previous editors here, is too long. Now, of course we still can add things, but we must be careful. It's still a bit murky what you want added and where you want it to go. You have to be decisive, propose the exact text and location.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Still teaching me so much about this site :) I was honestly hoping for more of a communal solution because I know I am a biased individual and not as experienced of an editor. If I had to pick a section to add to I would place it before the sentence starting with "in June of 2020" inside of Campaign under the 2020 campaign. I would write something akin to "During Biden's campaign, the former Vice-President made several gaffes which were given attention by the media and his opponents. Most prominent of these was a statement Vice-President Biden made during an interview on The Breakfast Club radio show in May 2020 where he stated, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." He later apologized for his "cavalier" remarks but several figures ranging from Kanye West to the Founder of BET used this an example of racial insensitivity towards the African American vote." Im guessing this needs to be edited significantly but it would be in line with the additional articles I mentioned and the wiki page on his campaign. Bgrus22 (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - Regardless of your bias, you should be proposing something. I copyedited your text, below, which is not an endorsement. Now you'll need compile sources for two things. (1) To prove that there was indeed a pattern of significant gaffes during his campaign, instead of just one. (2) To prove that his "black" gaffe was very significant (the more sources coming some time after the gaffe, the better). Also, one other person other than West or Johnson would be great. Preferably not a Republican.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

During Biden's campaign, he made several gaffes which were given attention by the media and his opponents. Most prominent of these was a statement he made during an interview on The Breakfast Club radio show in May 2020 where he stated, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." He later apologized for his "cavalier" remarks, but several figures ranging from Kanye West to Robert L. Johnson, the co-founder of BET, used this an example of racial insensitivity towards African American voters.


 * thank you for the help, could I simply state that the above sources I gave are the ones I would use? Im not sure how to cite a source on the talk page if im being honest. As for a 3rd prominent non-republican figure apparently Briahna Joy Gray, former press sec for Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign, wrote an article on the topic alongside Nina Turner, another prominent Sanders supporter, spoke out on the topic as well. Bgrus22 (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Sanders supporters are the exact opposite of what I would want, because naturally, they would criticize Biden. If this incident were truly significant, there should be criticism from non-Republicans and non-Sanders people. could I simply state that the above sources I gave are the ones I would use - sure. It's just my opinion that to persuasively make your case, it would be better for you to go through the extra effort of re-compiling the sources. Would you really want everyone to go find the sources themselves above? You think that would be persuasive?  starship .paint  (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * as always you are right, I will compile them again. Also sanders supporters would be a fair source since sanders had dropped out of the presidential campaign for around a month before this interview so the comments they make would not be supporting any active campaigns but would just be indicative of criticisms from the left side of the aisle. These sources to show general media coverage of this particular gaffe as an example: NBC, WaPo, CNN, and USA today; of gaffes in general: CNN and NYT; and of specific people attacking him: Kanye, BET's Johnson, Nina Turner, and Joy Gray. Oh and the "cavalier remark" apology alongside African American republican Tim Scott in NPR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgrus22 (talk • contribs)
 * - that WaPo article is an opinion piece, replace it with a news article. That Nina source is Twitter, replace it with a reliable source which isn't an opinion piece. That CNN source is from 2018, it's not relevant, replace it. We already know Biden makes gaffes, this article was before he announced his 2020 campaign. Then go read [] and figure out how to write an RFC.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * some quick questions why would the direct example of the criticism not be better than say fox news or vox covering the criticism in the case of a tweet, that seems like a no-brainer isnt it? For instance we quote interviews with people, not a commentary on the interview. The campaign section reaches as far back as 2016 temporally and makes references to 2018 as well so an article from before 2020 should be fine when describing the campaign although I am starting to see that the community shares my feelings that 2 gaffe sections would be strange, this is why below I said a possible section might make more sense since it would not be bounded by time and would not need to be expanded much more than saying it happened in his senate career and it has happened in his presidential campaign. As for the WaPo article it is an opinion piece but it is written by Paul Waldman a writer with a credible background in the field no? If not I think I see how you would recommend rephrasing this addition as being about that specific comment rather than gaffes in general. Thank you for all of your tutelage! Bgrus22 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not significant in Biden's long life story. It is not valid article content. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 06:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * there is already a gaffe section for his senate history and this campaign and its developments have been much more prominent due to exposure to the media. Bgrus22 (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 07:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've now been trying desperately to get this non-notable event into this article for TWO WEEKS, despite virtually no support for the idea. Please read WP:PROPORTION for the reason why this content doesn't belong here, and please read WP:LISTEN for why you should stop arguing about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Two weeks in which the media has published nothing about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * and I would point out the Kanye west interview was within the week so that's not correct and the page already thinks gaffes in general are worth mentioning for his senate career, Im saying we should extend that to the present day. Bgrus22 (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren't going to win any arguments by using Kanye West as a source. Like Nina Turner, he is essentially a political opponent. That's like seeking an unbiased opinion on Kim Jong-un from Dennis Rodman. The "Gaffes" section speaks to how he acquired his reputation for gaffes, rather than seeking to document them. In essence, what you are trying to do is pull it out of the senate career section and make it into a top level section so that you can put individual instances of "gaffes" into it. Sorry, but that would make it ludicrously out of proportion to its biographical significance. Your continued inability to accept the obvious consensus against you is become disruptive and I'm reaching the point where I may seek administrator guidance on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Bgrus22 is within their rights to seek community-based consensus to trump local consensus. If their position is really so weak, then they stand little chance in succeeding, right?  starship .paint  (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RfCs are valid when the talk page shows there is a reaonable and intractable dispute with reasoned arguments on both sides. That's not what happened here. This is disruptive WP:TE and it should stop. I suggest no further replies here unless a new and convincing argument is raised by OP or anyone else. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An RfC is designed to break a deadlock when all other avenues have been exhausted. But here we have a single individual trying to make the same argument for over two weeks in the face of a largely unified opposition, not a deadlock, so an RfC would be inappropriate (and arguably disruptive). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if an RFC is inappropriate, there are still other venues like Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the face of universal opposition to a proposal, shopping the argument to other forums is not appropriate either. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So if I am understanding consensus thus far, the idea of gaffes in general would not be prominent enough because most of my sources deal with a particular gaffe/misspeak, so I would have to use more broad coverage like this source from NBC? I still feel like constraining gaffes to a particular time frame as the page currently does is not correct and I would make it a thematic section rather than a chronological subsection. As for the you aint black comment, I have demonstrated that it has a tendency to resurface since it was uttered, would that make it worth adding for the short term and then possibly deleting in the long term because notoriety does shift with time? Bgrus22 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It is not appropriate to add the "you ain't black" comment because of WP:WEIGHT, and the idea of having it in the article temporarily is a non-starter per WP:NOTNEWS. Biden gained something of a reputation for misspeaking during his Senate career, and that is why it is covered there, but the individual "gaffes" are not really notable and are certainly not biographically significant. This has now been explained to you multiple times in multiple ways. LET IT GO. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - it is my opinion that finding a second venue (or starting an RfC) should be always allowed, for any dispute regarding article content. Beyond that, it may be shopping, but I feel that there must always be at least one option for wider community input. I believe the noticeboards serve that exact purpose, to provide a second venue.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The standard forms of dispute resolution are in place for when there's a roughly equal number of editors on both "sides" of a debate and it becomes more or less deadlocked. If a single editor disagrees with a number of editors, that single editor should spend a reasonable amount of time convincing the other editors of their point of view before letting it go. We are WAY BEYOND "reasonable" and deep into "disruptive" now. When faced with overwhelming opposition, trying to take it to any other forum is basically forum shopping. I would discourage this type of behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2020
Please put "under Barack Obama" after "47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017" so we don't have to scratch our heads America&#39;s Next President (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The infobox says under 47th Vice President of the United States that he was president under Barack Obama. I think this change is redundant. Interstellarity (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles for deletion/Racial views of Joe Biden
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Racial views of Joe Biden. - MrX 🖋 00:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"ain't black" comment
I'm adding in the "ain't black" comment under the Donald Trump section, with a source to Politico. I understand that the inclusion of the comment may be seen as contentious, which is why I made this discussion page, but the comment got a lot of attention so I think it at least deserves a mention. If people oppose we can have a discussion to gain consensus. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This has been discussed, with strong consensus against inclusion. RedHotPear (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:AlessandroTiandelli333 Thanks for TALK, and I think this one was noted but not used.  It only got story-du-jour coverage for a couple days.  No persisting mention in press, no enduring impact to him.  If I google it I can find it, but it’s got a pretty low hit number just on May 22 & 23, then some on his apology and a teeny bit when some critic mentions it.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It hasn't received a lot of attention relative to overall news coverage of Joe Biden over the past 50 years. TFD (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the discussion led by my suggestion I demonstrated that it had sustained coverage actually but was told that the page is already considered too long and in need of shortening. I would say that its a relevant enough topic but the way you present it is key here. Also you must remember that your citations and diction choice will be key in describing this issue. Bgrus22 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for change to section about J. Biden's first Senate election victory.
It should be clear to all that the "Results of the 1972 U.S. Senate election in Delaware" image in the Early political career and family life (1966–1972) > 1972 U.S. Senate campaign section is a weak choice for an image for this article. There is no legend for the map to contextualize the colours of each county and the text in the 1972 U.S. Senate campaign provides enough of a description of the election. In any case, the link to see the breakdown of the election is one click away. I suggest this image be removed to make way for an image of the incumbent of that election, J. Caleb Boggs, whom Joseph Biden defeated. I am open to other suggestions.Ysfkdr (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the map isn't ideal, however, there is only one available image of Boggs and I'm not sure if it is from 1972. AN image of Biden campaigning would be perfect, but I don't know if one is available. ~ HAL  333  19:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Racial views
Following this edit, where do you think it is best to include racial views? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have racial views as such. Noteworthy gaffes go in the gaffes section and noteworthy legislative actions go in the appropriate political career section. - MrX 🖋 14:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Emir, it's a good thing that your edit was removed. The article you linked is about to be deleted for good reason, and your inclusion of "racial views" in the section header utterly misrepresents the content of this article's Policy section. There are 20 policy areas that are significant to Biden's life, and "racial views" imputed to some of the billions of words he's spoken in public in the standalone (soon to be deleted) article do not belong in the header or link.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly include in the section "Gaffes". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It is UNDUE.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's pretty rich that mentioning

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/joe-biden-shylocks-reaction-111053 or https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bidens-comments-ruffle-feathers/ or https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/biden-fdr-and-the-invention-of-television/ or https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/us/politics/joe-biden-poor-kids.html

is undue weight, but "He has been a strong speaker and debater and a frequent and effective guest on Sunday morning talk shows." is considered neutral, when articles like http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1895156,00.html were probably the most frequent kind of article about him for a decent portion of his entire career. It is telling where the biases of this community lie that the "ain't black" comment was referred toward as "fake outrage" and people are quick to dismiss people's concerns as disingenuous so easily. 2601:482:8000:C470:E805:A0E0:6ECC:E282 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't like that "strong speaker' sentence. It's taken from this source, which is Mark Halperin's opinion. That needs to be fixed. It doesn't get fixed by adding random gaffes though. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be in the main article, but I think all the relevant information included somewhere, regardless of whether it's in the main article or a sub-article. Gaffes are by their nature random. That doesn't lessen the importance of mentioning them, though. I think it's important when politicians casually use words like "Indian giver" or "from the Orient", to use fictitious examples that are much less egregious than anything Biden has said in order to abstract away from Biden specifically. This isn't about Biden or left and right. Wikipedia has a problem with pretending that every American politician is anything other than as stately as Obama, as evidenced by the controversy over including that President Reagan called Africans monkeys in a phone conversation with Nixon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#There_is_a_RfC_consensus_to_include_Reagan's_%22monkeys%22_remarks


 * There's also a problem where people are concerned with including X in a certain article, but we can't do this because it's not included in Y article, even though it should be included in both articles X and Y, so it becomes a convention that's a self-perpetuating mistake. People over there cite that the articles for Truman and Johnson do not have their slurs included, either. I think that this should all be handled uniformly by changing the standard for all four articles. Every time an article gets long enough, people start saying "undue weight" to try to keep out information about the subject, when there's always plenty of information that seems irrelevant filling up that space. I think there's undue weight toward his early life and career. Sentences like "He played varsity football as a defensive back.[20][24]" have undue weight compared to most of his gaffes that are linked, given his reputation for them. 2601:482:8000:C470:E805:A0E0:6ECC:E282 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden's racial views are not a defining characteristic of his life. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's subjective where the line is, and it isn't for us to determine. They're included in the article for Michael Richards, and he's not even a politician with power to influence the relative economic status of races through policy advocacy. Biden's individual political positions, as well as some facets of his early life, are not defining characteristics, but even minor points can form a picture of a greater whole. The media thought it was important enough to report on, and I think that should really be all that matters. I don't think that these comments are less important than an episode list for some TV show. Wikipedia doesn't mention it, but Joe Biden strongly opposed racial reparations, justifying that by saying it isn't fair to punish whites for what their ancestors did. Maybe his gaffes can be interpreted as reflecting underlying views which inform policies like that, or maybe they don't. For all of these politicians, why not include it all within Wikipedia generally and let readers decide what the defining characteristics are? 2601:482:8000:C470:E805:A0E0:6ECC:E282 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Michael Richards went on stage and yelled the n-word a bunch of times, impacting his career and resulting in significant news coverage. Joe Biden hasn't done anything like that. What an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument it is to invoke Michael Richards here. Biden's opposition to reparations is a valid political opinion to hold, not a gaffe. Your statement "even minor points can form a picture of a greater whole" makes it appear that you want to violate WP:SYNTH by creating a narrative that Biden is somehow anti-black. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I did no such thing. I'm sorry, I was confused as to whether the topic at hand encompassed whether Biden's racial views more generally are worth including or whether only the gaffes are worth including, because of the RfD at the top of this page. I was also not aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, and my false impression had been informed by people citing other presidents' articles in the Ronald Reagan discussion. Basically, it gave me the false impression that Wikipedia uses an analog of judicial precedent. The purpose behind the sentence regarding "minor points" was to criticize the criteria of "defining characteristic", when that cannot be said of much of this article's content individually. I think the idea of relative news media determining what has due weight and what doesn't, but not what gets included in Wikipedia at all, is a double standard. I only mean to state that if the news media reports on it, it should be notable enough to include. Unless you also believe the media intended to create the same narrative by reporting on it in the first place, I think such personal and uncivil attacks as to my intentions are unwarranted. I propose that we can include the gaffes that happened during his vice presidency into a section under "Vice presidency of Joe Biden", and that will make the weight more proportionate. 2601:482:8000:C470:E805:A0E0:6ECC:E282 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll edit it into "Vice presidency of Joe Biden" on August 2 or after, and then everyone can review the exact wording. 2601:482:8000:C470:E805:A0E0:6ECC:E282 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no support for such an edit. Nobody is agreeing with you. Under the circumstances, you can drop it or you can seek consensus here on the talk page. Please don't jump into the article against consensus. It's not a good idea.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, all I meant to do was propose a compromise involving a subarticle and I'd gotten WP:SILENCE on that, but I assumed it was because I didn't make the suggestion prominent enough, so I was making sure, and it worked. I'm dropping it. Don't be so quick to assume bad faith. 2601:482:8000:C470:E805:A0E0:6ECC:E282 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I assumed that you would drop it. So I guess I had you figured about right. Thanks for your ideas. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * and another one, about Blacks not being diverse, which of course should be mentioned yet won't because of the bias in this article. At a certain point one has to take a step back and admit that the article is not complete without any mention of the continuous racial gaffes made by Biden. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said above, while we have numerous stories about comments Biden made, we don't have any comprehensive sources about his "racial views." We can't put them together and implicitly or explicitly state what Biden's racial views are, because we need a reliable secondary source that does that. You must provide a source that says Biden makes "continuous racial gaffes." Don't accuse editors of bias because they don't want to say things that are not reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we’ll put that in there right after we add to the a Trump article the fact that he pronounces Yosemite “Yo! Semite!”, that he can pass a dementia test, that he says “Biden will hurt god”, that Trump’s Facebook account was penalized for posting Covid disinformation, same for Twitter, that he said that people dying by thousands “is what it is”, that the virus will “disappear one day, like a miracle”, that he threatened to postpone the election, that having the most cases of covid was a “badge of honor”, that he claimed to not know John Lewis because the recently deceased Civil Rights icon “did not come to his inauguration”, that “the manuals” (sic) told him “not to test (for Covid) too much”, that he wishes Ghislaine Maxwell well, and... the other couple dozen crazy things he’s said. And that’s just from the past week.
 * Yup, as soon as all that is taken care of we can think about adding whatever inane quote from Biden people managed to dredge up.  Volunteer Marek   06:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So we should delete the Racial views of Donald Trump article? Because Biden has been spewing these "gaffes" his whole career, from when he was in Delaware until now, and he's now a Presidential candidate and it's getting news coverage, so I really don't know why you don't think it's worthy of inclusion. To compare it to Trump's pronunciation of Yosemite, just goes to show why perhaps you might want to take a step back and think about how biased this article is and how we aren't covering all that we should be. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. Stupid Trump gaffes and stupid Biden gaffes are treated the same; we don't include them. Biden hasn't inspired any neo-Nazi rallies that I'm aware of. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and neither has Trump, which is SYNTH, and we don't do that in Wikipedia. I'm still not sure why you would continue to ignore his many years of elected political racial gaffes just to score bias points. Let's remember that Biden has been a politician for decades, not a businessman, etc. His racial gaffes should have been in the article, yet isn't because Wikipedia has an implicit bias. To argue otherwise is ignoring facts. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no.  Volunteer Marek   15:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not say SYNTH when the connection is duly and amply cited to RS. RS also say Trump's "gaffes" are backed up with his administration's actions. Was Trump's Inaugural Address a big long gaffe? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , just to score bias points reads to me like you projecting upon your insistence that Joe Biden's gaffes speak to some sort of "racial views'. I strive to prevent AP2 articles from having bias, and saying that Trump inspired the Charlottesville rally is clearly not SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , and yet his long list of racial statements, with RS and news coverage, is notably absent from this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The "long list" is actually news-of-the-moment, gaffe-like statements that are soon clarified or if warranted, retracted. In contrast, Donald Trump has 5 decades of racially-charged words and deeds that he doubles and triples down on when questioned. Biden has no such history. ValarianB (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what ValarianB said. There is no "narrative" that reliable sources have strung together from Biden's gaffes that approaches "racial views". Donald Trump's first mention in the NYT was in the 1970s regarding discriminatory housing policies towards blacks. Add that in with the Central Park Five, the Obama birther thing, and everything else, and we have reliable sources reporting a narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate that Biden's past stance on desegregation busing is covered in detail, while random gaffes that are walked back within 24 hours are not. Sir Joseph: not sure why you believe that refraining from imposing a "racial views" narrative on such gaffes represents bias. Indeed, it would be bias and synthesis if we did impose such a narrative because it goes far beyond what a fair reflection of reliable sources would allow. RedHotPear (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Democrats who oppose the 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Democrats who oppose the 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign. - MrX 🖋 23:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2020
In "...he met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed to secure the party's nomination." I would suggest adding "Democratic" under party just for extra clarification, as it is not mentioned anywhere in that paragraph and it's good form. CamSox (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thank you for pointing that out. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Updating with information related to Biden's DNC nomination?
Hi, wise editors, I am expecting the page be updated with information related to Biden's DNC nomination (to be confirmed tonight), but didn't see much, was it because such information are not notable enough to have a section / mention on this article?

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, maybe in relation to this topic, the fact that Biden has lost the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party previously should not be placed this high on the page. That is of course relevant information, but to give a clear, fast overview of the page, it should be put lower in his (political) biography. Frederik Glerup Christensen (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)