Talk:Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)