Talk:Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

I have moved Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign to mainspace

Biden and his proxies have repeatedly said that he is running, which I think is enough to have a live article on the campaign. Basically, every appearance, trip, or event by a sitting president who intends to seek reelection has a dimension of being towards winning that reelection. Even if Biden were to decide not to run at this point, that would be more like a declared candidate dropping out (which we cover) than a possible candidate never declaring. BD2412 T 06:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on the basis that Biden and his proxies have repeatedly stated that he is going to run, which is very different from actually running. Clearly there is speculation about his campaign, but to claim that it is current and ongoing I think is not supported by the consensus of reliable sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I put this in the category of Star Trek: Planet of the Titans—an unproduced film about which so much was reported that it is still notable despite never passing the writing stage. Biden's unequivocally stated re-election aspirations have had an effect on the political field equivalent to a declaration of candidacy, and this has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Also, I think it is hard to say that there really is not a current and ongoing campaign. Once the sitting president says that he "is going to run", what can he do in office that would not be seen as promoting his re-election? BD2412 T 06:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am shocked and surprised that such an experienced Wikipedian doesn't know better and thinks he can get away with this. I put your "Planet of the Titans" argument in the category of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As far as what a sitting president can do that is not seen as promoting re-election, how about Lyndon Johnson's statement on May 31, 1968? Would you have such a passionate view about a president you didn't like?

As Przemysl15 says, saying he "is going to run" is not saying he will run. And I agree there is no perceivable consensus of reliable sources; Biden's public approval, mental faculties, and chances of reelection are seen as controversial and rated differently by different sources; this is a matter of opinion. You can't just dismiss sources you don't like

Here are some reminders of the pertinent "crystal ball" policy:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. (For example, it has just been disclosed that Biden has contracted Covid for the second time.) If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
2. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it.
3. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.

JustinTime55 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit fine of a distinction to say that saying he "is going to run" is not saying he will run; they are literary synonyms. The question Would you have such a passionate view about a president you didn't like? appears to be a misfired exercise in mind-reading. As it happens, I have also created Draft:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, and have said that I think that it too should be moved to mainspace on the strength of reporting that Trump has made the decision, and is only waiting when to announce. In both cases, the actions of the putative candidate go far beyond the usual will-they-or-won't-they coy flirting of potential candidates, and has entered the territory of being reported on by reliable sources for the effect that each one is having. BD2412 T 16:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's just a bit too early in the 2024 election season to keep us out of crystal-ball territory to speculate about Biden's and Trump's candidacies. We just have to wait awhile. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been over-eager to publish these. I'll revert to draft for now. BD2412 T 17:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Mouseover image

Hovering over links to this page displays Biden's signature. How can they be made to display the logo instead? I tried adding a popup image directive, and purging the server cache, but I still see the signature. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Consideration of locking this page

It would be best if this page was locked for editing responsibilities, thus given to trusted individuals.

it has been clear from this specific article, and clear off this site that some people may not be so formal in editing and adding to this article. In order to combat any misinformation breathing in a second of air, it would be, again: best to lock this page for now during the campaigns of respective candidates, and during the post-primary stage.

Wikipedia has been a number 1 ‘first-thought’ website to look for knowledge that is sourced, so it is just my concern about these rather mischievous individuals willing to ruin the ‘reputation’ of the represented parties/individual(s) only following intentions within political partisanship (or other.)

Response do these individuals have been indeed quick, so my suggestion could also I suppose save people the time of backspacing any misinforming additions. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:E54F:7630:88B2:7199 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Putting National Advisory Board into a collapsible list

Owing to the length of Biden's national advisory board section, I believe that putting it into a collapsible list format would serve to improve the readability of the article. However, my attempts at doing so seem to run into formatting issues or simply look bad. If someone with more experience with list templates can give it a go I would greatly appreciate it. BootsED (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Biden and trump coverage

Would it be worthwhile to compare the tone and contents of this page and the equivelant trump in order to avoid claims of bias. They do read quite differently and the biden does more encyclopedic perhaps. 112.213.131.0 (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Biden is a far more encyclopaedic person. That might read a bit strangely, but Biden acts just like most normal, middle-of-the-road candidates in the past. Nothing he does is sensational or extraordinary. Trump is the opposite. Almost everything he says and does is way outside the realm of what is normal for a presidential candidate. This means it's almost impossible to give similar coverage to both of them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Changing the title of the "Gun Violence" paragraph under the Platform section to "Gun control/Firearms"

Similar paragraphs on the articles of other american politicians almost always read "Gun Control" or "Firearms", regardless on their opinions on the matter. Since whether or not the term "Gun Violence" is objective is debatable, I believe the aforementioned terms are more neutral and descriptive, especially the latter. JezzaWPU (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — JezzaWPU (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree. That would be more in line with other Wikipedia articles. JMM12345 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It does not appear that the section addresses any measures that would be anti-violence without being specifically gun-control oriented (e.g. counseling or other intervention for the violence-prone). BD2412 T 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal for a title change. There's much more to the subject of gun control than the specific concept of gun violence itself, though I think perhaps changing the title to "Gun Control" may suffice, as Mr Biden's activity around the matter deals less particularly with firearms at large. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Add Section or Create New Page: List of Notable Persons Calling for Biden to Drop Out

I know we're not even 24 hours after the firt Presidential Debate for the 2024 election, but observing the deluge of primary sources, I am arguing we have reached a threshold to either add a section on thi page, on the Endorsments of Joe Biden 2024 Campaign page, or a whole new page that is modeled similar to the Endorsments page of notable individuals that are calling for Joe Biden to drop out. There's no other list compiled like this that I've been able to find on the internet. Anoter reason is that the reaction and calls for a sitting president to drop out from national media figures, democratic operatives, and even said president's own campaign suggorates is historic. Jccali1214 (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:RECENTISM applies. Who is calling for him to drop out? All I've seen are anonymous comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• 1: Lloyd Doggett [1]
• 2: Nicholas Kristof [2]
• 3: Paul Krugman [3]
• 4: Thomas Friedman [4]
• 5: Jonathan Alter [5]
• 6: David Ignatius [6]
• 7: Joe Scarborough [7]
• 8: New York Times editorial board [8]
• 9: David Remnick [9]
• 10: The Economist editorial board [10]
• 11: Chicago Tribune editorial board [11]
• 12: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial board [12]
• 13: Julian Castro [13]
• 14: Adam Frisch [14]
• 15: Andrew Yang [15]
• 16: Raúl Grijalva [16]
• 17: Damon Lindelof [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.109 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• New Republic editorial board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Boston Globe editorial board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Reed Hastings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Abigail Disney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Barry Diller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Mike Quigley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Angie Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Nate Silver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Marianne Williamson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Rob Reiner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Stephen King — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Those sure don't look like "anonymous comments" to me. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This will literally never happen. We don't make lists of people who have aired a single opinion about a politician, lest we have List of Notable Persons Who Think Donald Trump Fomented an Insurrection. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Zaathras, you can disagree with the idea, but you can't unilaterally prohibit it. WP:OWN. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Try and create it, it will sent to WP:AFD in a heartbeat. Zaathras (talk)

We already have a page for something like this, it's List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. It only covers Democrats though. Killuminator (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't comparable to the absurdity of what we're talking about here, it is people who have always been in opposition. Note That Trump has a 2016, 2020, and 2024 version of that sentiment. Zaathras (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

False. It's about people who oppose the campaign one way or another. The point at which they started opposing him is irrelevant. Killuminator (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. People who oppose the current Democratic nominee on general principle vs. "people who whined about 1 debate night." Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

None of that stuff you've said is in the name of the article or anywhere in the article. It's all in your head. Killuminator (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find the discussion confusing. Zaathras (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There's apparently a number of Democratic congressman circulating a petition among their congressional colleagues asking for Biden to withdraw. If that turns out to be a reality, we probably should mention that in this article. 152.130.15.103 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Speculation about something you found on Twitter isn't relevant here. Zaathras (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's relevant if it happens. It may be months or even years before the chaos currently ongoing in the Democratic Party is fully documented, but we should be aware of it. 152.130.15.109 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As you have some free time at the moment, WP:CRYSTAL would be a good read. Zaathras (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing @Killuminator!. Fascinating to see parellel thoughts happening. With this evidence on the table, what do you think is a sensible tactic moving forward? Should we petition to expand that list to include non-Democrats? Or make a similar list on this page? Or even a whole new page still altogehter? Jccali1214 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Just add any new Democrats to that page for now. We'll have to see where this train stops. Killuminator (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The train is barreling through at the moment. Vinnylospo (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m down with it. Vinnylospo (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Is this notable, and can something like this be produced in encyclopedic form? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Media cover up of Biden's mental state

Before the recent debate, every mainstream news source had been repeatedly saying for years that Biden's mental health was fine, and that any claims to the contrary were "right wing conspiracy theories," "fake news," of "cheap fakes."

However, after the debate, every one of these mainstream news sources admitted that there was indeed something wrong with Biden's mental condition.

This article needs to address why the media lied and covered up Biden's mental state.

Beaver's Library Book (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

On another note, this calls into question Wikipedia's reliable sources policies. A number editors and admins declared that Fox News can't be used as a source for political topics, yet Fox was one of the only media outlets honestly reporting on Biden's rapid mental decline. Also, if most of the legacy media are repeating a false narrative, as was happening in the case of Biden's mental acuity, then Wikipedia's policies and guidelines abjectly failed in this case and there needs to be a reckoning and a correction. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

neither of you are accurately depicting what the press, or editors, or Fox News, or Wikipedia policies did here. you're barking up the wrong trees. soibangla (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Fox News wasn't the only legacy media to question the mainstream media narrative on Biden's mental competency. The Wall Street Journal published a detailed article on it a few weeks ago, but the rest of the legacy media ignored it. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the WSJ article: [18]. But notice, as soon as it was published a prominent CNN columnist attacked it: [19]. So, this episode supports what Beaver and I said above. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't support anything of the sort other than your biases. Murdoch-owned media produced flawed reporting, which CNN appropriately called out. "But an examination of the report reveals a glaring problem: Most of the sources reporters Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes relied on were Republicans. In fact, buried in the story, the reporters themselves acknowledged that they had drawn their sweeping conclusion based on GOP sources who, obviously, have an incentive to make comments that will damage Biden’s candidacy." – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Except that the "Murdoch" reporting was TRUE, and the CNN reporting was FALSE/WRONG. 152.130.15.109 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The media coverup is pretty huge. It has lead to an erosion of credibility. Vinnylospo (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I am very aware of what you are talking about, and as I said, they are not accurate depictions, they include partial truths and distortions, much in the same way many conservative commentators fabricate fake scandals. I don't have the time to dive deep into this, I shouldn't have responded in the first place. I'm out. soibangla (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the Democrats and most of the legacy media (with the exception of "Murdoch" media and few others) were conspiring, apparently for years, to conceal from the public that the chief executive was a vegetable will likely be one of the biggest political scandals in US history. In fact, I expect during Trump's now increasingly inevitable second term that there will likely be criminal investigations over it. This scandal will probably merit its own article soon, but for now a section in this article and the general 2024 election article may suffice. Here's a source to get us started: [20] 152.130.15.103 (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.103 (talk)

The blatant political bias in all you have just written is making this a pointless discussion. It should be closed now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The media lies about all sorts of stuff; if they started out focusing directly on something like this, they would have to address how they've treated everything else, and that would lead to a chain reaction that would literally destroy civilization as we know it. What form, exactly would address of the matter around Joe Biden take, if conspiracy around Joe Biden was to be addressed directly? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden’s health issues needs its own article

Ever since the debate, his health issues have become front and center. It needs its own article because with the media coverup too, this could be the biggest American political scandal since Watergate. Also, the June 2024 debate should have its own article again. It might be the most consequential one in our history. Vinnylospo (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources for the coverup claim please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m getting them right now, but I think his age and health concerns need its own article. Vinnylospo (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

OH, I know. You've made that very clear. Is Trumps age and health a concern? HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump is not currently the president and Biden is the oldest president in history with many politicians, donors, newspapers, etc demanding he drop out and/or resign from office. Vinnylospo (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vinnylospo: I tend to agree, but we have to be aware of the precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump, where many participants cited HIPAA and the Goldwater Rule (which bars medical commentary by persons who have not directly examined the subject), and which led to the removal of basically any content about the subject's health that was not provided by the subject themselves. My personal opinion is that we should cover anything about either subject that is reported in reliable sources, but that has been overruled. BD2412 T 15:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Precedents are not set in stone, they can change overtime and it definitely can now. Vinnylospo (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that precedents can change. If the community can be convinced to restore the Health of Donald Trump article, certainly it would then be fair to also have an article on Biden's health. BD2412 T 02:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Has President Biden invoked section 3 of the 25th amendment, lately? Has Vice President Harris & a majority of the cabinet invoked section 4 of the 25th amendment, lately? AFAIK, neither have. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Loads of Democrats and public figures have been calling for the President to step down because of the debate performance and it’s a massive news story that is only getting bigger. It needs an article 25th amendment or not. Vinnylospo (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, considering that both Biden and Trump face the same aging concerns (if elected, Trump will become the oldest person ever to take the oath of office), we should have a single article on the shared health concerns of both subjects. BD2412 T 20:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Especially with how much publicity it’s getting. Wikipedia has so many articles involving Trump and/or Biden, I don’t see why they can’t have another one. Vinnylospo (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

We could have an article along the lines of Age and health of candidates in the 2024 United States presidential election. We could throw in Kennedy, and the reporting of his brain worm disclosure. BD2412 T 22:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree because we are not seeing a lot of reliable media sources making Trump's age and health a big focus in the same way that they are with Biden. Certainly there has been some talk about Trump's age/health, but we really have to go with what reliable sources tell us is notable, and to act as if the sources are making Trump's age as big of a deal as Biden's age seems to be false balance. JMM12345 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, have a look and see what sources you come up with. The question is whether it is appropriate to have this kind of article at all, about anyone. If it is, then the question becomes whether there are sources to support it at all. As far as I can recall, there are enough sources to support discussion of all three candidates. Nikki Haley made an issue of both of their ages in her primary campaign, that received some coverage. BD2412 T 00:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No such article needs to be created. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Surely it is apparent at this point that there are ample reliable sources addressing concerns about the two oldest candidates ever to seek the office. See, e.g., "Worried Biden and Trump are too old to be president? Calm down, experts on aging say", noting that Trump and Biden are "the oldest candidates in U.S. history". BD2412 T 02:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It is apparent that Biden and Trump are old, and that our existing articles say this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lot's of people are old, but not uniquely old as candidates for the presidency. Our existing articles cover this in a piecemeal fashion, when a single article could discuss under one title all of the concerns and ramifications of this situation. BD2412 T 03:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

They are calling on Biden to resign due to his serious health concerns. It’s the biggest story in America. Vinnylospo (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a case for this; there hasn't been direct and sufficiently substantial address of the matter, and the state of Mr Biden's well-being has tremendous implications for the present and future of America, and there is a need for awareness and address of it. However, I'm concerned that it will never be addressed completely, in the kind of way that would help. It's pretty sick to say that the specifics are a matter of national security. One thing that nags at me, though, is that this isn't like the FDR administration; we don't have the tools and the luxury of being able to research things like this so easily and document it as we go, and look how much we've learned and how much has been brought to light about the life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in retrospect. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vinnylospo:, @HiLo48:,@BD2412:, @GoodDay:, @Muboshgu:, @Tyrekecorrea: – apologies I was unaware of the discussion on this page when I created Age and health concerns of Joe Biden as a spinoff article from the public image article. If anyone feels the article is undue feel free to nominate for deletion. –GnocchiFan (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

GnocchiFan Did you also create Age and health concerns of Donald Trump If not, why not? HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Because there has already been a discussion over the Health of Donald Trump article, so I thought that was settled. I just saw the requests for spinoffs on here and the public image for Biden page, which are not currently in place on Trump's page. Feel free to create that article if you think anything has changed since. (P.S., if you're trying to say that I'm a Trump supporter, you are very much mistaken) – GnocchiFan (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age and health concerns of Joe Biden. Zaathras (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2024

In the "Arab and Muslim Americans" section, the sentence, "Due to Michigan's status as a swing state, some analysts have said that Biden's support of Israel could cause him to lose the state" is inaccurate: he would not lose the state due to its status as a swing state; he would lose it due to opposition to his stance by voters. What it needs to say is, "Due to Michigan's status as a swing state, some analysts have said that Biden's support of Israel could cause him to lose not only the state, but the election." This is supported by both the refs at the end of the sentence. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:64A1:3911:63E1:44F6 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done – see Special:Diff/1234587073. DanCherek (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

National advisory board

Why is the list of names of the "national advisory board" members in the article? I think it's there just because it was a very early announcement of a board which seems to be largely meaningless. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:2024 United States presidential election

Could we get eyes on the navbox Template:2024 United States presidential election? It is currently describing Kamala Harris as the "presumptive nominee", but my understanding is that that description is not accurate/precise at the moment, but I am not sure what the right label is. "Declared" was the verbiage used during primaries before a nominee became the presumptive one, but has Harris even officially "declared" at this stage? This is all rather unprecedented. Mz7 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see 1 minute before I posted this, CrazyC83 changed it to "Presumptive nominee: TBD (at 2024 DNC)" [21]. Courtesy ping Mt.FijiBoiz who was also editing this template. Mz7 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)