Talk:Joe Biden

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmolga (article contribs).

JOBTITLES

This reversion by Woko Sapien (talk · contribs) misinterprets MOS:JOBTITLES. Because "senator" is preceded by "U.S." I would contend that "senator" should be lowercase. "Senator Kamala Harris" would be correct, but it should be "U.S. senator Kamala Harris" in this particular instance. Also, this word's capitalization has now been changed several times in a 24-hour period, which is why I am bringing it up here. Suggest Woko Sapien self reverts to avoid ArbCom's discretionary sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Invoking discretionary sanctions over uppercase letters seems a tad harsh. Anyway, I've modified the sentence so the "U.S." is removed while still conveying the right information. Fun fact: the sentence now matches how Biden's announcement as running mate is written on Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not the case change that would draw a sanction. Rather it would be the reversions. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that "announced U.S. Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate" is correct. Note that "U.S." is used to distinguish her from state senators, rather than senators from other countries, and hence is used like a title. To be lower case, it would be need a comma: "announced the U.S. senator, Kamala Harris, as his running mate." TFD (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about correct, but that's directly contrary to JOBTITLES. This case is exactly equivalent to the guideline's example: "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." which derives from bullet 3's "preceded by a modifier", U.S. being a modifier. This is notwithstanding the large number of existing cases that are contrary to the guideline because editors were unaware of it or disagreed with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, this edit by Vaze50 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem right either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be "U.S. senator (name)" rather than "U.S. Senator (name)". What planet are you people living on? There is no justification for that within MOS:JOBTITLES or - far more importantly - the English language. What is wrong with you?! Vaze50 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vaze50: Please address the issue, rather than questioning whether or not there is something "wrong" with a fellow editor. My question is this. What is the point of having a Manual of Style if we don't follow it? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like translated Russian, where the articles are dropped. One doesn't say, "I like American actor Tom Cruise," "I met American lawyer Jeffrey Toobin." One would insert "the." According to Your Dictionary, "you capitalize the job title when it comes immediately before the name, in a formal context or in direct address. It is not generally capitalized if it comes after the person's name, or if there is a "the" before it."[1] (I don't know if it meets rs.) TFD (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, some people would insert the; some wouldn't. See false title. It's a stylistic choice. EEng 13:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL. It doesn't matter what some people might do, but what would be accepted in reliable sources written in standard English. If you can show me an example of the usage in a newspaper, academic journal or book, then I'll accept that. But it's usage with which I am unfamiliar, except with some Russian speakers who often omit articles. People say um too, but one does not find it often in formal text. TFD (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the language maven William Safire will be good enough for you [2]. Or are you unfamiliar with him as well? EEng 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. On this page we don't use formal language.

Of course I have heard of Safire, although I did not read his column. I find it interesting that you refer to him as "the language maven William Safire" rather than just "language maven William Safire." That seems the most natural way of writing. Safire in fact acknowledges that "the style arbiters of the best publications have long said it's bad form to throw false titles around." Safire's argument is that the term "language maven" cannot be confused with a title such as "Lord." But the term "U.S. Senator" can definitely be confused with a title, because "Senator" is a title, while "maven" is not. But you still haven't provided an example of a reliable source that uses lower case for "U.S. senator John Doe." TFD (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Will you make up your mind?

You: "I like American actor Tom Cruise" sounds likes a Russian who drops articles; you should insert the.

Me: Some people use the, some don't.

You: Show me.

Me: Well, here's a link to the language maven William Safire.

You: You said "the language maven William Safire" but just "language maven William Safire" is more natural.

EEng 04:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I was looking for an example of a reliable source that uses lower case for "U.S. senator John Doe." As I pointed out, the Safire column doesn't apply because first he says that he holds a minority opinion and secondly, he was referring to cases where the description could not possibly be confused with a title. He said that "language maven Safire" could not be considered a title like "Lord Safire." But Senator is in fact used as a title. Bear in mind, we should do what most reliable sources do which in my opinion is capitalizing Senator. I did a google news search for "U.S. senator Kamala Harris" (notice that the s in senator is in lower case) and every hit on the first page of results used a capital S.[3] While that is not conclusive, you need to show that reliable sources use a lower case s. TFD (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You deprecated "I like American actor Tom Cruise"; I was responding to that. All that other stuff is something you were discussing with someone else. EEng 05:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Per consistency with other major party Presidential, Vice Presidential, and Senate candidates, please add the following political party succession boxes:

73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing other articles such as Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, and Hillary Clinton, this does not appear to be correct procedure. I am not sure where you got the idea that these boxes are standard. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Tim Kaine and Kamala Harris do in fact have political party succession boxes. Other such as Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Dan Quayle, to name a few, all have such inboxes, which indicates that this is common procedure. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton seem to be exceptions and they should also have their political party inboxes added.

The succession boxes are for positions held, not candidacies. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There is no consensus or precedent for succession boxes for candidacies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've always thought that these succession boxes are redundant. Isn't this information already present in the infobox and the body? ~ HAL333([4]) 20:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding succession boxes for candidacies, Kamala Harris has this at the bottom of her article:

While Tim Kaine has this at the bottom of his article, which includes unsuccessful candidacies.:

Furthermore Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines says that Party political offices (s-ppo) includes "Party candidates for the Presidency of the United States, France, etc." In addition, those succession boxes were previously on this page, but only removed on August 29.

• Doing some more digging, it seems that they were removed, plus Hilary Clinton's on the same day, with the reasoning being per Trump's page. However it seems that Trump was the only one who lacked those succession boxes, so it seems more like they should have been added to his article than removed from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There are other examples like Alan Keyes, a perennial candidate who has never won office, having succession boxes for unsuccessful candidacies. The following is at the bottom of Keyes' article:

This seems to indicate that the succession boxes are used for candidates. Otherwise, a lot of article would have to be cleaned up.

IMO these navigation boxes should have ben reserved for actual officeholders, to let the reader jump through the line who who has been, say, Colorado's 2nd district Senator, the Sec. of State, and so on. "The nominee for office" is not an office, it is an ephemeral state of being for a person. You are what you are, you become the nominee, then you either win and assume office, or return to your life. I find nothing remotely useful in being able to navigate from Bob Dole to Bush Jr. to McCain to Romney to Trump, for example. If there's a lot of articles that would need cleaning up, then, well, we roll up our editing sleeves and do it. ValarianB (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Since such succession boxes are mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines, it seems like such an action would require a policy change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the Senate succession boxes were also removed. This seems to be a standard feature on articles for senators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, this is what was present prior to its removal on August 29:

They were removed from the Trump article because so many template were breaking the page, and these are about the most pointless templates any of these articles have. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a policy on which templates are allowed? It's worth noting that Trump hadn't served in elected office before President, so he would have had less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's worth a lot that Trump hadn't served in elected office before being president, and it's worth even more that he won't be serving in elected office ever again. (Though if there really is a God he'll still "serve", of course.) EEng 03:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant to say "worth noting", as in giving a possible explanation for why there were no templates there, not offering on opinion on the matter, though I don't think highly of his lack of service. I have since corrected it in the previous comment. In any case, what about the matter at hand?

Apparent double standard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In light of recent developments in the news, I cannot personally see a good reason why our article on Donald Trump has an entire section titled “False statements” but there is no equivalent section dedicated to someone who might become president of the U.S.

If the reasoning for this difference amounts to “because there are no RSs stating that Joe has been lying about his business dealings with foreign entities and Bobulinski’s allegations are the work of the Kremlin,” I would then propose that this article on Biden needs a different section, ”Promotion of conspiracy theories,” that is also featured on Donald Trump’s article but is conspicuously absent here on Biden’s article. Greg L (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden doesn't promote conspiracy theories, which is why we have no section on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Your answer explains the disparity perfectly. May I assume Biden doesn’t make false statements of any substance either? Greg L (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

All politicians lie some, but Trump has taken it to an extreme that the media has called attention to. Biden is prone to gaffe. This article used to have a section on that but I see that it doesn't anymore. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I could agree with you, but then I think we’d both be wrong. 01:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Double standards? Definitely. And this is why Wikipedia articles on subjects of controversy are not taken very seriously. Many times I have seen people post a Wiki article with the typical intro of "FWIW".--Topcat777 (talk) 01:14, 28 Oct 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you 110%. Greg L (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As it is said, "Politicians lie" and "Cast iron sinks", but that is not notable. When "politicians lie in cast iron sinks", it is notable. In other words, being the subject of conspiracy theories is not equivalent to being the promoter of such. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Does the Biden lead include anything like has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics as the Trump lead does? No. Should it? No. Does Biden invent/promote conspiracy theories? No. soibangla (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vietnamese refugees

The fever swamp is circulating a story about Joe Biden being the lone holdout against Ford’s efforts to allow refugees from Vietnam to come to the USA. As far as I can see it’s nonsense - https://www.pivotnetwork.org/news/us-congressional-records-joe-biden-welcomed-vietnamese-refugees-to-the-united-states (non-RS). Guy (help! - typo?) 17:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

VAWA

The article says "Biden help craft many federal crime laws. He spearheaded the 1994 Crime Bill; this included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban[98][99] and the Violence Against Women Act,[100] which he has called his most significant legislation.[101]" I suggest that we need a re-write:

Biden help craft many federal crime laws, including the 1994 Crime Bill, his support for which is a controversy in the 2020 presidential election, along with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban[98][99] and the Violence Against Women Act,[100] (which he has called his most significant legislation.[101]), both of which have since expired and neither of which are currently in force.

98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that these bills have been issues in the current election is already covered elsewhere in the article. The expiration is not a reflection on Biden. EEng 22:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, the fact that his signature bills did not have legs is relevant to those who would evaluate his boosting of ideas which peter out. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, lots of good legislation finds its moment in the sun, thrives for a period, then expires years or decades later for any number of reasons. That's not "did not have legs". EEng 22:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

uh, this reliable source says the usage of "did not have legs" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/have-legs is exactly correct 98.118.62.140 (talk)

Ooh, this reliable source https://www.oed.com/ gives popular appeal or success, esp. over a long period of time; the potential to be popular or successful; staying power i.e. the connotation of "over a long period" is secondary. The denoation is simply potential for success. Eek. EEng 05:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah... I see that your link does not actually resolve to a citation (unlike mine) and I see that you ignore the fact that what you characterize as "secondary" is nonetheless, essential. And yet, given that you concede both sources support that the 'over time' aspect is salient, I'd say that "did not have legs" is thereby proven to be perfectly correct and utterly apropos. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• The OED requires access, which I supposed you might not have, so I quoted the entry.
• When an entry says esp. over a long period of time, the esp. means, unavoidably, that the "over a long period of time" isn't essential.
• You're really arguing over the meaning of a phrase used only here on the talk page? Really??? I know -- let's have a talk page for the talk page!

EEng 12:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not shift your focus onto my role in the discussion process, not unless you are willing to focus on yours also. And for the record, I note that you initiated this disagreement by criticizing my suggestion. So not only did you start what you now characterize as an argument, you misrepresent your own evidence. I say this because the "esp" notation means "especially"; and given that it does, the only correct reading is that the true meaning (of the phrase in dispute) is almost the exact opposite of what you claim it is. Thus, the 'over time' aspect is central to the meaning - and therefore, given that Joe's signature legislation petered out over time, it's indisputably true that his signature legislation "did not have legs". 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Especially, in a dictionary definition, means an additional connotation that may or may not be present in a given use. EEng 14:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you are just mistaken. See this link, which is a programmer's syntax guide to editing dictionary entries: https://www.dictionaryapi.com/products/json and search the page for the formatting example for the phrase "bounce into". You will see in this example that "especially" is spelled out and it's very clear that the "especially" clarification meaning is essential to the accurate usage of the term. That is the correct model and it demonstrates that "esp." refers to a particularized, precise usage; a usage which adheres centrally to the meaning of the term. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

My time budget for educating the benighted is close to exhaustion, so I'll give it one more try and then that's it. Since bounce into is an informal Briticism with which I'm only vaguely familiar, let's consider some other examples from the page you linked:

Kids hopping in a sack race

• hop: a short brisk leap especially on one leg – Under your construction of especially, it is "essential to the accurate usage" of hop that only one leg be involved, which is silly – see image at right.
• backflip: a backward somersault especially in the air – Under your construction of especially, it is "essential to the accurate usage" of backflip that the maneuver be made in the air. But as everyone knows, a backflip might be done underwater, or in molasses, or mentally, or even in a vacuum.
• fowl ... 2a. a cock or hen of the domestic chicken especially an adult hen – Under your construction of especially, it is "essential to the accurate usage" of fowl, as applied to a cock or hen of the domestic chicken, that the creature be an adult hen, which is stupid because it would mean a cock is a hen.

From here on out you'll have to prattle on without my participation, but feel free to have the last word and maybe someone else will take up the cause. EEng 23:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any need to mention that the legislation has since expired. TFD (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

United States Senate career of Joe Biden

I've recreated the article from a redirect following the cuts made to the US Senate section. Feel free to revert and/or discuss here (or at AfD) if you feel it is unjustified, though please note the previous consensus to create such an article here. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 01:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements about first wife’s accident

The history shows my 11/2 addition of his statements, supported by two reliable sources which include reporting by CBS News. My edit did not overstate the matter. IMO the rv of this bears another look for the sake of the article’s NPOV. Hoppyh (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_13#Deaths_of_family. EEng 13:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't meet weight - you need to show that this information is typically mentioned in reliable sources when referring to the accident. TFD (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It does indeed, as the sources provided indicate the matter to be the subject of Biden’s public campaign speeches, and reports and interviews by the NY Times as well as CBS News. The exclusion of the brief reference to it is editorial bias. Hoppyh (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden later garnered controversy is some heavily loaded language that should never fly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The language is subject to adjustment, of course. Hoppyh (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Snopes has a very detailed article on this. The firrman who treated the truck driver said His injuries were such that his demeanor was similar to that of someone in a stupor, but those of you who serve in emergency medicine know that such behavior is often presented by victims who are in shock, or perhaps even diabetic. and To be honest, those of us in fire-rescue here in Delaware assumed that Mr. Dunn had been drinking, based on comments made by police officers at the scene. And in the Delaware fire service, rumors travel from station to station like wildfire. Until he remarried in 1977, whenever Joe Biden attended a public safety event, parade or spoke during a firehouse banquet, police officers and firefighters would approach him and discuss the accident and the tragedy of his wife Neilia and daughter Naomi falling victim to a drunken driver. Imagine how those discussions must have affected the young Senator. --Distelfinck (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Distelfinck, right. A trivial and understandable error, which he corrected when presented with evidence it was an error. Hence it gets an official "so what" in most sources and is WP:UNDUE here. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Calls by private firms such as Decision Desk HQ

Decision Desk HQ has called the race for Joe Biden after he took the lead in Pennsylvania. While I know it is procedural at this point to wait for networks to follow, there is no chance Trump wins Pennsylvania, meaning Joe Biden is the president-elect. Heads up for later. Master of Time (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ is a private firm on a cheap Wordpress platform without even a proper impressum (https://decisiondeskhq.com/about/). What we need is official confirmation by official authorities, not reliance on calls by private media. This also applies to the giant networks like Fox, CNN, etc. which are also only private companies. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The moment mainstream reliable sources are starting to describe Biden as the president-elect we will do so too. We described Trump as the president-elect the day after the 2016 election, long before all the votes were counted and ages before the Electoral College was formally convened and before he was "formally" anything at all. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on "official authorities". If Biden is the apparent winner of the election and described as the president-elect by reliable sources, then he is the president-elect for Wikipedia's purposes and needs to be described as such, in the way that we described Trump as the president-elect in 2016. This is especially true in the likely event that RS would treat the claim that Biden did not win the presidency as a fringe conspiracy theory.

(I don't think Decision Desk HQ alone is sufficient as a source to make this change just yet, but that they are "private" is irrelevant; so are most large mainstream RS. When quality sources like NYT, CNN etc describe him as president-elect, we'll follow suit. Far-right Breitbart and Fox News are not serious sources in polite discourse, so they don't count here. For example, CNN describes its "journalists" e.g. as "a pro-Trump propagandist employed by the network", so Fox doesn't count as professional journalism or RS, but as propaganda, similarly to RT aka Russia Today). --Tataral (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't sufficient, no, but I'm not sure if there is a place on Wikipedia where a set of all calls is made, but since this was the first one of note, I thought I would mention it. Hence the "heads up" bit. Master of Time (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

NYT actually has a decent list of calls here, including the calls by DDHQ. Master of Time (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is utterly pointless. There's nothing more irrelevant to an encyclopedia article than breathless updates on who's calling the race when. Readers can turn on their TVs or use Google for that. EEng 15:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, Tataral, you won't describe him in Wikipedia as president-elect yet. This is not the due process here. The president is elected by the United States Electoral College in the US constitution, not any private network, however RS its news may be otherwise. Besides, states like Georgia have already announced a recount which their election laws requires with this tight result. Therefore, Joe Biden won't be called on Wikipedia "president-elect" until these democratic processes have been concluded. Everybody is watching how we are handling this unprecedented situation, as a proper encyclopedia or an extended propaganda arm of the contenders. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we will describe him as the president-elect, as we described Trump in 2016 the day after the election, when reliable sources describe him as such, whether you like it or not. If you don't like how Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, you can start your own blog. Wikipedia is only concerned with reliable sources and verifiable facts, not conspiracy theories, original research or unfounded fringe claims about "due process" that are treated as fringe theories by RS. --Tataral (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)−

In the past, we have relied on a consensus of reliable sources for making this call, rather than the Electoral College milestone. Is there an argument that the past consensus was wrong? It would seem out of step with the way the encyclopedia works to have us make a different call than a consensus of reliable sources. This seems especially true given the nature of the term President Elect, which is informal and there is even federal law that allows for the government to designate the president elect before the Electoral College vote. From our article:

"The president-elect is the common or honorific title accorded to the person who conclusively appears to have won a presidential election in the United States...If the result of an election is unclear or disputed, no person is normally referred to as president-elect until the dispute is resolved... [In the Constitution, t]here is no indication when that person actually becomes president-elect. Since 1963, U.S. federal law has empowered the General Services Administration to determine who the apparent election winner is, and to help facilitate the basic functioning of the president-elect's transition team."

In short, due the nature of the title President-elect, regular WP:RS rules apply. The way we have done it in the past is, I believe, correct. It will be trickier this year than most. Chris vLS (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I went looking and Slate, which is considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, has a background on "Decision Desk HQ" here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/decision-desk-hq-called-the-2020-election-for-biden-what-is-it.html Here is the part that seems most relevant: "In 2017, Decision Desk HQ partnered with BuzzFeed “to provide live coverage of elections across America” in what was described as a six-figure deal. It began working with Vox that same year; Vox said in a piece this March that Decision Desk HQ “uses gold-standard methods to call elections.” After Decision Desk made its call this morning, Vox affirmed it from its own Twitter account." I do not think that it should be used as a SOLE source for anything, but I think it is notable enough to be considered a viable source? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to say it again: this is an utterly pointless and stupid debate. There's no rush for us to report what people can see for themselves on the news worldwide. EEng 21:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Whether it is here or in the article about the 2020 Presidential Election, I think it may be relevant to have in Wikipedia which reliable sources called the race and at what time / in what order. It is worthwhile to discuss whether Decision Desk HQ - which has contracts or partnerships with at least 2 media outlets, one of which is considered fully reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - is reliable for these purposes to be included, especially since users such as Gun Powder Ma seem to have mistaken impressions about the site. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:TENYEARTEST: In ten years no one reading this article will care which sources called the election in what order. Maybe 2020 US Presidential Election should memorialize such stuff, if there was some controversy as a result. G.P. Ma is indeed mixed up: we certainly will say he's president-elect when the inevitable moment comes that an avalanche of RSs start reporting that. In the meantime we needn't say anything at all, and we certainly don't need to debate the reliability of second-tier (or lesser) sources. EEng 21:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

1. In ten years historians will care which sources called the election in what order.
2. In ten years political science students will care which sources called the election in what order.
3. In ten years statisticians interested in polling analysis may well care which sources called the election in what order.

Do I need to go on further for you to stop being rudely dismissive? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Recognizing that there are passions from all sides on this particular issue, our job here is to chill just a bit. When (or if) Joe Biden has enough votes to be recognized as having won the election, there will be more than enough news outlets that are considered reliable sources that we can then feel comfortable updating the article. We are not a news organization, and we dont deal with the "truth" per se. Whether we update the BLP (which carries with it a more caution set of guidelines) now or later does not in any way impact whether he is the president elect or not. There is no downside to waiting just a bit and being patient. Just my two cents. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)