Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial views of Joe Biden

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A consensus has developed that this is essentially a POVFORK article that can be easily summarized in Biden's main article in a couple of sentences, for example. Tone 17:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Joe Biden[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Racial views of Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:POVFORK. This stub consists almost entirely of awkward quotes and cherry picked items from Biden's legislative career, pieced together to make him seem racist. - MrX 🖋 00:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE Please evaluate this article by its previous version; another editor who wants the article deleted anyway removed massive amounts of content and now the article is locked.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough substance to be the subject of an article. I guess that's another way of saying, this is not a notable subject. The author of this article managed to come up with six instances of comments or actions that could be considered racial in nature, with six references. (To come up with six they had to name-drop Jesse Helms, as if voting the same way as Jesse Helms is automatically racist). In contrast, the article Racial views of Donald Trump cites 393 references. One of these things is not like the other: The Donald Trump article has enough substance for an article. This article does not. The Joe Biden article is enough; it already covers some of this material, such as Biden's opposition to busing. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Fails WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Everything is taken out of context to portray Biden as a racist. By Wikipedia standards this is an attack page. WP:NOTADVOCACY (1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment; (2) Opinion pieces. This reads like a Trump campaign list of Tweeting points. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 02:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66, What are you taking about? No idea what happened here, but it was an edit conflict. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 02:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what happened, then my apologies to you. But the diff sure looks like you did it. Oh, well, water under the bridge. Not that big of a deal in the long run. — Maile (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as well. If I did alter your comment in any way, I assure that it was accidental. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 02:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stranger accidents have happened in editing Wikipedia. No harm, no foul. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--someone actually made this? Per nom. This is pretty sad. I don't even believe the racial views of DT should exist as an article, but at least that has some grounding, and decent sourcing. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. I see now who created it. Ah well. We have a couple of juicy ANI threads in the archives about how problematic this editor's work can be. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You believe the Trump article shouldn't exist, yet you didn't vote against it (despite participating in the discussion), that's interesting...--Rusf10 (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone should judge that version. It's a pure case of throwing the WP:KITCHENSINK at Biden based on a number of tangentially related things throughout his career, which says nothing about his actual "racial views". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The rationale for creating the page appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - classic WP:POVFORK, synthesis of sources that are not treated as a set. Neutralitytalk 15:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For a fork like this, the subject's racial views would have to be one of their defining characteristics. Clearly that is not the case, so this is just a WP:POVFORK created for reasons other than the improvement of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per pretty much every argument above. This article was made in bad faith, and the fact it lacks substance shows its existence isn't justified. — Czello 16:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. - the topic clearly passes SIGCOV, just too new and short as yet, and I do not see that significant TALK or time has passed to go for deletion as yet, nor evidence shown that it was in another article and split as POVFORK. For SIGCOV I see google hits for the title of over 100 million. This article has only has a small amount of that, a few negative items in content, which is a tiny amount of the overall or even of the negative coverage. But it seems actual items duly cited — so complaints that it is limited seems best fixable by expansion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL! Most of the 100 million Google hits for "Racial views of Joe Biden" are because Trump features in almost all of them. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with arguing WP:SIGCOV is that you have to prove it, @Markbassett:. The article isn't close to proving it at the moment, and as Scjessey says -- it seems that most coverage is via Trump. — Czello 18:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see 5.6 million google hits excluding Trump entirely, but also note that Biden articles mentioning Trump and vice-versa should be expected as part of such pieces, and is not discountable. If 95 million articles compare racial views of Candidate Biden to those of President Trump, it all shows SIGCOV of Joe Bidens racial views (or gaffes or claims about...) and this just isn’t a trivial topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Guess what! Wikipedia is not Google! Big announcement - we don't answer to Google stats. Our "hit counter" is the page views. Guess what! This article got a whopping 20 views yesterday! It was a landslide ... considering that until this was nominated at AFD, the article got Zero (goose egg ... Zero) "hits", i.e. Page Views. — Maile (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As to specific items - while noting that the Joe Biden discussion re Ain’t Black mentioned several and possibility of separate page by several editors... a small set of what I find excluding Trump and opinion pieces shows like this (in appearance order)
I think SIGCOV should be obvious. I can give another dozen or more if folks insist - but the search engines have no trouble finding millions of them and I should hope folks would not be obstinate over that is simply an obvious fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Biden's racial views are not a defining characteristic of the person, Mark. Ergo, it's a POV fork. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, of course you are free to improve the article by adding more information and more references to it. Improving an article is always the best way to prevent it from being deleted. But you do realize, don’t you, that the NAACP statement praises Biden and does not impute any racial views to him? And that the others you listed here are mostly just further commentary on the already-covered subjects of 1) he opposed busing and 2) he was sometimes nice to segregationist senators? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Melanie yes, NAACP said they were encouraged by his efforts, not literally saying “views”, as other cites spoke on what he said or did in his record. The history of speech and actions is taken as an expression of “views” - it seems the only way they can be captured. And as I said, this was the fairly straight google results, showing enormous SIGCOV of racial pieces involving Biden. One can select as appropriate for subtopics. That some pieces praise his racial views or others compare him favorably to President Trump is within the SIGCOV of the topic, since it says “racial” views it is not limited to “racist” views. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of material to support and expand this article, WP:SIGCOV is satisfied.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. None of these sources are actually about “Racial views of Joe Biden”. These are all “a politician said something about race” sources. To try to use this to write a politician BLP violating hit piece is over the top WP:TEND and should in fact be sanctionable. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's actual, stated views are irrelevant on Wikipedia. What we follow is RS, who tells us what that person's views are. Even if we don't like the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as these articles aren’t actually about Biden’s racial views, I’m not sure what your point is. You just CANT cobble together your own personal analysis of what somebody’s “racial views” are by collecting some instances where they said something race related. That’s classic WP:SYNTH. And you know what the “big tell” is that this article has nothing to do with Biden’s “racial views” and is just a politically motivated BLP violating hit piece? Because the article doesn’t actually discuss Biden’s racial views . I mean, for fuck’s sake, if I was creating this hit piece I would at least include some discussion of Biden’s political platform and official stance on issues related to race, just for appearance sake. But the creator of this article didn’t even bother to do that. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list of sources does not establish WP:SIGCOV by any reasonable interpretation of the policy. The guideline states ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The article in all of its reversion is a collection of loosely related comments, gaffes, and legislative action over his nearly 50 year career, synthesized so that it appears that Biden's has notable racial views.
Analysis of specific sources in this 'keep' !vote
1. An opinion piece. The author seems to have a pro-Sanders/anti-Biden bias: [1][2][3] ← ETA: This refers to the first source in Markbassett's list. - MrX 🖋 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. A valid source, albeit biased.
3. Poorly written article in a questionable source that attempts to portray Biden as racist by indiscriminately collecting his gaffes, most of which show that Biden actually cares about racial disparity. It's a low quality source that talks about controversial remarks, not racial views.
4. Business Insider is not a high quality source. The article purports to be about Biden's "record on busing and racial issues" while acting a representative of his constituents. It is not about Biden's racial views.
5. Snopes is not a high quality source and the article is not about Biden's racial views anyway.
6. This was awkwardly worded endorsement of a black person. Biden was obviously not expressing a racial view.
7. Same as #6. This source is about Biden putting his foot in his mouth. It is not remotely related to his racial views. "Immediately the conservative media establishment -- Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, bloggers -- publicly pounced." I mean, C'mon man!
8. Snopes is not a high quality source and the article only mentions "racial pandering", a political tactic, not a racial view. - MrX 🖋 12:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That the worst analysis of sources I have ever seen
1. It is written by Eric Levitiz, not Ryan Cooper, so I don't know what you are talking about
2. Your personal opinion of the source is irrelevant
3. Not poorly written. And since when does Biden's remarks not reflect his views. You and the rest of his supporters seem to give him a pass to say anything he wants by saying it just a gaffee, he didn't mean it.
4. I think you're still talking about the third source
5. Snopes is not high-quality? That's not the consensus of the community (see WP:RSP)
6. That's just your personal opinion, is there anything Biden could say that you wouldn't defend?
7. I know this is just a hit piece written by ultra-conservative Jake Tapper (he works for CNN now) at ABC News! I guess you didn't bother to read the whole article, which says "But it wasn't just conservatives", the article also quotes Donna Brazile and Jesse Jackson.
8. Again, you are disparaging a source that the community considers reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you are obstinately refusing to acknowledge the point that none of these sources - and yes, several of them are garbage, rest are borderline - are actually about “Biden’s racial views”. They’re about some statements Biden made, sometimes very long time ago, about issues related to race. EVERY American politician at some point in their life has made statements related to race. So what? We’re not going to have an article for every one of them unless there are actual dedicated sources about their “racial views”. Volunteer Marek 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making excuses for Biden's behavior. Yes, it does matter what he said a "very long time ago", especially considering the fact he was a United States Senator at the time. The man is running for president of the United States, I do not know of any other candidate ever that got a pass because of something he said or did was a very long time ago. Furthermore as an encyclopedia, we document historical events, opposition to desegregation was a major part of Biden's early senate career as per reliable sources including the New York Times. Fox News aside (I know you still refuse to accept consensus on that, perhaps are just in denial), you continue to disparage other reliable sources just because they are reporting on something that is unfavorable to Biden. When did CNN and ABC become "borderline" sources?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andddddddddd once more you are completely evading the fact that none of the sources are about Biden’s racial views, while at the same time making up false accusation that someone is trying to “make excuses”. Volunteer Marek 23:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andddddddddd (Kind of obnoxious isn't it?) you're completely refusing to acknowledge that I am using sources that the community considers reliable. When someone says, for example "Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point." that represents a racial view. He even uses the word racial. And please don't tell me (again) that it happened a long time ago, that is an excuse.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, What are you talking about, if anything there is an over abundance of secondary sources that do this.[4] [5] So, now I present to you the same exact Google search with Joe Biden instead of Trump [6], 71,700,000 results, looks good to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One. More. Freaking. Time: the problem is is not whether these sources are reliable (some may be, others are garbage). The problem is that none of them are actually about “Biden’s racial views”. This has been said like half a dozen times now. You keep pretending that it hasn’t and keep bringing up irrelevant stuff up. That’s textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Volunteer Marek 04:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Always with a attitude, but that's okay. What is not okay is you have now accused me for a second time of Tendentious editing (read WP:AOTE and then please strike that) Still you refuse to accept that all sources I've used are reliable (and none are garbage, you own personal non-consensus view of Fox News notwithstanding), I just gave you one specific example covered in some of those sources is clearly a racial view. When Biden uses the term "racial jungle" how can it possibly be anything but him expressing a racial view?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my analysis, with the correction that the first item refers to the first item in Markbassett's list of sources. - MrX 🖋 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:HEY and WP:SIGCOV. I moved this into mainspace a few days ago as the request had no opposing comments after 5 days. I somewhat regret this as it is clear the article was poor and unfinished. However, I think the users have shown that there are a decent number of sources to write about. However, in its current form, the article seems unjustifiable other than to talk about a few minor comments. Plus there is already unhelpful edit warring on the page. But I think if we find consensus and get some more references then this could be a viable article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added content and additional sources to the article. It still needs improvement, but considering how many references there are (including those that I have not added, but are listed here) WP:SIGCOV should not even be a concern. Please consider the article as a WP:HEY.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a POVFORK. There is not substantial enough coverage of Biden on race to justify a single article on the topic. This is unlike Donald Trump[7] who has an extensive track record on the issue and who has been the subject of academic scholarship (e.g. as the leader of the birther movement, and his race-baiting campaign in 2016). Biden's views on race can easily be covered in his 'political positions' article, and possibly concisely summarized in his main bio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a merge vote? because I don't see this currently being mentioned in either of those articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a neutrally written subsection on Biden's positions on race-related issues in his pol positions article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about this article? The situation with Donald Trump is irrelevant unless his racial views have been documented by RS's to be the same as Bidens. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article is not a POVFORK just because Donald Trump happens to have one or not. We should look at the RSs talking about Bidens racial views to decide whether to keep this article or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly say that the RS coverage does not justify a whole article on the subject. I compare the page to the Trump page because the proposer argues that "well, if Trump has one, then Biden must also have one". I explained that the sourcing justifies one page but not the other. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the hypothesis. Flirts with WP:NOTADVOCACY. Rklahn (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear instance of an unwarranted POV fork. RedHotPear (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Rusf10 about that there is a massive double-standard if we delete such a page for one presidental candidate but keep the other. David A (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because one politician has an article like this, does not mean that every politician warrants one. Your argument is pure WP:OTHER and should be disregarded as a result. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has signficant coverage in reliable sources (Joe Biden and desegregation busing, Joe Biden and BLM, Joe Biden and "if you don't vote for me you're not black", etc.) -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - This article is of high importance to our readers, especially in light of the BLM movement, and clearly passes notability for a stand alone article. There is significant coverage in high quality sources, and it's inclusion is consistent with WP's articles about the racial views of politicians, such as Racial views of Winston Churchill, Racial views of Donald Trump, and Racial views of Joe Biden. In fact, there should be many more, including Racial views of Robert Byrd, Racial views of Harry F. Byrd, Racial views of Strom Thurmond, and Racial views of Woodrow Wilson per The Atlantic: Students at Princeton University are protesting the ways it honors the former president, who once threw a civil-rights leader out of the White House. Biden is highly notable for his racist views, and it would be noncompliant with our PAGs to scrub it in light of the material published in the following RS: NBC News Joe Biden helped give America the language that is still used to oppose school integration today, legislative and education history experts say., NYTimes How Joe Biden Became the Democrats’ Anti-Busing Crusader,Time Magazine, Kamala Harris Hit Joe Biden on His Civil Rights Record. Here's What to Know About Biden's History With Busing, etc. We should be expanding this article for the benefit of our readers. Atsme Talk 📧 13:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2018, you vociferously opposed the creation of Racial Views of Donald Trump, going so far as to argue it justified "speedy delete" and that the existence of the article was "embarrassing".[8] For some reason, you also ranted about Russian collusion. Have you changed your opinion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you change your opinion? "Long-term encyclopedic value, as this is a subject of interest and scholarship for future generations." Mr Ernie (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not. As I said in my vote[9], Trump's views on race was the subject of extensive RS coverage (no one in their right mind could plausibly argue that Biden's views on race have in any way come close to the same RS coverage), as well as academic scholarship. I'm not aware of any scholarship about Biden in the context of race whereas scholarship in top outlets attribute great importance to race relations and race-baiting in Trump's ascendancy in politics[10][11][12][13][14]. In my vote, I even said that the scholarship was so extensive on the subject that it could only be incorporated in a standalone article. Try again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Snoogans, you vociferously supported keeping it stating: "Extensive RS coverage. Long-term encyclopedic value, as this is a subject of interest and scholarship for future generations." The same applies here but with a much stronger argument for keep because Biden had far more influence over the lives of Black Americans as a US Senator than did Trump, an (BLP violation removed) <--Time, Rolling Stone, UUNL are RS that support removed comment. 19:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC) real estate developer who hosted beauty pageants and reality TV shows. We should create more articles that shine a bright light on the dark political history of racism in both parties over the past century. Let's start right now. Atsme Talk 📧 17:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Biden had far more influence over the lives of Black Americans" When you argued for the deletion of the corresponding Trump article, Trump held the most powerful political office in the US. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you are not arguing about that so it is not really relevant is it. You seem to be trying to make a WP:POINT, instead of looking at whether this article should be kept or deleted in line with the policies of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I was against such an article for Trump originally. But, eventually there was so much material it was clearly significant. If after a half century of public service, this is all that can be found for this article, we have clear POV pushing. WP:POVFORK WP:SIGCOV O3000 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The number of RS shared above by Rusf10 shows this topic is notable and DUE. Biden's been in public office for many years, and his views and comments on race throughout his tenure is well documented. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad none of these “RS” are actually on the topic of “Racial views of Joe Biden”. Stop doing original research and synthesis to cobble together a BLP violating attack article. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are single paragraphs on Wikipedia that have more RS than the RS listed by Rusf10. It confuses me why a standalone article is warranted because seven sources have covered something. A couple of days ago, you opposed the addition of three sentences to the body of an article[15][16], even though far more reliable sources existed on the subject than exists on this particular subject (which you want a standalone article on). It does not sound particularly principled. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Someone holding a can of beans for a photograph is very different than a lifetime of racially insensitive comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Biden first took public office 47 years ago, the few gaffes and legislative actions he has taken with regard to racial issues are shatteringly minuscule compared with everything else he has done while under public scrutiny. - MrX 🖋 18:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quote of the Day- "it's a POV violation" is not valid reason for deletion- Volunteer Marek [17]--Rusf10 (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”POV” isn’t, but “POVFORK” most certainly is. Come on, this isn’t that hard. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you're just splitting hairs.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disruptive WP:POVFORM and WP:POINTY article that appears to me to only exist due to the WP:OTHERSTUFF justification via Racial views of Donald Trump and a WP:NOTADVOCACY fail on part of anti-Biden partisanship. Trump's racial views have gotten significant attention. Biden's haven't. This article is currently comprised only of his opposition to integrated busing (which says nothing about his actual racial views, but would require a much more nuanced discussion of government in general to accurately convey) and the one "articulate" comment about Obama that also says nothing about Biden's racial views. This article I imagine would soon be expanded to include the "you ain't black" comment, which also is not reflective of anything other than Joe putting his foot in his mouth, which also has nothing to do with racial views. Rusf10's justififaction that the community demanded that we have such an article about Trump, so how can we not also have one about Biden is pure OTHERSTUFF bunk. The "Other incidents" section that Rusf10 just restored content to is a pure WP:KITCHENSINK of any racially-based gaffe that can be found, without actually suggesting anything about what Biden's racial views are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Joe Biden is too long already and this content won't fit well there (UNDUE problems), or in his political positions sub-article (his personal views on race haven't necessarily translated into political positions). I admit I'm laughing at those of my colleagues that are claiming this isn't well covered by reliable sources: hello, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CNN...? There's plenty of RSes to justify a stand-alone, way more than enough to meet GNG (we only need two, under that guideline). Also hilarious, here's what I think: (1) Donald Trump's racist views should go in a separate article, (2) Ronald Reagan's racist views should go in a separate article, (3) Joe Biden's racist views should go in a separate article. So, I feel comfortable with my principled consistency... how about the rest of you? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the thing though. Most of this junk is even UNDUE for Biden’s regular article, much less a stand alone article. Trump makes like 20 goofy statements a day. Just earlier today he said that “we’ve had TWO BEAUTIFUL WORLD WARS” (!!!). Shall we start an article on Donald Trump’s historical views and pack it full of such nonsense? Because there’s certainty enough of it. Seriously, if we applied the same standards to Trump that you guys are trying to apply to Biden, we’d have scores of articles like Donald a Trump’s xyz views. Volunteer Marek 21:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich, reliable sources do cover his gaffes. What, exactly, do they say about his "racial views"? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think this should be renamed Gaffes of Joe Biden? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That can be another stand alone, Emir. The racial views is worthy of a standalone. Start with the June 2019 NBC News article which gives him pretty hefty credit that serves as a debit: Joe Biden helped give America the language that is still used to oppose school integration today, legislative and education history experts say. Then there's the September 2019 article in The Intercept headline: Joe Biden’s Stunningly Racist Answer on the Legacy of Slavery Has Been Overlooked. Google it, you'll find plenty of RS. I added some in my iVote above. Atsme Talk 📧 18:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are very few articles about Biden's supposed racial views. What we know if that Biden is known for his occasional gaffes; that he may take black voters for granted (as with the Democratic party in general); and that mainstream sources do not evaluate him as racist in contrast to Donald Trump whom they routinely regard as racist. - MrX 🖋 18:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, I wouldn't use the word "gaffe" to describe Reagan referring to a Tanzanian delegation as "monkeys...still uncomfortable in shoes". Similarly, I wouldn't use the word "gaffe" to describe Biden's statement referring to Obama as a "clean" African American. I don't perceive a meaningful difference in those two statements (they both reveal racist views), and I think both belong in a sub-article and not in the main biography articles. The consistent application of the principles laid out in NPOV lead me to the same result in both cases. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, I wasn't talking about Reagan, this AfD had nothing to do with Reagan. If you're gonna bring it up though, calling a black man clean and articulate is not at all the same as calling black people monkeys. You're making an OTHERSTUFF argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously you're gonna split hairs that suggesting black people are dirty or inarticulate is not as bad as suggesting they're monkeys? Sorry I don't subcategorize or rank racist bullshit. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is, you’re making a straight up WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. This has been pointed out to you several times and you have not actually addressed that. Instead brought up some shit about a Reagan, deflecting and derailing the conversation. You’ve been around for awhile, hang around various policy and drama boards, RfA etc. so you know very well that OTHERSTUFF exists is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. So please just drop it because this line of argument is starting to look increasingly bad faithed. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There's plenty of RSes to justify a stand-alone" We do not create a standalone article on every topic that has received coverage by more than two sources. If that's the case, why shouldn't we create standalone articles for "Joe Biden and criminal justice reform", "Donald Trump's views on trade", "Joe Biden's role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing", "Hillary Clinton's views on TPP", "Donald Trump's views on manufacturing" and every other well-sourced issue from main articles and 'political positions' articles. Why shouldn't such content be kept as sub-sections within larger and general 'political positions' articles? The insistence that Trump and Reagan's views on race and race relations, which have been the subject of extensive peer-reviewed scholarship (which emphasize the importance of these issues for these politicians), are the same as Joe Biden's views on race (which have been subject of zero academic coverage and to as much RS coverage as every other issue in his 'political positions' article) is pure WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's ludicrous to see you argue that it's an example of principled consistency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reagan and Trump are presidents. Biden isn't. That's why there's more scholarship about the former than the latter. Anyway, you're straw manning. I never insisted that their views are the same, please strike that. I compared a Reagan quote and a Biden quote and said those two quotes are the same. I didn't say their views are the same and I made no comparison about Trump's views and the other two. I think in all three cases, and in the case of almost all biographies, a detailed examination of the subjects views on race will be undue in the main biography article, and, if there is enough RS coverage to support the content, it should be in a sub-article. That consistent application of NPOV has nothing to do with "who is more racist" or "who is equally racist". It's not about evaluating the man's views, it's about evaluating the article and the sourcing. Duh. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Every other sub-section in Joe Biden's 'political positions' article has as much as RS coverage as his "racial views". Should they all have standalone articles? Or does it only apply to the content which can be written up like an attack on him, and which can be used to draw a false equivalence between him and the leader of the birther movement? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if all, but at least some. Social issues and foreign policy should be spun out. It's funny you complain about a false equivalency no one is making while simultaneously employing the rhetorical trick of false dichotomy. (Should they all have standalone articles or only the ones that attack him being a false choice, of course.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. The important difference between this article and the Racial views of Donald Trump article is that there's such a PLETHORA of examples in the latter that it clearly warranted its own individual topic. This article, on the other hand, is woefully short and has very few examples to support its notability, with only one such example having a semblance of substantial development. If anyone can find more examples of racial controversies involving Biden, then I'm willing to change my vote, but if not, a merge of relevant content to the main Biden article and/or Political positions of Joe Biden is the best way to go. Love of Corey (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Love of Corey. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Robby.is.on analysis - Sun loves to love.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Levivich and Atsme. Throughout his tenure there is significant coverage of his views on this subject to warrant an article. There is no reason other than bias to delete this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stringing together various gaffes and cherry-picked Senate actions in this way, alongside ominous prose (some of which has been reduced), constitutes implicit editorializing. To me, that is where the bias lies. RedHotPear (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The closer may be interested in the 2016 AfD for "Donald Trump email controversy"[18], an obvious POVFORK which only existed because some editors wanted to draw a false equivalence between Donald Trump's email controversies and those of Hillary Clinton. The similarities between that AfD and this one are stark: (i) the article was created as POVFORK, (ii) while there was RS coverage of Trump's email controversy, it paled in comparison to the enormity of coverage of Clinton's email controversy, and (iii) there were larger, more general articles which could easily accommodate the content (just as Biden's views on busing, the 1990s crime bill etc can easily be put in his 'pol positions' article) whereas the enormity of Clinton's email controversy and Trump's race relations could not be adequately covered within pre-existing articles. The AfD discussion ended with overwhelming support to "merge" that article's content with the larger, more Legal affairs of Donald Trump where the content rightfully belonged. Several editors in this AfD participated in that one. As Mr Ernie wrote, "All of the material covered on this page can easily be covered elsewhere. This article title appears to try to mirror the one about Clinton". AlessandroTiandelli333 (who had been an editor for one day[19]) cited a rationale which said, "The Legal affairs article isn't too long and can easily accommodate this content, which appears designed as a pointy response to Hillary Clinton email controversy and in contrast doesn't have much of a life of its own." Both those rationales apply to this AfD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!! Volunteer Marek 04:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha this is getting funny. Calling out an OTHERSTUFF above but endorsing this one? Mr Ernie (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, “this one” (the comment above) is a thorough explanation WHY the OTHERSTUFF argument comparing Trump and Biden article is bunk. Not sure how you’re not getting that. Volunteer Marek 17:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the arguments that this is a pretty clear POVFORK. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious POVFORK, a standalone article is not warranted here.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clear POVFORK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only per WP:POVFORK and WP:SIGCOV (as no reliable source seems to suggest that Biden's racial views are notable), but also because this is a shoddily-sourced violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP: this article only contains criticism of Biden's positions on race issues. It does not even pretend to paint a full picture. --WMSR (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I believe Joe Biden is a racist, for what it's worth. However, the few sources in the article and this discussion which discuss Joe Biden's racial views holistically, which we need for a standalone topic, do not convince me that this warrants its own article rather than, say, a section in Political positions of Joe Biden or piecemeal coverage across Biden-related articles. If such coverage begins to bloat, then a standalone article may be right. The "whataboutTrump" comments we see above are disingenuous acts of desperation. — Bilorv (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How many sources do you think we need? More than twelve? Mulitple RS can be 3, 5, 7...whatever - 3 high quality sources do the job well. Conglomerates and republished news wires do not count as more than 1 source anyway. If 5+ high quality sources publish their own news based on what their own journalists have acquired, that's all notability requires. Atsme Talk 📧 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Some RS per the request by Muboshgu in his comment below this one:
  1. NBC News
  2. The Intercept
  3. WaPo
  4. NY Mag
  5. Politico
  6. Fox News
  7. CBS News
  8. Wisconsin News
  9. Aim
  10. Snopes
  11. CNN 2020
  12. CNN 2007
  13. Mother Jones
  14. NPR
  15. Paste
  16. Business Insider
  17. USA Today
  18. Dallas News
  19. Huff Po
  20. Washington Times
  21. BBC
  22. Philly Mag
  • There are more, but the above abrogates the argument not enough sources. Atsme Talk 📧 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about some sources that actually address the subject at hand? What are Joe Biden's "racial views"? We know he makes gaffes. We know he opposed busing integration and supported the crime bill during the Clinton administration. But what are his "racial views"? I haven't seen any of these sources say anything about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you asked that question, Mu. That same question came up with the Trump racial views article, and our readers have been left primarily with the views of his opponents, per this discussion which ends with the summary: (my bold underline) ...the section is poorly sourced, one-sided and does not reflect Trump's views. In fact, his views were totally omitted. I think we should keep this article and include Biden's views and his responses to the allegations. We didn't give Trump much of a chance, so maybe we can make-up for it with Biden, and hopefully set a precedent for consistency in how we treat this topic. Atsme Talk 📧 23:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think back at the number of times in various articles that you have used WP:OTHERCONTENT as a rationale. It is not. You are trying to right great rights. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on content, not on editors. This discussion is about WP:RS and WP:V, not some irrelevant essay you keep disruptively bringing up. Atsme Talk 📧 01:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most high quality reliable sources regard Trump as racist. He routinely uses racist and white supremacy rhetoric to appeal to his base, and takes up racist causes that are only popular with his base. Even if that weren't true, we don't compose articles based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. I do appreciate that most of the editors who support keeping this article have revealed their true intent. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources in this throw-everything-at-the-wall list are not about Joe Biden's racial (sic) views: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21. None of the following source contribute to WP:SIGCOV because they are low quality sources unsuitable for BLP content per WP:BLPSOURCES: 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22. That leaves us with 3 and 4 as usable sources. For something as controversial as racial views, we would never write an article based on only two sources. - MrX 🖋 11:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Edit this vote is more of a lean keep if Im honest because the page has some narrative issues which is obvious. If it does stay it should be edited to reflect his answers to the accusations and updated to include more recent remarks. Also linked into the other Biden pages since I have not seen this one until today. Overall page the page needs fixing but it should exist if done correctly. Bgrus22 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I count five posts referring to Google hits as an indication of significance. Please, Google hits are completely useless for our purposes and should never be mentioned. O3000 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Objective3000 ??? Google seems VERY useful as an objective indicator or neutral way to demonstrate quantitatively the SIGCOV, and to if that includes many of the major RS. If you have something else you feel is another means, then please do show it ... otherwise this seems the best tool in the toolbox. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Google searches are based on your past Google searches. That is, there is a built in bias reflecting your own bias. Besides that, one must be very careful in phrasing and in quote marks. Also, you need to be aware of the echo chamber, which exists on the left and right but is vastly more apparent on Google searches on the right. That is, certain phrases, word pairings, etc are repeated on and on and on. Next, Google picks up the numerous sites that copy Wikipedia text. (Someone remind me of the word for that.) Google searches are not indications of significant coverage. I'm sure there must be an essay that says this better. EDIT: Ahh, Citogenesis: [20] O3000 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lack of significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. This also gives an impression of a WP:POVFORK; the material is already sufficiently covered in the main article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lots of WP:POINT and WP:SYNTH in that article as elements of a WP:POVFORK--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely a case of WP:WHATABOUT. Sources have been specifically augmented to make a point. Glen 14:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is about Vice President Biden's policy positions (or gaffes) on a handful of political issues that does not appear to be comprehensive nor his actual views on race. --Enos733 (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly Biden has talked about race over the years and has supported legislation and executive action that have affected people of different races. But in order to meet notability, we would need a body of reliable sources that discuss Biden's racial views, not just articles about these incidents. Despite the name of the article, it doesn't explain what Biden's racial views are. It merely lists a number of incidents and invites (or leads) readers to draw their own conclusions. TFD (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His views could be neutrally elaborated on elsewhere, like somewhere on the Joe Biden article itself. This seems to be an attack page with a motivation linked to the current political situation in the US. Ktrimi991 (talk)−
  • Keep It is an encyclopedic topic and the NYT piece on the "you ain't black" gaffe recognized Biden's efforts to win over black voters as a key matter. Though this could probably be named better if it was "racial policies of Joe Biden" or something which would make it clear that it isn't just about personal views, but his past and current policies. The WSJ just published an article called Biden Offers Big Government Plan to Address Racial Inequality. So, I would personally adjust the scope a bit but let it be a WP:SUBARTICLE of Political positions of Joe Biden because racial positions are a major and a decisive matter in the elections and the current article is a good start. --Pudeo (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it's WP:UNDUE for the main article, it's undue for a separate article, making it a textbook WP:POVFORK. Also applying are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTABILITY (it's not a prominent aspect of the BLP). —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the many good arguments which cite WP:POVFORK and the rampant whataboutism that is being used to try and justify the article's existence. Grandpallama (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POVFORK and due to a lack of significant coverage that directly address the article topic. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- obvious POVfork, a serious misuse of the encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (doesn't speak to his views/OR) or possible partial merge/consolidtion of content to Political positions of Joe Biden adding subsection about racial issues in the USA, a topic about which polticians do or should have a position. (Even if some maerial is aleady covered in bio, it is appropriately, or better covered, in position/tenure article.)Djflem (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough to justify a stand alone article. These political positions can (and do) easily fit in Political positions of Joe Biden. Should reliable sources focus on and analyze Biden's racial views at some point in the future, I have no objection to such material being split off from the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racial_views_of_Joe_Biden&oldid=1212831400"