Misplaced Pages

Talk:Joe Biden: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:30, 27 May 2020 view source2a00:1370:812c:1186:a099:d654:40e7:4c1f (talk) Undid revision 959261524 by AzureCitizen (talk) I have an account. I am not going to use it and you know why. Anyway, IP editing should be encouraged. And you rule does not apply to ipv6 addresses as they change every 2 hours.Tag: Undo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:31, 11 January 2025 view source Purplebackpack89 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,911 edits →RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the lede 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GAR/link|22:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)|page=4|GARpage=1|status= }}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{American politics AE |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}}
{{American English}} {{American English}}
{{Article history|action1=GAN
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=B}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=high|listas=Biden, Joe}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=B|importance=High|subject=Person}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Mid|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Mid|listas=Biden, Joe|Cape-Cod=yes|Cape-Cod-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject College football|class=B|importance=bottom}}
}}
{{split to|from=Joe Biden|from_oldid=954085573|to=Vice presidency of Joe Biden|date=April 30, 2020|diff=954070556}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
{{Article history|action1=GAN
|action1date=03:48, 18 September 2008 |action1date=03:48, 18 September 2008
|action1link=Talk:Joe Biden/GA1 |action1link=Talk:Joe Biden/GA1
Line 31: Line 17:
|action3result=delisted |action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=952402643 |action3oldid=952402643
|action4=GAR
|action4date=20:53, 28 June 2020
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1
|action4result=delisted
|action4oldid=964882135
|action5=GAN
|action5date=07:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
|action5link=Talk:Joe Biden/GA4
|action5result=failed
|action5oldid=981625415
|itndate=23 August 2008
|itnlink=Special:Diff/233681908
|currentstatus=DGA |currentstatus=DGA

|topic=Social sciences |topic=Social sciences
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Biden, Joe|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|DE=yes|DE-importance=High|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=top |trump=yes |trump-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject College football|importance=bottom}}
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|importance=high}}
}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}}


{{Banner holder|text=Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size|collapsed=yes|1=
{{Banner holder|text='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|collapsed=yes|1=
{{All time pageviews|82}}
{{Annual report|], ], ], and ]}}
{{Top 25 report|May 31 2015|Jan 8 2017|Mar 1 2020|Aug 9 2020|Aug 16 2020|Aug 30 2020|Sep 13 2020|Sep 27 2020|until|Nov 15 2020|Jan 3 2021|Jan 17 2021|Jan 24 2021|Apr 9 2023|Jun 23 2024|until|Jul 7 2024|Jul 21 2024|Nov 3 2024}}
}} }}
{{Press | collapsed=yes {{Press | collapsed=yes
Line 62: Line 79:
| url5= https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/29/biden_vs_kavanaugh_how_the_metoo_numbers_stack_up_143065.html | url5= https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/29/biden_vs_kavanaugh_how_the_metoo_numbers_stack_up_143065.html
| org5= ] | org5= ]
| title6= Nobody should trust Misplaced Pages, says man who invented Misplaced Pages
| author6 = Mayank Aggarwal
| date6= July 16, 2021
| url6= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html
| org6= ]
| title7= Larry Sanger: ‘I wouldn’t trust Misplaced Pages — and I helped to invent it’
| author7 = Madeleine Spence
| date7= August 1, 2021
| url7= https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx
| org7= ]
| title8= Misplaced Pages 'War in Afghanistan' Article Describes It As a 'Taliban Victory'
| author8 = Jack Beresford
| date8= September 2, 2021
| url8= https://www.newsweek.com/wikipedia-war-afghanistan-article-describes-taliban-victory-1624465
| org8= ]
}}
{{Page views double}}
{{anchor|Section sizes}}{{Section sizes}}
}} }}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Social_Movements_and_Social_Media_(Fall_2016) | assignments = ] }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Joe Biden/Archive index |target=Talk:Joe Biden/Archive index
Line 69: Line 103:
|leading_zeros=0 |leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=14|dounreplied=yes}}
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> <!-- Metadata: see ] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 180K |maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 11 |counter = 19
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(21d)
|archive = Talk:Joe Biden/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Joe Biden/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
Line 83: Line 116:
__TOC__ __TOC__


== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
== RfC: Infobox picture ==
{{/Current consensus}}
{{closed rfc top|1=The consensus here is to keep the 2013 official portrait. ] (]) 15:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)}}
Considering a noticeable age difference between the current infobox picture and now, I think it might be time for an image change. I have a few proposals below. Thoughts?
(Originally started by ] but without RfC template. <u>At that time the lead image was his 2013 official portraint. </u>) ] (]) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 04:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)</small>

] ] ] --] (]) 01:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

] I've placed this fourth photo here after adding the RfC template. Other crops can be made from the larger original photo. ] (]) 18:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

: I would support changing it to the second image. <b style=background:#0800aa;padding:2px>&nbsp;]&nbsp;</b><b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> ]&nbsp;</b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px>&nbsp;]&nbsp;</b> 07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
:: I agree. However, over at ], editors opposed updating her 2009 picture until long after the 2016 election was over on the grounds that Secretary of State was the position for which she was most notable. It reminds me of official pictures of Kim Il Sung, which continued to show him as a young revolutionary until he finally died of old age. ] (]) 23:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
::: Hard to say, I don't know what's more significant, his current run or his Vice Presidency. At some point his Vice Presidency may become less important than his current run but I don't know when that would switch over or if it already has. ] (]) 05:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::: I would say that if he wins a few primaries, then a change is definitely needed. There may be a need to change before that, but I'm not familiar with picture-switching policies.] (]) 06:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::our current pic ~is~ five or six years old. surely someone has something more up-to-date from so famous a person. ] (]) 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

*I oppose any change. The official picture is the proper one to use for a former vice-president of the United States.--] (]) 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' He is the former VP and his official portrait is the proper one to use. What's next? Are we gonna replace Bush or Clinton's official presidential picture as they age? Plot twist, we all age but that doesn't mean we have to change a distinguished politicians official portrait to a more recent pic. By that logic should we change Jimmy Carter infobox image? --] (]) 05:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support 2nd one''' we have changed Bernie Sanders' "official" image. This is not a state department website, we don't need to use so-called "official images". We should use the more accurate (recent) one.--] (]) 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I would support changing it to the second image. ] (]) 21:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' second photograph as best depicting the subject. While VP is the highest office that he's held, I would argue that he is roughly equally notable for his senatorial career, his vice presidency, and his candidacy for president. - ]] 🖋 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
**{{u|MrX}}, do you know how to reopen this RfC? &nbsp;I added a new photo too. &nbsp;] (]) 16:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Kolya Butternut}} The RfC was never closed. - ]] 16:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose #2, Support #3''' His face now takes up way too much space in the infobox, it's kind of terrifying. — ] (]) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC).
*'''Support''' any of them, He is relevant now in the political realm and to oppose the change gives anybody ignorant of his current age a wrongful impression. There should be a picture of him when he served as Vice President somewhere in the article to associate with that time period. But arguing that it shouldn't be changed. because he was Vice President makes it sound like his relevancy now is moot. -- ] (]) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The third image. Also, he is at a healthier distance. This is a really trivial issue. The other two too obviously reveal his beautiful veneers. No sense in provoking an ageist debate on here. -Random person at the ] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Support''' Image 3. As his official portrait is unlikely to be reintroduced to the infobox, I would support the third image as his face does not take up much space there. ] (]) 20:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support 3''' It's the best picture; it demonstrates him in action. ~ ]] 22:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support updated photo'''. I don't think his VP photo should be used because he is famous at his current age and known now for running for president. I think if he loses and falls out of the spotlight it could go back to his VP photo because that's how he'll be remembered. Like after movie star dies we can go back to a younger photo from when they were most famous, like an obituary photo. That being said, I think the three choices aren't very good. I've found a better one (which is still less than ideal because he's facing to the right and not wearing a suit). Other crops can be made if it's too close. &nbsp;] (]) 02:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC) ]
::While my first choice is the fourth photo, my second choice is his official VP photo because the others are so poor. &nbsp;] (]) 02:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

{{Multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|total_width=400
|image1=Joe Biden official portrait crop.jpg
|image2=Joe Biden official portrait 2013.jpg
|footer=
}}
*'''Comment''' Why not use one of his offical portraits or . I mean he was the vice president for 8 years and most other articles on those who have held high political postions use the offical portraits. Regards ] ]
::This RfC is precisely discussing whether to change the lead image from his official photo as vice president to something more recent. When this RfC began the lead image was the official portrait from 2013. ] (]) 03:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
::We have an official portrait from when he was an officeholder. There is no need to resort to lower-quality images. This is not a difficult choice. ] (]) 14:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Note''' I have added his official portrait since there hasn't been an actual consensus in which "recent" photo would be best to replace the official portrait. Seeing that within this week there has been constant changing of the lead image I have placed the official portrait back on the infobox with a note saying that it should not be change until a '''final consensus on which picture would be best to replace it''' and hopefully it will stop the constant back and forth. --] (]) 09:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|TDKR Chicago 101}}, please revert. &nbsp;The consensus was clearly against the seven year old photo. I mistakenly reopened this RfC because I had thought an official close was necessary. &nbsp;Only one editor reverted the recent change. (Also, you did not use his official portrait, you used a crop.) This is a mostly dormant account has preferre&nbsp;] (]) 10:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support #4''' (File:Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg; presumably added by {{u|Kolya Butternut}}). Biden is now more notable as the presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee than as former VP, so the recent images are preferable to the "official" portraits. Of the three images offered by Cliffmore: in the first, he is looking down; in the second, the crop is too tight and his teeth are distractingly prominent; in the third, his face and eyes are in shadow. ] 14:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support '''. Where we have a fairly recent official portrait, that is prefereble. He is running for president and the candids, aside from lower visual quality, are inappropriate where the high quality professional alternative is avaliable. ]] 18:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::As I stated in my edit summary, consensus was already acheived against the official portrait. &nbsp;I opened this RfC back up with a new photo. &nbsp;] (]) 18:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::So you're claiming you opened it and then you closed it? Go to ]. Or leave well enough alone and drop it. ]] 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Please refrain from incivil personal comments. &nbsp;I did open reopen it, it's easy enough to see that it was at the time of my first edit to the RfC. &nbsp;I have not closed it. &nbsp;Please revert and discuss before escalating. &nbsp;] (]) 18:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Nobody is going to "escalate" - AN is where you can request closure by an uninvolved Admin. But if the 2019 RfC was indeed closed, you should have started a new one with new information or alternatives. Closed is closed, unless there's a valid closure review. I haven't been following this, I just saw that a good photo was replaced by the worst alternative of the whole lot, a close-up candid-looking crop that's out of character with the subject. ]] 19:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::: We've had consensus for two months against the 2013 photo. Affirmed by {{u|SharabSalam}}.. &nbsp;Please revert to the consensus until this reopened RfC is closed. ] (]) 20:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::: You characterized the fourth photo, in this version as the "worst alternative of the whole lot, a close-up candid-looking crop". &nbsp;This comes off as disingenuous. &nbsp;The other new photos are all candid crops (and you could edit them for a zoomed out crop). &nbsp;I feel like you may be personalizing past disagreements. &nbsp;Please don't escalate tensions. &nbsp;] (]) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
* I'd support the '''2013 VP photo''' as the photo. There is no need to change it. ] 18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''' - Yes it is from 2013 but I think it is best to use last official portrait. Similar to ]. ] (]) 18:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|PackMecEng}}, {{u|Corkythehornetfan}}, did SPECIFICO communicate something to you about this RfC? ] (]) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{re|Kolya Butternut}} Ummmm... no. It’s called I saw the change on my watchlist and came to see the discussion. I’ve never liked the idea of removing an official image, especially of a VP or POTUS or top government official. ] 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Kolya Butternut}} No, and I am just as confused as you that I would be agreeing with her. Right {{U|SPECIFICO}}? ] (]) 21:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

*'''Support #3''' - Since it is more recent, he looks to be making a speech, and his head doesn't take up the whole photo like the other two. ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''', which is the convention we normally apply to ''all'' politicians. -- ] (]) 16:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''', the argument he has aged between 2013 and 2020 is simply not true. He looks exactly the same. ] (]) 06:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''', which is the convention. More recent photos could be included in the body for more recent events. Cheers ] (]) 01:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''' - I don't see anything wrong with it. While one can argue that he looks different now, I honestly don't see that myself. ] (]) 03:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support changing to 2nd one''' - He's not in office currently so a current picture is appropriate. Showing an older "official" picture when he's running for a new office is misleading. ] (]) 02:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
::Its really not, Biden was in-office for 8 years as vice present and in-office for 36 years before that, its more misleading to attempt to portray Biden as an average "joe" when he's been politics for the majority of his life. ] (]) 09:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''' - as the current portrait seems to be from his time serving as vp, i believe that is the one we should use and continue to use if for example he loses the upcoming election. the images use in perpetuity would help to reflect the highest office he achieve during his career. that being said, if he is election in november, i believe we should change it once he officially becomes president. also don't think he's aged that much between the photos (at least in appearence, lol) ] (]) 03:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait'''. It's the best quality picture that we currently have of him. ] (]) 05:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''' per ] and ], and because it's a better photo than the others proposed here. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 15:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support official portrait''' per ] slightly over #2 of the original suggestions. While there is an age difference between the official portrait and now, only a few years of aging aren't enough to warrant a change when the alternatives are not as good. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support official portrait''' per above. --] (]) 20:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support contemporary portrait''' - He is currently running for president. Readers should see what he looks like now, not have to relive the "glory days" when he was VP. This was applied at ] and should be at ] also.--] (]) 23:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support official portrait''' The portrait we use of ] dates back to 2017, so if we change this one, I'm going to insist that we do the same for the other, and I will keep insisting until it gets done. ] (]) 23:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}

==GA Reassessment==
{{Talk:Joe Biden/GA3}}

==Community reassessment==

{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1}}

==Compromise proposal: May 10==
===The actual May 10 version===
<u> 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 .It was reverted without comment on the content. Please comment below</u> &nbsp;] (]) 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)</small>

{{tq2|In April 2019, former Biden staffer ] said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when Biden touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Riquelmy |first1=Alan |title=Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office |url=https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |accessdate=April 14, 2020 |work=The Union |date=April 3, 2019 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200401210312/https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |archivedate=April 1, 2020 |quote="He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck."}}</ref> In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of ] while on ] in 1993.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Halper |first1=Katie |title=Tara Reade Tells Her Story |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/tara-reade-tells-her-story |website=Current Affairs |accessdate=10 May 2020 |date=31 March 2020}}</ref> On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Phillps |first1=Amber |title=What we know about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |accessdate=10 May 2020 |work=Washington Post |date=5 May 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506153901/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |archivedate=6 May 2020}}</ref>
:
While ''The&nbsp;New York Times''&nbsp;was investigating the Reade allegation,&nbsp; no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found.&nbsp;<ref>{{Cite news|last=Lerer|first=Lisa|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html|title=Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden|date=2020-04-12|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-25|last2=Ember|first2=Sydney|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>}} &nbsp;] (]) 12:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}

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. &nbsp;] (]) 17:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

===Alternate version===
:I will simply edit it this new version:
:{{tq2|In April 2019, former Biden staffer ] said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when he touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Riquelmy |first1=Alan |title=Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office |url=https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |accessdate=April 14, 2020 |work=The Union |date=April 3, 2019 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200401210312/https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |archivedate=April 1, 2020 |quote="He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck."}}</ref> In March 2020, Reade clarified her story, accusing Biden of ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Halper |first1=Katie |title=Tara Reade Tells Her Story |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/tara-reade-tells-her-story |website=Current Affairs |accessdate=10 May 2020 |date=31 March 2020}}</ref> Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Phillps |first1=Amber |title=What we know about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |accessdate=10 May 2020 |work=Washington Post |date=5 May 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506153901/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |archivedate=6 May 2020}}</ref> While investigating the story, the ''New York Times''&nbsp;found no other sexual assault allegations, and no pattern of sexual misconduct.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Lerer|first=Lisa|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html|title=Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden|date=2020-04-12|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-25|last2=Ember|first2=Sydney|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>}}
{{sources-talk}}
:I still prefer the abbreviated version favored by SPECIFICO, but I can live with this is well. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages's voice. If you prefer something sourced, "" is available, so how about {{tq|In March 2020, Reade changed her story dramatically, accusing Biden...}} instead? -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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..." - Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] (]) 13:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Please don't tone-police me. &nbsp;''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. &nbsp;] (]) 13:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I ''literally'' copy/pasted your "My Proposed May 10 version" text and then edited it. -- ] (]) 13:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::That's pedantry. &nbsp;] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 14:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: You're missing my point. &nbsp;No need to continue. &nbsp;] (]) 14:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:To &nbsp;] - 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:
: <b>Your edited text</b> {{tq|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 <i>'after'</i> the NYT investigation <i>'more'</i> 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 ] WP article. ~Respectfully ] (]) 17:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:: That's missing the point of my edit. &nbsp;] (]) 17:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::What's the point it's missing? I also think the way it was reverted is much better. ] (]) 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. &nbsp;] (]) 18:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::It was to address the concerns in . &nbsp;This alternate version is taking my proposal out of context. &nbsp;We cannot discuss it if its purpose is ignored. &nbsp;Look at my edit summaries. &nbsp;] (]) 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::To ] - 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 BLPN. I suggest we get back to the intial question, namely, the poll on Scjessey's proposed text vs the current text. ]] 20:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: That text has not been stable. &nbsp;Additional text is not equivalent to deprication. &nbsp;] (]) 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. ]] 21:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

===Updating NYT reporting===
Since the original NYT investigation, more reporting has been done, and 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.
:{{tq|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.}} &nbsp;'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 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. ] (]) 19:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::'''Support''' per ]. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 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:
{{tq2|In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade ] in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation.}}
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'''. -- ] (]) 19:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:I completely agree ], just put that into the article with a reference, remove the rest of it and have done with it for the moment.] (]) 23:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Putting a new version in that clearly has no consensus and will get reverted will not be helpful. &nbsp;] (]) 23:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Kolya Butternut}} Except now it has the support of 6 editors (7, if you include {{u|SPECIFICO}}'s support in the original reset thread). That's quite the consensus already. -- ] (]) 12:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: That's not what consensus means. &nbsp;] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 13:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: This isn't a contest. &nbsp;Making a decision <u>about what to add</u> without discussing the concerns of others is not how you form consensus. &nbsp;] (]) 15:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 15:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
:::::::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. -- ] (]) 15:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:I do not support your proposal. &nbsp;You have been part of this edit war when you restored The Times quote which was never a consensus. &nbsp;Reducing the text to your proposal encourages edit warring to acheive the desired results of less text. &nbsp;I worked very hard at a compromise, but your suggested changes did not address the changes I was making to the existing text. &nbsp;We cannot address disagreements by introducing more disagreements. &nbsp;] (]) 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''. -- ] (]) 22:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::: What are you talking about? &nbsp;My proposal was an extremely modest change. &nbsp;] (]) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
'''* Support''' - the version posted by ] {{tq|"''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 <U>not</U> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, "<i>Ms. <b><u>Reade said she also told her brother</b></u>, who has confirmed parts of her account publicly <b><u>but who did not speak to The Times</i></b></u>" 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. ] (]) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
'''Support'''&nbsp;- {{u|Scjessey}}&nbsp;version - {{tq|'''"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 ] issues. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Scjessey version. Clear and to the point. ] (]) 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. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|SelfieCity}}, what about the other proposals? ] (]) 02:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{re|Kolya Butternut}} In my opinion ] 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. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 20:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' {{u|Scjessey}} version. Sometimes less is more. ] (]) 21:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Scjessey}} - 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. ]] 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:Done. -- ] (]) 21:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==

Should that article include Biden? It currently includes Kavanaugh and says that the accusations were not corroborated and denied. Biden's case is similar.—] (] ~ ]) 13:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
:No. And the cases are ''not'' similar. -- ] (]) 15:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::In both cases the Misplaced Pages articles describe them as being supported by some evidence, but not officially corroborated by investigations. They were denied by the people accused and mostly made known by one person (Reade and Blasey Ford), decades after the supposed event. The Biden accusation is not totally investigated yet. The Kavanaugh accusation has been investigated by the FBI and proof was not found, but it was suggested by the accuser that the administration was politically biased against it.—] (] ~ ]) 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Contrary to what Kavanaugh's lawyers claimed, there was NOT an "FBI investigation". -- ] (]) 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
* Yes, of course it should include Biden on the list. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::Ok, but why "of course"? It doesn't seem obvious to me, so perhaps you could explain your reasoning. ] (]) 22:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*No Biden should not be put on that list at the moment, as is said above the accusation has not been investigated totally yet. ] (]) 17:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
* No - The cases are not similar, at all. And, if Biden were listed, which one of Reade's stories would be included? First of all, Reade's story not only changes ''year-to-year'' but, as of May 2020, Reade's story has changed ''month-to-month''. Dr. Ford's story never, never changed. Second: Which one of Reade's stories would be included? <U>Reade's 2018 story</U> where Reade said she willingly resigned because of her unwavering "''I love Russia with all my heart''" and her disdain for America - or- her <u>March 2020 story</U> where she said resigned because she was 'forced to' after she filed a complaint against Biden -or- Reade's <U>May 2020 story</U> where she said she never mentioned Biden in any 1993 complaint, and never mentioned sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Third, which story about Biden would be included? <U>Reade's 2019 story</U> where Reade writes that her story about Biden "''is '''not''' a story about sexual misconduct''" - or - <U>Reade's 2020 story</U> where she drastically changes her 2019 story from "''is '''not''' a story about sexual misconduct''" to "''sexual assault''." Fourth, if Biden were listed, which month in 2020 would be included? <U>Reade's March 2020 story</U> where Reade said: <i>'I'll never forget Biden said would you like to go somewhere else'</i> -or- <U>Reade's May 2020 story</u> where Reade says <i>'I'll never forget he said I want to f%@k you.'</i> Reade has so many conflicting stories that is seems to me WP editors would have to figure which one of Reade's stories would be included before considering using any of Reade's stories about Biden. ] (]) 21:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
* No, because there is no parallel with Kavanaugh. With Kavanaugh, there were hearings in Congress to discuss his political appointment, and his accuser's story was considered plausible enough that Congress officially wanted her to testify. With Reade, there is just a private citizen making an unsupported claim and personally demanding that Biden drop out. ] (]) 22:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

:The discussion belongs in the list article not here. Note that there is no deadline on reporting information. We spent weeks discussing whether the allegations should be included in Biden's article when no legacy media had mentioned it and later when it had received one article in the ''New York Times''. We should stop playing ] and have patience. Arguments could be made for or against inclusion, but if we wait say a week we will be in a better situation to know. ] (]) 23:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
* I agree with The Four Deuces that this is outside the scope of the talk page, but I feel like this should be said, lest there be accusations of a double standard on Misplaced Pages: the lead of ] states {{tq|Politicians' sex crimes are not covered in this particular list, regardless of whether there has been a verdict yet}} so the ] is outside of the scope of the list regardless. I have ] removed Biden and Kavanaugh from the list accordingly. ] 09:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

== Can we change the archive period to 3 or 7 days? ==

Can we change the archive period to 3 or 7 days? --] (]) 21:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:I just changed it to 7 days. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::I think that was a mistake. Waaay too short. This talk page just lost a ''ton'' of semi active discussions. -- ] (]) 11:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yeah that went too far. I'm undoing that archive, and I set the archiving to 14 days, and increased the archive size from 80k to 180k. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

== Summarizing the split-off articles ==

It's been almost a month since ] and ] were split off from this article, yet none of the prose for those sections has been removed here. If no one wants to summarize those articles, we should just replace those sections with the leads from the respective sub-articles. If that isn't acceptable either, we should undo the splits. We can't just have duplicate content indefinitely. ] (]) 21:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Kaldari}}, you are right, but undoing the splits is not the way to go. We really need to start cutting from this article now. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::Cutting it down to the lede from each fork sounds like a good starting point. Once that's done, we can move in a bit more detail, if necessary. ] (]) 22:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

== New Burisma Recordings ==

There is new Burisma recordings coming out, I think it should be included because it is obviously important. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:Interesting, give it a couple days but might be something there. Here are some additional sources. ] (]) 03:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:A heavily edited tape where Biden says exactly what we've all been saying happened in the first place? You want to rush that in? Hunter Biden isn't mentioned. Surely Fox News had new talking points, but it has no weight. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 04:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::No one linked Fox? ] (]) 04:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Just me being snarky. I'm thinking the story here is foreign interference in the election. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 04:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Ohhh I'll snark you alright! ] (]) 04:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Muboshgu}}, our article says "Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired" we might need to revisit that. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Sir Joseph}}, our article says {{tq|"Beginning in 2019, Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired'' because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden.''"}} That statement is correct. It was dishonest of you to edit the quote deceptively. Just like the Ukrainian politician who released that audio of Biden and Poroshenko. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 05:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: You said "Just like the Ukrainian politician who released that audio of Biden and Poroshenko", what do you mean? What did the politician do?--] (]) 05:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::A Ukrainian politician, Andriy Derkach, ''leaked'' ''edited'' tapes of an audio call between then-Vice President Biden & then-Ukraine President Poroshenko . This same Ukraine politician, Derkach, has "registered criminal proceedings" with Ukraine's prosecutor general to investigate Biden & Poroshenko, which is what Trump is alleged to have 'been abusing his office & US taxpayer money to force Ukraine to do (investigate Biden) & was Impeached over. A subsequent Washington Post article says, "''Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office said Wednesday that it has opened an inquiry on counts of high treason and abuse of power or office based on Derkach’s allegation that the tapes point to Biden’s influence on Poroshenko.''" ] (]) 13:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::And Derkach met with Rudy Giuliani back in December. I wonder what they talked about. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, ] - you are correct. And I agree with your comment above "''the story here is foreign interference in the election.''" in May 2019 The New York Times reported on Giuliani's plans to go to Ukraine and wrote, "<i>Mr. Giuliani’s plans</i> <i>create the remarkable scene of a lawyer for the president of the United States pressing a foreign government to pursue investigations that Mr. Trump’s allies hope could help him in his re-election campaign</i>" - which is what Trump is Impeached for. Last December, after Giuliani met with Derkach, The Washington Post reported that Giuliani was meeting with people in Ukraine to push a story that Ukraine & VP Joe Biden, not Russia, interfered in 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton. ] (]) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::What should be added is this from Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaE9OZ89bnQ That totaly destroyes Biden. All recordings, so nice. ] (]) 17:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:The tape adds nothing to what is already in the article, that Biden held up a billion dollar loan guarantee until the prosecutor was fired. Putting it in adds nothing. ] (]) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::No, no. The prosecutor that rearrested Burisma LLC after its money was arrested by UK (remember, Cyprus offshore) and that oligarch was trying to remove arrest on Burisma assets in Ukraine but it failed because of Shokin. Lets tell all details, please. ] (]) 19:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:The sources seem to indicate that this ''may'' be something that we would briefly included in the article, if the recordings can be authenticated as being recording of Biden. I would like to see what content is proposed and what section it would go in to. - ]] 20:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Some quotes from Poroshenko-Biden calls ===

from here from Ukraine prosecutors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaE9OZ89bnQ (they talk mostly in Russian and English and a little bit of Ukrainian). About Privatbank and its nationalisation (time code 45:00). Biden: "This is getting very, very close. What I don’t want to have happen. I don’t want Trump to get into the position where he thinks he’s about to buy on to a policy, where the financial system is going to collapse, and he's gonna be looked to to pour more money into Ukraine. That’s how he’ll think about it before he gets sophisticated enough to know details." Oh, my!🤣🤣🤣 ] (]) 19:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:"Oh my"... what? You think this is a smoking gun? Sounds pretty standard. Keep discussion on the recordings in one place, at ] &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::Yes, sounds pretty standard for Biden. Anyway. We knew it for months now. ] (]) 19:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::TO ] - Your Youtube link is a news presser for Ukraine politician Andriy Derkach. I feel these tapes would be better within an article about 'foreign interference in US elections' and here's why I say that. The Washington Post report that the audio tapes Derkach leaked, "<I>shed relatively little new light on Biden’s actions in Ukraine, which were at the center of President Trump’s impeachment last year. They show that Biden, as he has previously said publicly, linked loan guarantees for Ukraine to the ouster of the country’s prosecutor general in 2015.</i> The Post describes Derkach as "<i>Derkach has past links to Russian intelligence. He attended the Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB in Moscow. His father served as a KGB officer for decades before becoming head of independent Ukraine’s intelligence service in the late 1990s. His father was fired from that post amid a scandal over a Ukrainian journalist who was kidnapped and murdered.</i>" Reliable sources are connecting Giuliani, Derkach, Russia, and Russian interference in US elections to help Donald Trump. ] (]) 21:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::::You do understand that back then when KGB existed Ukraine was part of Russia right? In USSR? Anyway, "relatively little new light" is mostly true, except for some details about Voice party and Biden controlling it (and controlling what it was before it became Voice) and some details about majorities at different periods. What it did though, it has proven "beyond reasonable doubt" <follow the blanks here>. Also, your whole argument about interference is, though open for discussion, is really strange as I am russian, you know. ] (]) 23:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Df is “Voice ”? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Voice_(Ukrainian_political_party) About why it is Soros' party you can read using this and google translate. Thanks god to Google tech. ] (]) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

== Where is the police report? ==

{{u|Drmies}} closed the 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 {{tq| "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?). '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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. {{u|Drmies}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::What lawsuit? ]] 02:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Petrarchan47}} What lawsuit?]] 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. ] (]) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I'm not hearing a response from {{ping|Petrarchan47}} 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 ]. 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. ]] 23:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

== Alleged digital rape of Tara Reade ==
Why doesn't this allegation have much more prominence in the wiki page on Biden? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There are a lot of reasons to doubt the allegations. The New York Times has reported that “”, which strongly indicates her claims of sexual assault are not reliable. ] (]) 18:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:Because POV-pushing contributors have arbitrarily chosen not to include the details of the investigation. Really it ought to be covered fairly; read the above discussions to identify the issue. Politics aside, it’s important and even what exists is threatened to be removed from the page. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 21:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|SelfieCity}}, stick to content, don't discuss other editors. ]. This page is too long as it is and needs to be trimmed. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::OK, fair enough, as I can see that my tone might have seemed harsh here. I meant it as written. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::::That's still a problem. We are not {{tq|POV-pushing contributors}} and we haven't {{tq|arbitrarily chosen not to include the details.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::I’m not referring to you specifically, but the fact that there exist POV-pushing contributors. Let’s take it to my talk page; really I didn’t mean it that way. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 21:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I’ve adjusted the wording, though, per what you’ve said. Better? <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 21:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::No. I would have preferred it if you struck it entirely. If you want to discuss adding something to the existing content, propose something. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Given that there is in fact a chance that Biden allegedly raped this girl (digital rape) and could possibly become the President, I believe that needs to be at the top of the wiki article. Women deserve to have that kind of importance in this day and age. Their stories matter. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::We are not here to ]. We follow the ] given by reliable sources, many of which are skeptical of this allegation. BTW, our current president has been accused of sexual misconduct by approximately 40 women, and it's not "at the top" of his article. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:I agree with SelfieCity's answer, and I don't see a problem with giving an honest answer to a direct question. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::The OP/IP should have read the talk page. - ]] 16:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::You agree with describing numerous editors as “POV pushing contributors” just because they disagree with someone? I’ll remember that next time you go trying to wag your finger at someone for giving “honest answers”.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

==RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header==
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=6ED72E1|bio}}

Should the header "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" be changed to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault"?--] (]) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

===Survey===
*'''Yes''' (as proposer)- the current heading is misleading as it downplays the sexual assualy allegation made by Tara Reade. The alleged act goes beyond just inappropriate physical contact.--] (]) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation'''. If in doubt, sacrifice conciseness for precision. The current version in unacceptable, so I would also support Rusf10's proposal. ] (]) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' The sexual assault allegation is not that significant overall because mainstream media has given it little credence. Misplaced Pages is not a ] that predicts what will become big news stories. Ethically that would be wrong, because it would mean that Misplaced Pages was pushing what editors found important, rather than what the body of reliable sources found important. ] (]) 03:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Moved to ]. ] 11:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Mentioning sexual assault in the heading of a section ''surely'' requires extraordinary proof, otherwise the subject of the article would suffer guilt by association. To me, that's a BLP violation. I really don't know why we are having this discussion yet again. It seems pointlessly distruptive. -- ] (]) 13:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::We have proof that the allegation exists; nothing in policy says we need more proof than that. &nbsp;There is no consensus for the current version, so we must continue to seek consensus. &nbsp;] (]) 16:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Kolya, you seem determined to make sure Joe Biden's article has "sexual assault" in a section heading, even though there is no proof a sexual assault occurred. ''Surely'' that is a BLP violation? -- ] (]) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::You haven't addressed my argument. ] (]) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' because that's what the sources call it. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 15:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' per all of the reasons laid out by the majority of editors who did not want "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" in the previous discussion. There should especially be no insinuation that there are multiple allegations of sexual assault; we must exercise caution on a BLP topic. And let me again echo the point first raised by SelfieCity: a link to the sexual assault allegation page already immediately follows the header, and thus this change seems neither necessary nor warranted. ] (]) 16:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' per the reasons given by ] and ].] (]) 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' #MeToo! ] (]) 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No (and this ↑ one is a ])''' - This is bad idea for so many reasons as I have stated in previous discussions. This relentless effort to add sexual assault to a heading in a biography that spans decades or a public servant's life and career is contrary to several Misplaced Pages's policies, not the least of which is ]. - ]] 02:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::I think all you said in the previous discussion was that "allegations" implies there was more than one sexual assault allegation, and you felt the current heading was appropriate to encompass all incidents. The first concern is addressed by using '''Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and allegation of sexual assault'''. Your ] argument has nothing to do with the heading. Reade's allegation is in the article, therefore the heading must reflect that. If you believe sticking fingers in a vagina is described as "inappropriate physical contact", you're going to have to provide sources. ] (]) 03:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No, that's not how headings work. - ]] 14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' There has only been one allegation of sexual assault, and it appears to be . Putting anything about sexual assault in the section heading violates ]. ] (]) 03:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::It's not up to us (or the New York Times) to decide whether the allegation is true. Reliable sources have reported it.--] (]) 04:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::It very much is up to reliable sources to guide us in knowing how much weight is due weight. Just because the NYT has an article on does not mean we have to edit ] to give it a section on allegations that it is flat, since the NYT article makes it clear flat Earth theories are not true. Likewise, just because the New York Times has articles on the allegations does not mean we need to imply the allegations are reliable or have a section header about them. The New York Times is a ], as is , and they show strong evidence placing doubt on the allegation, which makes putting the allegation in the header a ] violation.  ] (]) 05:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: Nothing about the specific sexual assault allegation matters except that it exists in the article, and the subheading must encompass that.  ] (]) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: Actually, how reliable the allegations are matter when determining whether to give them due weight. There are allegations that the Earth is flat, have talked about them, yet ] doesn’t have a section on “allegations the Earth is flat”—because the allegations are unreliable. Likewise, we shouldn’t have a big section header about the sex assault allegation (singluar, very singular indeed) because . ] (]) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' per previous discussion, accuracy and the need to maintain NPOV.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' - I agree with what ] & ] wrote. We should be careful not to violate BLP, "it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." ] (]) 12:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - As a reminder, section headings are meant to conform to the same rules as article titles. Per ] they should be ] and non judgmental. Words like "allegation" are meant to be avoided, except where the ''entire'' article (or in this case, section) is about a criminal allegation, which this is clearly '''not'''. On that basis, "allegation of sexual assault" (or a variation of same) would violate Misplaced Pages's ] policy, and hence ]. -- ] (]) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::The entire section is about accusations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation. The entire section is about those things collectively. Sexual assault is a criminal allegation. Tara Reade did file a police report, not that that would be necessary for it to be a criminal allegation. It doesn't matter that the statue of limitations is past. ] (]) 02:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::There is no "1993 sexual assault allegation," and there is no "criminal sexual assault" allegation because Reade never filed any such thing in 1993 or any other time. In fact, there isn't even a 2019 sexual assault allegation. There is an allegation that began in March 2020 alleging sexual assault where reliable sources report that Reade made zero mention of sexual assault, or Joe Biden, or criminal sexual assault in any filed complaint in 1993. So, as of right now, reliable sources have reported an allegation that, according to 5/23/2020 Washington Post , has many "''inconsistencies''" in it. Scjessey is correct as per ] headings should be ] and we should also be very careful not to violate WP:BLP. As a food-for-thought: since April 2017 reliable sources have reported that Donald Trump accuses President Obama of illegally wiretapping; and yet there is no heading that says, "allegations of criminal wiretapping" in Obama's wp page. The point is, just because reliable sources report an allegation of crime against a public figure, does not mean WP editors should violate WP:BLP, WP:NDESC, or WP:NPOV. ] (]) 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::"Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and allegation of sexual assault" then. The allegation is already in the article, so there is no new BLP issue created by adding "allegation of sexual assault" to the header. ] (]) 12:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)  
* '''Yes''' that's what the allegation of Tara is, it is an allegation of sexual assault.- ] (]) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' I appreciate the rationale for this suggestion and I'd generally agree, and at one point I ''did'' agree. However as the circumstances of this accusation have unfolded I've come to agree with editors MrX and TFD who both sum up very well why no changes should be made. ] (]) 12:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' and this seems to be a good idea why this wikipedia should take more time in editing current events, as haste to cover a current event leads to too much backtracking down the road. The "assault" portion of Reade's claim has been effectively debunked. ] (]) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' This was just settled after extensive discusssion. The proposed wording, and similar alternatives eagerly put forth, falsely imply that there has been more than the lone allegation of assault. ]] 14:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Note to closer: Betsy Madison is an SPA and last I checked, has only edited this topic. The RfC question is whether we should actually say what is in the section. Yes, of course. The section includes {{tq|In March 2020, Tara Reade, who had formerly accused Biden of inappropriate physical contact, accused Biden of sexual assault}}. The section heading is about allegations, not the result of any investigations finding any party guilty. There has been no formal investigation although Reade has offered to testify under oath and to undergo cross examination, as well as take a lie detector test if Biden does also. For now all we have is media doing a one-sided "investigation" about things that have nothing to do with 1993. Realize that when her lawyer quit representing her, he added that he does believe her allegation to be true. {{tq|While not providing a reason for leaving, Mr. Wigdor said his decision was “by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” adding that he was among the 55 percent of Americans who believe her, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll.}} Whether he actually committed the crime or not, the section we are naming is about allegations, that's it. An allegation is not a "judgement". Biden was accused of sexual assault, that is a verifiable fact. WE ARE NOT SAYING HE IS GUILTY, or that she is not an insane fabulist whose been telling a version of the same untrue story for decades and got a bunch of people to lie for her. We do not know this yet, and it is not in our purview as editors to evaluate. But it wouldn't change the ''fact that the allegation was made'', new facts from an independent investigation would simply be added to the article(s), they wouldn't change the fact that the allegation was made. Avoiding use of the term "sexual assault" in the header only diminishes our reliability as a neutral source. It looks like we're trying to whitewash. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{yo|Petrarchan47}}That was well said, the header is supposed to actually represent what is in the section which is a sexual assault allegation. We are not making a judgement on whether Biden did it or not. Also I attempted to tag Betsy Madison as an SPA but was reverted three times. First by ] and then twice by ] who also heavily edits Joe Biden articles. If we're going to tag SPAs here (which someone already has) then all SPAs should be tagged, not just ones we disagree with. --] (]) 04:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Actually it was at this talk page where I learned SPAs are tagged as a rule. I found it strange to see that is ''always'' the case with one exception, and was surprised when my pointing out their SPA history was seen as rude. I thought I was following protocol. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 05:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, I reverted your wrongful tagging, gladly. The user you seem intent on harassing may have a focus on this topic area it seems, but they also have over 300 edits in a month's time. Per the description at the template's page, you were misusing it. It would be in your best interests, I'd say, to focus on the arguments being made and stop trying to score points by Scarlet-Lettering your wiki-opponents. ] (]) 00:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::No, you are completely clueless as to what an ] is. 258 of that user's 359 edits were to pages with Joe Biden in the title. That's unquestionably an SPA which by the way still doesn't prove that they did anything wrong, but they should be tagged as such so that the closer takes it into consideration when accessing consensus. The proper thing to do is to tag all SPAs regardless of whether they agree with you or not. Since an SPA that agrees with me is already tagged, it is only appropriate. To be clear I want all SPAs tagged in this discussion, whether they agree with me or not. And falsely accusing me of harassment is itself harassment (see:]) so I suggest that you stop.--] (]) 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::I am quite aware of what the acronym means, your condescension is unnecessary. Anyway, per ], "Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead." So, why don't you give that a go, Rufs; speak to the user, don't attack. ] (]) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::To ] & ] - For the record, I am not an "SPA." & Petra's statement about me is disingenuous & misleading. On May 26 Petra wrote, "Betsy Maddison is an SPA and last I checked, has only edited this topic." That is false & misleading and the facts show that when Petra wrote that, I had '''<u>not</u>''' "only edited this topic." As of May 26, I'd been a volunteer at WP for 32 days. In those 32 days I rarely do any actual "editing" but rather I primarily discuss "current events" on talk pages. If me discussing current events classifies me, <i>in your mind</i>, as SPA, then; nothing I can do about that.
::::::As to Rusf10's comment inferring that the <i>number of contributions to article topics</i> classifies a person as a "SPA," then, ironically Petra is an SPA too. Since April 24, the number of contributions I've made: 250 ('''<u>not</u>''' 258) current event articles that mention Biden, out of 357 total contributions. That means 70% of my volunteer time is to current events with "Biden" in the title. During the same period, April 24-May 26, Petra has devoted '''<u>79%</u>''' of her comments toward Biden stories (with 161 comments about Biden out of 204 total comments). So, under Rusf10's theory: Petra is an SPA too.
::::::I feel that if anyone actually takes the time to read ] will clearly see that I am not an SPA in any way, shape, or form. My contributions to WP have been thoughtful, honest, and solely focusing on relaying facts for the WP reader. My contributions show I have no conflict of interest, I am clearly not a sock puppet, and I do not advocate for anything other that truth & facts. I do my best to follow all WP guidelines and I am volunteering my time here just like all other WP editors, and so far, I choose to volunteer my time discussing current events. And until I choose otherwise, that is what I will continue to do in my spare time here, no matter what label anyone tries to on pin me for whatever reason ''they'' may have. ] (]) 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I absolutely agree. BetsyRMadison's account does not have the typical characteristics associated with an SPA. I see no evidence ''whatsoever'' that this editor exhibits {{tq|"a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: ]; reasonably free of ]; aware of ]; not having ]; and aimed at ],"}} as described at ]. Therefore, tagging BetsyRMadison's account as an SPA is inappropriate. In fact, I would argue that in this case the act is designed to unduly influence a potential closer of this discussion, which is WORSE than being a niche editor. -- ] (]) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Yes''' - I thought this was already settled in a prior RFC?<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:07, May 26, 2020 (UTC)</small>
*'''Yes''' per my reasoning when . I am not sure why that discussion was allowed to automatically archive without being closed. ] (]) 20:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


== Biden believes he could have won re-election ==
===Discussion===
*I am starting a formal RFC because even though the seemed to come to a consensus, at least two editors don't accept it. A formal RFC will solve that problem. I am pinging all participation in that discussion: {{yo|Levivich |Scjessey|PackMecEng|CoffeeWithMarkets|Muboshgu|Kolya Butternut|UserDude|RedHotPear|Hrodvarsson|SelfieCity|Atsme|Petrarchan47|SPECIFICO|SharabSalam}} <small>Note:For transparency, I am disclosing that I intentionally did not ping MrX as per his that I not do so.</small>--] (]) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


In December 2024, as was widely reported, Biden told aides he regretted his decision to withdraw from the race; believing he would have won the election as his party's nominee.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Massie |first=Graeme |date=December 29, 2024 |title=Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 race and believes he could have beaten Trump, says report |newspaper=] |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-trump-us-elections-2024-merrick-garland-b2671126.html |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Pager |first=Tyler |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Joe Biden’s lonely battle to sell his vision of American democracy |newspaper=] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/28/bidens-lonely-battle-to-sell-american-democracy/ |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Tait |first=Robert |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he’d have defeated Trump |newspaper=] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/28/joe-biden-regrets-dropping-out-re-election |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Calder |first=Rich |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden regrets leaving presidential race, thinks he could’ve beaten Trump: report |newspaper=] |url=https://nypost.com/2024/12/28/us-news/biden-regrets-leaving-presidential-race-thinks-he-would-beat-trump/ |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Stimson |first=Brie |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 presidential race, believes he could have beaten Trump: report |publisher=] |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-still-regrets-dropping-out-2024-presidential-race-believes-he-could-have-beaten-trump-report |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref>
We just got done with this crap. This is just disruptive and ]. See also ].<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{Yo|Volunteer Marek}}I thought we were done too, but even though the <s>majority</S> plurality of people went with #3 in the last discussion, it has not been accepted. So I encourage you to contribute to this discussion so we can get it right this time, rather than make snarky comments.--] (]) 03:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::I do not see how anyone reads "majority," let alone "consensus," from the discussion you linked. There are also many strong concerns about precision and BLP that editors have raised there. And as Selfie City noted, there is a link to the sexual assault allegation page immediately after the heading. Not sure why this is the hill you choose to die on. ] (]) 03:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:::There is no consensus for the current version, so this discussion should continue. ] (]) 03:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Its longstanding existence in the article is evidence of consensus. Consensus can change, but so far that hasn't happened. - ]] 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::That's a bad faith argument. First of all, the headers "long-standing existence" means nothing because there was a new allegation made recently, which had been added to the section. Since then, the "long-standing existence" is due to you and others reverting every change to it. This is at least the third talk page thread about this section header, and each time shows no consensus for the existing header. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 16:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::No, it's an argument based on how Misplaced Pages works. I've made arguments previously about why we should not highlight this sexual assault allegation in a heading, when the existing heading already encompasses the concept. As Volunteer Marek correctly points out, "we just got done with this crap." This is just a ], which you appear to admit by acknowledging that this is "at least the third talk page thread about this section header." - ]] 02:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::The first discussion was like 8-3 in favor of this heading, but you reverted my change, now you're saying that discussion following your revert is a "rehash". This is why I say you're not acting in good faith. You won't accept the consensus of the first discussion, you revert the change, then you won't accept any further discussion. This is no way to reach consensus on an article. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 02:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I dispute that there was like 8-3 support in favor of this awful heading, let alone consensus. - ]] 02:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::I listed the 8 and 3 editors when I implemented the change. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 02:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I was not even aware of the first discussion. Let's see what those people have to say too {{yo|SharabSalam|Cbs527|Guy Macon|MelanieN|Samboy|BeŻet}}--] (]) 16:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I unwatched this page because I was unwilling to be fight over such a clear case of whitewashing in an attempt to get Biden elected. There was a recent allegation of sexual assault as well as the older allegations of inappropriate physical contact. The section heading should reflect this instead of pretending that only the earlier allegations exist. We had extensive discussion about what to call this at ] and ] That's all I have to say, and I am once again unwatching this page. I hope that I don't get pinged about this again. --] (]) 20:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Exactly, the status quo never had consensus, so enforcing a version that only three people supported in the last discussion is not acceptable. I created the RFC to get more participation.--] (]) 03:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Per your insistence on this RfC, I have added my comment. I did notice that you changed your claim from "majority" to "plurality," but I have to note that "plurality" is not true either. ] (]) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yes, it is a plurality, 6 people wanted this change as either their first or second choice, only 3 wanted to keep things the way it was, that's twice as many people!--] (]) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I still cannot conceive how you are (mis)counting here. ] (]) 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::This is my last comment regarding your evolving characterizations of the previous discussion. Whether your current flavor is "consensus," "majority," or "plurality," your description is disputed and is not an accurate reflection of that discussion. ] (]) 17:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Then please enlighten me, what method of counting do you use? I really would like to know.--] (]) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::To ] - I cannot speak for ], but when I count the votes on the discussion you linked to (above), a plurality of people did not go with #3, but rather, a plurality of people voting went with option #1. The vote tally, using the ] for the option with the most first-preference votes from those who voted are: 4 votes for option #1, 3 votes for option #2, <s>3 votes for option #3</s>, 2 votes for option #3, and 3 votes for option #4. I should note here that in that discussion, ] did not vote, so the vote tally does not include any vote from SPECIFICO. In the "Plurality Method" of determining the winner, the choice with the most first-preference votes is declared the winner. ] (]) 13:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Since there is not clear majority, you cannot just ignore people's second votes. A consensus should be what is acceptable to the greatest number of people and 6 people found #3 to be acceptable.--] (]) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::To ] - You are not correct. It's not our jobs as WP editors to reinvent how "Plurality Method" is used to determine a winner. In mathematics, "Plurality Method" of determining the winner, the choice with the most first-preference votes is declared the winner (not second, third or fourth preference, but first-preference). Since, Option #1 got the most votes for first-preference; option #1 is the winner. That means, options #1 is the most favored option for first-preference. And, since only 2 people voted for option #3 as their first-preference, option #3 the absolute least favored option, not most favored. ] (]) 17:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::Gaining a consensus in wikipedia is not the same thing as voting in an election. People's comments and willingness to compromise must be considered. If someone has a second choice vote, that's a compromise. see ]--] (]) 20:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::To ] - No worries. I was just answering your question above when you asked RedHotPear why the vote in the other discussion is ''not'' a plurality for option #3 but, instead, the plurality of voters picked option #1. So, if it's the plurality you were looking for, then option #1 won that vote. As for this current vote count (in the survey above), it still looks like option #1 is the winner with 8 votes to keep "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and 3 votes for including additional language. ] (]) 01:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*I will again propose what I <s>(and SharabSalam)</s> proposed in the ]: a level-four heading "Sexual assault allegation" covering Tara Reade's allegation within the level-three heading "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact". If this were the case, a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> template could be used under the level-four heading as opposed to the current <nowiki>{{see also}}</nowiki> template. ] 08:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC); edited 08:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:: But that would still be inappropriately categorizing assault allegations as merely inappropriate contact. &nbsp;No sources do this. &nbsp;] (]) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Assault is technically inappropriate contact. I acknowledge the concern that it may be viewed as euphemistic, but I do not think that it is realistic for a reader to be deceived by "inappropriate contact" if there's a level-four header with the words ''Sexual assault'' and a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> wikilink to ] shortly below the level-three header. ] 10:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: You must provide an RS which categorizes sexual assault as inappropriate physical contact.  It's WP:OR for us to decide to categorize it that way when no RS do.  Strangling someone is"inappropriate physical contact too".  We must use the words the sources use.  The wikilink is irrelevant; it has no impact on heading policy.  ] (]) 13:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: I'm saying sexual assault is "inappropriate physical contact" in the same sense that you said strangling is inappropriate physical contact; based purely on the definition "inappropriate" and " contact". It's inappropriate and it's physical contact. The issue at hand is if "inappropriate physical contact" is euphemistic, and I believe that as long as clarification is quickly provided (in the form of a level-four header, for example) readers will not be mislead. (Compare, for example, ], wherein a rape allegation and sexual assault allegation are lumped together under "sexual misconduct", but clarified in the lede.) ] 23:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*{{Anchor|Re The Four Deuces}}Re ]: Even if, arguendo, all reliable sources decided Reade's allegation is untrue, is it not still as notable as the allegations of inappropriate physical contact based on the sheer level of coverage it's received? ] 08:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:*No it has received relatively little coverage in mainstream media compared with coverage overall and that is the complaint voiced in alternative media. In fact it took them a full month to mention the case at all after it had become featured in alternative media. Some editors however have confirmation bias. They will pay more attention to negative stories than positive or neutral ones or vice versa. Also, if you want to argue it is better to use the discussion section below. ] (]) 23:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::*What exactly would meet your criteria of significant mainstream coverage? A rough search shows (currently): , , , . I just took a sample of mainstream RS that had quote search functionality, so I'm confident that these results are representative of most English-language US-based mainstream RS. Sure, mainstream RS were slow in reporting the accusation, but they have certainly given it significant coverage by now. ] 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC); ce 10:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
{{u|Muboshgu}}, would you add this RfC to Biographies?  I'm not sure how to do that now that it's underway.  ] (]) 12:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::*USA Today ran over 5,000 articles about Biden in the same approx. 6 wk period and of course ran nothing about Tara Reade before. It is difficult to determine what events have lasting significance when they occur. Trump's Access Hollywood tape is perhaps an exception, but it got wall to wall coverage and threatened his nomination and was thought to have ruined his election chances. If there are no consequences to Reade's complaint, then it will always be a trivial detail. If it threatens Biden's nomination or election, then it will be significant. We have to wait and see. No one btw talk's about "Jennifer with a J" which came up during Bush's 1992 run. But it got mentioned at the time. ] (]) 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:It appears to have been done. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Muboshgu}}, it's not listed at ]. ] (]) 02:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


This information is confirmed by multiple ] and is obviously relevant to his notability as a politician. ] (]) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Wikilink "47th" in lead? ==
:But is it actually relevant, (assuming its true). ] (]) 15:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


:"Anonymous Sources Said" is a red flag for ] articles. We're not a tabloid. ] (]) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
About a month ago, I wikilinked 47th in the lead to ] (]). At some point since then, someone reverted this edit. I am taking this to the talk page per BRD.
{{ref-talk}}


== Oldest living President of the United States box??? ==
I wikilinked "47th" for consistency with ], where there is a weak consensus to keep the wikilink in the lead, but not in the infobox (]). Regarding consistency, the ordinal number that the subject held office is currently wikilinked to the list of officeholders in ] and ], but not ], ], or ].


Aren't we pushing it too much, with trivia? Do we really need an Oldest living President of the United States succession box??? ] (]) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Should 47th be wikilinked? ] 08:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


No objections? I've deleted it. ] (]) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Racially Insensitive Comments ==


== RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the lede ==
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), . ] (]) 07:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


<!-- ] 14:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739628070}}
* <small><small> {{u|Mr Ernie}}, you might want to sign your comment. ] (]) 07:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC) </small></small>
{{rfc|bio|pol|hist|rfcid=8E993C6}}
:No. ]. By tomorrow if not already people will forget about this and move on to the next fake outrage.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The current single sentence on Gaza in the lede is as follows: {{green|During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent military aid to Israel, as well as humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.}} The sentence is regularly modified, including the word "limited" which keeps being added/removed in front of "humanitarian aid". I started ] on this topic a while ago; it didn't get a lot of input and didn't lead to a consensus. I thought this RfC could generate a larger discussion and settle a few related questions at once:
::CornPop was a bad dude.  ] (]) 13:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
* Should the "military aid" and "humanitarian aid" be mentioned side by side as is?
:::Oh gzz I forgot about CornPop! ] (]) 15:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
* Should we mention that the amount of military aid sent to Israel is ?
::::How could you forget! ] (]) 22:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
* Next to the mention of military aid, should there be a mention of allegations of war crimes against Israel?
:'''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 on live TV. In stark contrast, the man Trump described as "" is now so disgusted with his behavior he has . -- ] (]) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''No.''' - I agree with Scjessey on this. ] (]) 14:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Feel free to expand the discussion to other questions. My hope is that we can workshop a sentence that has a consensus behind it. Thanks! ] (]) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Remove sentence outright:''' I'm not entirely convinced that Gaza bears mentioning in the lede at all. The lede should probably only contain a single paragraph on Biden's entire presidency; is a war between two other countries one of the 7 or 8 most important things in Biden's entire presidency? <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' - The comment wasn't racially insensitive. It was typical Biden bluntness. It certainly isn't worthy of including in this biography. - ]] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''No.''' Isn't there already a section on his tendency for gaffes? ] (]) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
**Is that an argument for inclusion in that section? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages articles that are already large. ] (]) 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 ] his mouth utters. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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 ]. In light of Biden's many race-related comments it may be appropriate to have an article such as ] or ]. ] (]) 16:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Wow, no to creating either of those articles. We don't need to be making ]S. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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. ] (]) 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. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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 ], while a separate article on Biden and race could include discussion of those claims. ] (]) 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
***:Give the old misleading talking points a rest. What happens with Trump is not relevant here. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, starting this article, not a content fork. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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. ] (]) 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. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
***:::::Again, what does any of those talking points have to do with this article besides ]? At this point you would be hard pressed to explain why this section should not be hatted as off topic and forum. ] (]) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
***::::::Since we have a ] page, I'm demonstrating how there is zero need for a Joe Biden version. Very much on topic. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
***:::::::Ha, do you really think a ] is something likely to happen? Of course not, so stay on topic. ] (]) 02:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
***:::{{u|Muboshgu}}, ] <sup>]</sup> 01:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
***:::: ] <sup>]</sup> 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. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
***::::::{{u|Muboshgu}}, "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. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
***:::::::"Racial views" haven't been covered anywhere. Legislation that affects race has been. Those are two different things. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
***::::::::{{u|Muboshgu}}, this is from January. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
***:::::::::And what do you think this Huff Po piece is telling us, exactly? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''- this is not just a one time thing. He has a history of making comments like this. --] (]) 17:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' Per ]. ] (]) 20:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - his comment was racially insensitive, and I agree that he has a of making racially insensitive comments. Calling it a "gaffe" does not make it not a racially insensitive comment. ] (]) 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," We all know this would be in a Trump article within minutes, let's not give those who say Misplaced Pages 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." ] <sup>]</sup> 01:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::To ] - 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. ] (]) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::Guardian opinion pieces are generally not worth the paper they're not printed on. ]] 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? ] (]) 13:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' This falls under undue, sensationalized news. ] (]) 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.) ] (]) 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 and some in the media. Oh, and he used ] for the comparison: {{xt|Having said that, I think that many (not all) cases of apparent political bias in Misplaced Pages are better understood against the backdrop of ]. That is to say, the media outlet above made a direct comparison between our articles on ] and ].}} ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Adding RS: , - politiciansplainin, , . Hopefully the closer will take the necessary time to weigh the reasons carefully. Numbers don't count - valid reasons do. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 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, ] on the comparison of Biden and Kavanaugh. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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: {{xt|"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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 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 ]? I acknowledge that section may be too short. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::I said the gaffe section is too short, how is that {{tq|POV resistance}}? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:20, 26 May 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,
::{{tq|...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.}}
::{{tq|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.
:As Rumi said, "Your criticism polishes my mirror". With the idea in mind that a project wherein all criticism is ignored or rejected is one soon to fail, here is ex co-founder Larry Sanger stating the obvious:
::{{tq|Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger penned a blog post last week declaring that the site is “badly biased,” “no longer has an effective neutrality policy” and clearly favors lefty politics.}}
::{{tq|Sanger – who is no longer with involved with Misplaced Pages – wrote that it has long forgotten its original policy of aiming to present information from a neutral point of view, and nowadays the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia “can be counted on” to cover politics with a liberal point of view.}}
: '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No idea what Sanger has to do with any of this.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:22, 26 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. ] (]) 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.]] 14:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No'''. I don't like the attitude that Misplaced Pages 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 ]). ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] was ''specifically'' written to handle exactly this kind of situation. -- ] (]) 16:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
'''Yes''' The fact that some are continuing to discourage my IP editing is the fact enough to show bias of those people. Again, nothing will change the fact that Poroshenko is being prosecuted for high treason by Ukraine since 19 May and this is because of what Biden did; and nothing will change the fact that what Biden said was if not racist (no black people in Russia, sorry), then very dumb, the fact that only 8% of black people vote for Trump and not Clinton in the last election is not true now. We all know it. Also, IMHO all those wikipedia rules you mentioned above are not applied here as "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)" from above. But I just use Youtube search. ] (]) 22:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:31, 11 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Joe Biden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Joe Biden at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) Person(s).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCollege football Bottom‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
BottomThis article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScience Policy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBarack Obama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

    Warning: active arbitration remedies

    The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

    • You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

    Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

    Further information
    Enforcement procedures:
    • Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
    • Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

    The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

    If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
              Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size
              Top 50 Report and Top 25 Report annual lists
    This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 82 million views since December 2007.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 24 times. The weeks in which this happened:
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
    Section sizes
    Section size for Joe Biden (63 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count    		 Section
    total
    (Top) 9,680 9,680
    Early life (1942–1965) 9,050 9,050
    Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973) 10,450 27,033
    1972 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware 1,826 1,826
    Death of wife and daughter 3,802 3,802
    Second marriage 8,351 8,351
    Teaching 2,604 2,604
    U.S. Senate (1973–2009) 74 39,472
    Senate activities 19,293 19,293
    Brain surgeries 2,434 2,434
    Senate Judiciary Committee 6,590 6,590
    Senate Foreign Relations Committee 5,856 11,081
    Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 5,225 5,225
    1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns 44 16,364
    1988 campaign 10,829 10,829
    2008 campaign 5,491 5,491
    2008 and 2012 vice presidential campaigns 49 27,951
    2008 campaign 12,032 12,032
    2012 campaign 15,870 15,870
    Vice presidency (2009–2017) 77 38,362
    First term (2009–2013) 23,882 23,882
    Second term (2013–2017) 10,003 14,403
    Role in the 2016 presidential campaign 4,400 4,400
    Post-vice presidency (2017–2021) 6,681 6,681
    2020 presidential campaign 78 31,894
    Speculation and announcement 3,490 3,490
    Campaign 22,406 22,406
    Presidential transition 5,920 5,920
    Presidency (2021–present) 133 197,903
    Inauguration 6,205 6,205
    First 100 days 13,050 13,050
    Domestic policy 9,091 75,440
    Economy 19,261 19,261
    Judiciary 5,670 5,670
    Infrastructure and climate 14,616 14,616
    Immigration 11,541 11,541
    Pardons and commutations 3,460 3,460
    Pardon of Hunter Biden 5,366 5,366
    2022 elections 6,435 6,435
    Foreign policy 7,782 59,703
    Withdrawal from Afghanistan 11,473 11,473
    Russian invasion of Ukraine 12,113 12,113
    China affairs 10,192 10,192
    Israel–Hamas war 14,104 14,104
    NATO enlargement 4,039 4,039
    Investigations 23 13,988
    Retention of classified documents 5,768 5,768
    Business activities 8,197 8,197
    Age and health concerns 9,001 9,001
    2024 presidential campaign 20,383 20,383
    Political positions 30,857 30,857
    Public image 10,788 20,395
    Job approval 8,133 8,133
    Media depictions 1,474 1,474
    See also 238 238
    Notes 138 138
    References 17 1,680
    Citations 34 34
    Works cited 1,629 1,629
    Further reading 1,430 1,430
    External links 119 10,928
    Official 440 440
    Other 10,369 10,369
    Total 470,056 470,056

    Current consensus

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    ] item
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

    01. In the lead section, mention that Biden is the oldest president. (RfC February 2021)

    02. There is no consensus on including a subsection about gaffes. (RfC March 2021)

    03. The infobox is shortened. (RfC February 2021)

    04. The lead image is the official 2021 White House portrait. (January 2021, April 2021)

    05. The lead image's caption is Official portrait, 2021. (April 2021)

    06. In the lead sentence, use who is as opposed to serving as when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

    07. In the lead sentence, use 46th and current as opposed to just 46th when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

    08. In the lead section, do not mention Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians. (RfC June 2024)

    Biden believes he could have won re-election

    In December 2024, as was widely reported, Biden told aides he regretted his decision to withdraw from the race; believing he would have won the election as his party's nominee.

    This information is confirmed by multiple WP:RS and is obviously relevant to his notability as a politician. ZebulonMorn (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    But is it actually relevant, (assuming its true). Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    "Anonymous Sources Said" is a red flag for WP:BLP articles. We're not a tabloid. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. Massie, Graeme (December 29, 2024). "Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 race and believes he could have beaten Trump, says report". The Independent. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    2. Pager, Tyler (December 28, 2024). "Joe Biden's lonely battle to sell his vision of American democracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    3. Tait, Robert (December 28, 2024). "Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he'd have defeated Trump". The Guardian. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    4. Calder, Rich (December 28, 2024). "Biden regrets leaving presidential race, thinks he could've beaten Trump: report". New York Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    5. Stimson, Brie (December 28, 2024). "Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 presidential race, believes he could have beaten Trump: report". Fox News. Retrieved December 29, 2024.

    Oldest living President of the United States box???

    Aren't we pushing it too much, with trivia? Do we really need an Oldest living President of the United States succession box??? GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    No objections? I've deleted it. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the lede

    Please consider joining the feedback request service.
    An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

    The current single sentence on Gaza in the lede is as follows: During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent military aid to Israel, as well as humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. The sentence is regularly modified, including the word "limited" which keeps being added/removed in front of "humanitarian aid". I started a discussion on this topic a while ago; it didn't get a lot of input and didn't lead to a consensus. I thought this RfC could generate a larger discussion and settle a few related questions at once:

    • Should the "military aid" and "humanitarian aid" be mentioned side by side as is?
    • Should we mention that the amount of military aid sent to Israel is a historical record?
    • Next to the mention of military aid, should there be a mention of allegations of war crimes against Israel?

    Feel free to expand the discussion to other questions. My hope is that we can workshop a sentence that has a consensus behind it. Thanks! WikiFouf (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Remove sentence outright: I'm not entirely convinced that Gaza bears mentioning in the lede at all. The lede should probably only contain a single paragraph on Biden's entire presidency; is a war between two other countries one of the 7 or 8 most important things in Biden's entire presidency? pbp 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories: