Talk:2020 United States presidential debates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Hello there! I would like to add our transcript of the debate to the infobox section since it is empty. Here is the link to our transcript: https://speakwrite.com/transcripts/presidential-debate-2020-01/ We would also like to list this as a reference.

Thank you! Cristian SpeakWrite Speakwrite.transcription (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a place for WP:PROMOTION ~ Amkgp 💬 19:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. But the Transcript we are providing is a public service provided free of charge. Why not add a full, accurate transcript of the debate on the section marked for it? (2605:6000:101E:C34E:1CD9:91C4:ABAE:139B (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC))

 Partly done: I added your transcript with a few other free online transcripts as to avoid promoting one service over another. Thank you for making an edit request and providing this transcript. motevets (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

Spelling mistake: Change "critized" to "criticized". 97.106.176.171 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

Joe Biden's town hall on ABC averaged 13.9 million viewers, and Donald Trump's town hall on NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC averaged 13.0 viewers across the three networks.[128] Please add millions after "13.0" in the previous sentence so the # of viewers is correct. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I fixed it earlier. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

On ABC, Biden's town hall was watched by 14.1 million viewers, while Donald Trump's town hall was watched by 13.4 million people on NBC.[128] Please change viewers in the previous sentence to people in order to keep the wording consistent. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

The final debate is scheduled to take place on Thursday, October 22, 2020, 8:00–9:30 pm local time, at the Curb Event Center at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, with Kristen Welker of NBC moderating. Please change "8:00-9:30 pm to "8:00 pm - 9:30 pm CDT" so people in other time zones know when to tune in. 161.77.224.143 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Not sure by who Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 14:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

The final debate is scheduled to take place on Thursday, October 22, 2020, 8:00–9:30 pm Central time, at the Curb Event Center at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, with Kristen Welker of NBC moderating. Please change "8-9:30 pm Central Time" to "8:00 pm - 9:30 pm CDT" so people in other time zones know what time to tune in. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Third debate wikicode

Hi,

Can someone adjust the "P for participant" legend for the third open debate in this section here? The layout currently indicates that five candidates were present, which isn't possible, since the debate is still in the future. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Done! Przemysl15 (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Include Jorgensen and Hawkins in the Table?

They were recently removed but I think they should be re-added because they were in the 2016 debates page. What do you think?Nojus R (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Was there any discussion about including Johnson and Stein for 2016? Perhaps they were just put there without discussion. My inclination would be to remove them unless reliable secondary sources indicate that the CPD will consider extending invitations to them. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Controversy Over the CPD

A new section to the article, revealing the controversy over the conflict of interest resulting in the exclusion of third party candidates, along with legal challenges to the current control and sponsorship, is necessary. My edit was flatly reverted rather than expanded and/or cleaned up. I notice that this has been happening a lot lately on this type of article. JLMadrigal @ 00:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC) JLMadrigal @ 00:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally, "controversy" or "criticism" sections are avoided across all articles. It's not a policy or guideline, though, and there are likely prominent exceptions. See WP:NOCRIT. For the reasons in that essay, I don't think we should have a "controversy" section here. It's unnecessary. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's important to include a section about the controversy. This should be one of those notable exceptions. But if the C-word is to be avoided, I propose "#LetHerSpeak Movement" as a section title. It was trending on Twitter recently and there are thousands of people using it, so it's definitely noteworthy and relevant to this subject. Mghoffmann (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

David O. Johnson reverted your section because it was blatant plagiarism, which it absolutely was. The whole thing was copied verbatim from the source you cited. See WP:COPYPASTE. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"I notice that this has been happening a lot lately on this type of article." I assume you mean pages related to Jo Jorgensen in the 2020 election. What has been happening a lot lately is you editing without regard for policy or guidelines, which was reverted (as it should be) for reasons unrelated to the merits of the content. WP:CANVASSING, WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, MOS:QUOTE, and now, WP:PLAGIARISM. Your contributions will be much more readily accepted if you learn and follow these. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 07:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Participant / invitee

Has it always been standard practice to list candidates as a "Participant" before the debate takes place? I seem to recall there being an "Invited" icon in other elections. Poguetry (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it doesn't make sense to me, as it currently is. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Add times and timezone of the debates

Please add the time and timezone of each debate somewhere. According to WaPo the first debate is scheduled for 9:00-10:30pm Eastern. I have not found a source listing times for the other debates but those can be listed as TBA until announced. Jlick (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that the main debate schedule was announced, I've updated the debate list with the times of each. I have not changed the sections for each individual debate because Template:Infobox_debate has zero documentation and no time field. If someone else knows what to do go for it. Jlick (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Reception section for first debate needs rearranging

The two main things this section discusses are how each candidate performed in polls and how the debate itself was regarded. Therefore, the CNN/SRRS poll should be mentioned in the same paragraph as the CBS poll. And while this is a complex edit, Cillizza's assessment should be mentioned in the same paragraph as others', perhaps close to Tapper's due to their being from the same network, or the near-identical view of Stephanopoulos that it is the worst debate either commentator has seen. I'd make these changes myself if the article weren't of necessity semi-protected.2A02:C7D:D019:3D00:E93E:940F:17A7:BA6B (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wording in section 1.3.1

I am creating a discussion about this because I am not sure of my belief and would like to hear the opinions of people more qualified on this subject than I am, but I thought when reading section 1.3.1 that the wording seemed like it could have been improved to be sound more encyclopedic. I am not an expert on politics or the English language so I would like to hear others' opinions on this to see if this was true, and if this is the case, I wanted to see if anyone may be able to edit this section to improve it in the aspects I believed it to be lacking in. H*10^8.5 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Including key points, moments, or summaries of debates?

Currently under the format section of the first debate there's a comment about a statement (or lack of statement) that Trump gave during the debate. It seems to me like that doesn't really fit in a "Format" section. Moreover, previous articles on US presidential debates don't include this kind of information. I'd like to seek a consensus on if we should include this information (agree/disagree), and if so: where we should include it in the article and how we keep a neutral point of view in such a section. (I.e. should we just stick to what was said or include commentary from pundits on both sides?) Thanks! — motevets (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Merged my thoughts with the comments below. motevets (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Should key points of the debate be included?

During the debate, Trump was asked to condemn white supremacist groups, in particular the Proud Boys. Trump responded with "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."[23] The response received criticism as not being an explicit condemnation.[23][24]

While the above statements is factually correct, including statements like above can increase vandalism, because both sides will edit and add "false" statements made by the other candidate, while this wiki article should be about the debate, not about the content. For example, if the above entry is allowed to be in the article, Trump's supporters could edit in "mistakes" made by Biden, for example his unwillingness to clarify his position on packing the courts, or his unwillingness to answer whatever he supported BLM or not.SunDawn (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We should follow the reliable sources. This statement in particular received a lot of coverage, so it's worth highlighting. Content being likely to get vandalised or cause edit wars isn't a reason to remove it. Sam Walton (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Coverage" should not be the standard for inclusion of a statement, as "number of coverage", even by reliable sources, could be biased. SunDawn (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth including key points, but I think we should focus on what was said in the debate, and not what pundits opinions. I also don't think key points belongs in the "Format" section. Perhaps there should be a "Format", "Key Points", and "Reception" section, and the "Reception" section should have polling and pundit responses? motevets (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Typo: 3rd presidential debate under Debate List

Time should be 9-10:30pm ET like the rest 2001:569:7D24:A300:1D7E:5766:88D0:491A (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nashville is using CDT. SunDawn (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I originally added all times in Eastern as that is how they were listed in the source used for the citation. User:Nojus_R later changed them to the local time where the event takes place. On reflection, I agree that using the local time where an event takes place is the most appropriate. I would suggest you find out if there is a Wikipedia policy on use of time zones if you still think this should be changed. Jlick (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TIMEZONE says: "Give dates and times appropriate to the time zone where an event took place." This would seem to support using CDT for the third debate (as well as MDT for the VP debate). RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

False statements from both sides

Should we include it on this wiki? While we can argue that some of the statements are worth mentioning, such as Trump's PB statement and Biden's rejection of GND, I don't think we should include all of their false statements here. The article is about the debate and mostly should be about the general proceedings, not detailing blow-by-blow details of the debates. On the other hand, if we want to keep their false statements here, it should not be on "format and debate" section but should have their own section.

I am refraining to edit in their false statements until we can find consensus about this. SunDawn (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We provide multiple external links in the infobox to fact checking sources. I personally believe that this is sufficient. It will be hard to defend the WP:BALANCE of the article if we include all of the fact checks ourselves. motevets (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Misleading language - Donald Trump's comments on white supremacy

The wording used in the section regarding Donald Trump's statements regarding white supremacy and militia groups is misleading to the point of being inaccurate. The section currently reads:

"Trump refused to categorically condemn white supremacist and militia groups"

Trump's response to the moderator's request to condemn white supremacists was "Sure, what do you want me to say?" and "I just want peace." Articles have noted concern regarding his use of the phrase "stand by" instead of the moderator's request of "stand down," but the intended meaning is clear given the wider context.

Some have argued instead for the use of the word "deflection" instead of "refusal," but this still represents speculation rather than fact.

There was certainly no "refusal," and thus the section as it stands is currently inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.168.6 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.49.15 (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that as written right now it is not factually accurate. I would prefer it to objectively pull from the transcript and avoid editorializing, something like "when asked if he would he would condemn white supremacy, Trump responded by saying, '...' Biden and Wallace then presses Trump verbally condem white supremacy on stage..." I don't have the transcript in front of me now, but hopefully you get the idea. motevets (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Because the conversation died down, I went ahead and removed the sentence "Trump refused to categorically condemn white supremacist and militia groups." I think that paragraph stands well on its own without it. motevets (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Bias in the section regarding the first presidential debate

The subsection "Format and debate" only mentions that "Trump repeatedly interrupted Biden when Biden was answering the initial questions...and was chastised by Wallace several times." While this is factually correct, it omits the fact that Biden did the same. Similarly, the only topic of the debate listed in that subsection also violates neutrality, as it only discusses Trump's perceived refusal to categorically condemn certain groups.

This subsection clearly displays a left-wing bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colickyboy (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is based on third-party sources, which generally emphasize the points that the article currently covers. If you can find reputable sources that emphasize other parts of the debate, feel free to include them, but remember that everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Also note that the article is weighted to emphasize points based on how frequently other sources mention them (see WP:BALANCE), so since many sources are discussing Trump's interruptions and his failure to not condemn white supremacists, these are what the article should focus on. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That really is not a fair standard. We should have our own standard, and it should be neutrality. Every source, even reputable ones, nowadays has a bias, even if it is simply the bias of omission. We need to strive to be better than them if we want to keep being taken seriously. It is abundantly clear, in my opinion, where people are going to think this article slants, and they won't be incorrect if we don't change it. People come here for information, not editorialization. Pickle Mon 03:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

RunningTiger123 so since many sources are discussing Trump's interruptions and his failure to not condemn white supremacists, these are what the article should focus on. Except it's wrong.[1][2] Why does this subsection say nothing about the bias of Wallace as a moderator of the debate?[3][4] Let me guess. It's not left-leaning, so therefore it's fake news? Yeah. that's called a bias. Just in the same sense that I can't post a link from Breitbart because Wikipedia outright blacklisted it. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There is not a bias in how the article is written. Most statements in the article are statements of fact – for instance, stating that Trump repeatedly interrupted Biden is a fact. One could argue that the article's facts tend to show Trump in a more negative light (which is what you seem to believe), but if that is what the facts are saying, that is what Wikipedia should be reporting. It is not bias to report statements of fact unless they are deliberately omitting other facts; if you can show that there are other significant facts that are not being reported, please point me in the direction of them.

I will also respond to the sources you have provided. In regard to your point that Trump has condemned white supremacists: the article simply reports his statement and then says how others interpreted the statement, with clear attribution and sourcing to the people making those opinions. Moreover, the article notes that Trump and his team dispute the notion that Trump's statement was not a condemnation. While he may have done so in the past, this article is not about those situations; it is about his perceived failure to do so in the debate (the focus on this article). In regard to your point that Wallace was biased: if you can find reliable sources for it, it should be added, but the two you have provided do not seem to qualify. The stories seem to be based on random Twitter comments, not reporting by sources who can clearly be attributed. Think about it this way: if you came across a random Twitter thread about the debate, would that automatically qualify as notable enough for inclusion? Unless that thread is by someone with clear credentials in the field (i.e. a major reporter or politician), it's not particularly relevant. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There is not a bias in how the article is written. Most statements in the article are statements of fact – for instance, stating that Trump repeatedly interrupted Biden is a fact. One could argue that the article's facts tend to show Trump in a more negative light (which is what you seem to believe), but if that is what the facts are saying, that is what Wikipedia should be reporting. It is not bias to report statements of fact unless they are deliberately omitting other facts; if you can show that there are other significant facts that are not being reported, please point me in the direction of them. So why is there nothing on the times Biden interrupted Trump numerous times, the fact that Wallace said nothing about it, or that Biden told Trump to "shut the hell up, man"? Oh, right. It isn't, due to the fact that the left, especially here on Wikipedia, doesn't want any bad press for Biden. Moreover, the article notes that Trump and his team dispute the notion that Trump's statement was not a condemnation. While he may have done so in the past, this article is not about those situations; it is about his perceived failure to do so in the debate (the focus on this article). In regard to your point that Wallace was biased: if you can find reliable sources for it, it should be added, but the two you have provided do not seem to qualify. Wrong. That's exactly what was being referred to in the debate. The debunked claim that Trump never condemned the hate groups in Charlottesville in 2016. The only reason this lie is still touted is due to the fact that the left-leaning news doesn't want to acknowledge that he did. I could pull it up on Youtube, but I already know you just going to tell me that "Youtube isn't a reliable source." Nothing is, if it doesn't repeat exactly what CNN/MSNBC/Vox/Salon says. In regard to your point that Wallace was biased: if you can find reliable sources for it, it should be added, but the two you have provided do not seem to qualify. The stories seem to be based on random Twitter comments, not reporting by sources who can clearly be attributed. Think about it this way: if you came across a random Twitter thread about the debate, would that automatically qualify as notable enough for inclusion? Unless that thread is by someone with clear credentials in the field (i.e. a major reporter or politician), it's not particularly relevant. You stated yourself that unless it is repeated by numerous left-wing sources, which it never will be, it can't be added. That's called a bias, as noted by myself below. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your first point is wrong; the article clearly states that Biden told Trump, "Will you shut up, man?" Your second point is missing the point; it's not about whether or not Trump's statement was a condemnation, it's about the general perception that it was not. It is not up to Wikipedia to interpret the meaning of words; that is left to reliable sources, and those sources (including several right-leaning sources) agree that Trump's statement was not a condemnation. Your third point is made in bad faith; I never said it had to be repeated in left-wing sources, it just needs to come from a reliable source, and the community agrees (see below) that no reliable sources have provided it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your first point is wrong; the article clearly states that Biden told Trump, "Will you shut up, man?" Wrong. A search for the phrase "shut the hell up" came up with zero results. It is not up to Wikipedia to interpret the meaning of words; that is left to reliable sources, and those sources (including several right-leaning sources) agree that Trump's statement was not a condemnation. Your third point is made in bad faith; I never said it had to be repeated in left-wing sources, it just needs to come from a reliable source, and the community agrees (see below) that no reliable sources have provided it. In other words, "the leftist media didn't want to admit it, so neither can we. Regardless of other sources saying it." Bias. Don't forget the fact that anything outside a leftist view in terms of sources are "not reliable." Now comes the part where you tell me to take it up with the policy discussion board, knowing full-well it'll be shot down by the leftist majority under the thinly veiled excuse of "balance", as already mentioned. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Biden never said "shut the hell up"; you can check the transcript (or this version or this version; they all agree). If you're going to argue for inclusion, it has to be factual. Moreover, once again, you assume I have said that the required sources have to be leftist; I have never said that, and many of the sources in the article (i.e. Fox News, The Hill, and The Wall Street Journal) are centrist to right-leaning. Far-right sources (such as OANN and Breitbart) are excluded because they present information deceptively, just like far-left sources (such as Daily Kos) are also excluded. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

RunningTiger123 You're right. I got the quote wrong, and found it on the article when I adjusted the page search. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

98.37.0.12, the article as it's written now, does not say that Trump has never condemned white supremecy--that's not in the scope of this article. It does mention the facts in detail about what was said at the debate and its aftermath, which I believe passes WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE muster. Regarding the sources you provided about Wallace's neutrality in the debate, the Wikipedia editor consensus is that One America News Network is not a reliable source not because of their political leanings, but because they frequently information that is objectively false. There has been no discussion of American Lookout, but I imagine most editors would qualify it as a non-reliable source for similar reasons. -- motevets (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Motevets the article as it's written now, does not say that Trump has never condemned white supremecy--that's not in the scope of this article. It does mention the facts in detail about what was said at the debate and its aftermath, which I believe passes WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE muster. It reports on the debunked claim that he never did. Which is false. Regarding the sources you provided about Wallace's neutrality in the debate, the Wikipedia editor consensus is that One America News Network is not a reliable source not because of their political leanings, but because they frequently information that is objectively false. Lol. Mediabiasfactcheck also has a leftist bias, and it is because of the political leaning of OAN. Just look at the name of the website you cited. "mediaBIASfactcheck". There has been no discussion of American Lookout, but I imagine most editors would qualify it as a non-reliable source for similar reasons. Doesn't have a left-lean. Check. Is accused of being fake news by a left-leaning "fact-checking" website. Check. See the pattern? "Consensus" is just a veiled term for "not supported by the leftist majority here on Wikipedia". 98.37.0.12 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

98.37.0.12, perhaps we're looking at different revisions. In the current version at the time I'm writing this, I cannot find a claim that he never condemned white supremacists. I might just be missing it though. motevets (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Motevets Under format and debate, "During the debate, Trump refused to categorically condemn white supremacist and militia groups, in reference to the Proud Boys, and claimed that extremist violence is "not a right-wing problem." When Biden and Wallace pressed Trump to condemn white supremacy groups Trump asked "Give me a name...", Biden responded by saying 'The Proud Boys'". This was due to the fact that Biden or Wallace (I can't remember which it was off-hand) claimed that Trump never denounced white supremacy groups in 2016. Here's a link to the video, with Biden's false statement.[5] If the link timestamp doesn't work, the time in question is 1:17:48.98.37.0.12 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

98.37.0.12, I reviewed that section you gave me and the transcript around the question, and I couldn't find an instance where either Biden or Wallace say that Trump has never denounced white supremacy. Could you please either give me the quote or the exact timestamp? Thanks. motevets (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Motevets You can stop being willfully obtuse. 1:17:14. They continually misattribute the quote as Trump saying that the people he went on to denounce are "very fine people.", as well as ignoring the fact the he went on to denounce them. If you want more proof of the denial of the press on this, look at the press briefing from today where they continually deny Trump's previous denouncements of white supremacy groups. If you're wonder where the relevance lies, it lies in Chris Wallace being a part of the press, and using the same tactic. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

98.37.0.12, please WP:AGF with me as I'm am with you. I am not here to push an ideology, I am here to build an encyclopedia with you, and I am not trying to be obtuse. First, I thought your concern was that in the article it claimed that Trump never denounced white supremacy. If that was in the article, I was going to modify it because you provided a reliable source that he did denounce white supremacy. Then I thought your concern was that in the debate someone directly said that Trump has never denounced white supremacy, which if that was the case, it would be fair to clarify that that was a false statement on either Biden's or Wallace's part the article. Now I understand your concern is of Wallace taking the "fine people on both side" quote out of context when asking Biden about why he joined the race. However, that quote isn't in the article. It just states what Trump did and did not say during the debate. If you feel that something is missing, or should be reworded, I'd make a {{request edit}} in this talk page with reliable sources. Preferably make the request edit in a new topic on this page because this topic is getting very multi-threaded and hard to read/edit. Thanks. -- motevets (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Motevets Pointing out that you're being willfully obtuse is hardly not "assuming good faith". It's an observation. It falls neither under WP:NPA, nor WP:ASPERSIONS. Trump's "stand by" remarks received criticism. Former Senator Rick Santorum later said that it was a "huge mistake" by Trump not to condemn white supremacy. Trump's team disagreed with these criticisms, arguing that Trump has "continuously denounced" white supremacists and did so twice during the debate. The day after the debate, on September 30, Trump said “I don't know who Proud Boys are, but whoever they are, they have to stand down." Regardless of the fact that it a part of the debate, this whole thing is a based on a debunked fabrication and should be removed. It's unencyclopedic, since it's based on a lie. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Pickle Mon that standard, WP:BALANCE, is not just RunningTiger123's opinion, it's a policy that was determined by consensus close to the founding of Wikipedia, and continues to be confirmed throughout the years. It's the standard by which we write all of our articles whether we agree with how it portrays someone or not. If we give equal weight to what 10% of reputable sources are saying when all the rest are saying something different, then we're not writing an balanced encyclopedia, we're writing on opinion piece. motevets (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Motevets Wrong. It would be accurately summarizing the opinions on both sides of the political spectrum. The only reason policies like WP:BALANCE, and WP:FRINGE exists is a means to subvert any views that are outside what is being parroted by the left-wing news. Which is the only sources Wikipedia draws on. "What about FOX?" Fox is controlled opposition. That's why people on FOX that don't obey that expectation, like Tucker Carlson, get such bad press here. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Controlled opposition? Remind me of the president again? There are reliable right wing sources and reliable left wing sources, there are unreliable right wing sources and unreliable left wing sources. Provide a reliable right wing source saying something and we will very likely include it in the article. Zoozaz1 talk 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Zoozaz1 I tried. Anything outside of FOX is "unreliable" via leftist "mediabiasfactcheck". Such as One American Network (OAN). Controlled opposition? Remind me of the president again? Denial of the truth? Remind me of Anderson Cooper again? 98.37.0.12 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, try again. There are certainly right wing sources outside of Fox that are reliable, and you happened to pick one that wasn't. I'm sure that if it was an important part of the debate you will be able to find reliable right wing sources saying that. Zoozaz1 talk 16:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Zoozaz1 Okay. What sources do you recommend, in terms of being right-wing? You implied that there are some, outside of FOX. So the onus is on you to supply them. I've already tried a few, and all got shot down due to leftist "mediabiasfactcheck". 98.37.0.12 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at WP:RSP; some that come to mind there are the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, National Review (which should be attributed), or the Washington Examiner (which should also be attributed). The onus is on you, however, to find the article for the material that you want to include. Zoozaz1 talk 16:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Zoozaz1 "Conservatives panned Chris Wallace's moderation of Tuesday's presidential debate after several interruptions from the Fox News Sunday host. President Trump and Wallace sparred throughout the first presidential debate of the season. In one instance, after Wallace referred to the president's healthcare executive order as "largely symbolic," Trump hit back, saying, "I guess I'm debating you, not [Biden] ... I'm not surprised."[6] Featuring numerous tweets from right-leaning reporters. Here is another that is more fairly balance for both sides of the political spectrum.[7] 98.37.0.12 (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the article. Zoozaz1 talk 16:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Zoozaz1 Thank you. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Some others that either have positive consensus or no consensus are: Newsmax, Reason, IJR, Real Clear Politics, Townhall, Christianity Today, Financial Times, Fortune. When in doubt, the WP:RSP is a good place to check. Hope this helps. -- motevets (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The President has the plague.

What does this mean for this article? the Second debate might be canceled or postponed. At least it'll make the Trumpers take this thing seriously now.Arglebargle79 (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Talk pages are meant to be a discussion space about how to improve the article. It's not meant to be a WP:FORUM for the topic itself. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is to address the false charge of WP:OR and to comply with unjust sanctions levied against me. There has been a great deal of publicly available information on how long someone should quarantine. I have had friends get it and did as much reading on the subject myself. Utilizing materials freely available to all on the internet is NOT WP:OR. A reference has been added and the original sentence modified. Your welcomeArglebargle79 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

First Presidential debate section is strongly biased.

This section places a strong emphasis on the bad things that Trump did while failing to note the bad things Biden did.

There are sources that indicate at what Biden did. Honestly, for a website that claims it is impartial and unbiased, it is anything but that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineofTan (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've said similar things elsewhere on this talk page, but to reiterate: if you can find a reputable source that points out these things, feel free to add them or discuss them with others. However, if you cannot provide sources for your claims, Wikipedia should not include it. It is not a requirement for Wikipedia to present both candidates equally favorably or unfavorably if the consensus of third-party sources does not show this; in fact, it would be disingenuous to do so. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Third-party sources are almost always biased. People go to Wikipedia for information or impartial facts, not to hear the same polluted content from biased news reports. This is a disservice to the community, and you should be ashamed of yourself for tricking hundreds if not thousands of people who turn to and trust Wikipedia for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineofTan (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Asking for a source is not bias, that's the very essence of a reliable encyclopedia. You've never stated specifically what you'd like included. What, besides 'the bad things Biden did' would you like included? Bkatcher (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Completely dodging a question whether he would pack the Supreme Court with liberal judges as an example. He responded with a strange rehearsed line about how voting is important. The article only mentions two things Biden said, and then goes on picking out every single thing Trump said, some of the claims this article made about Trump are not true on their own. 86.5.158.68 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

VP Debate Image

Can I add this image (from this source) to illustrate how the set of the debate looked like? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Images generally need to be freely licensed to be added to Wikipedia articles, which that one isn't. Sam Walton (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

VP Debate analysis

We have exactly one exchange from the 90 minute debate discussed. The fly practically has more words. We need a more in depth analysis. Bkatcher (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Second debate cancellation =

The narrative for the second debate does not explain why the debate was moved to a virtual format, or why Trump declined it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trachten (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the lines like "On October 8, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that, due to Trump's positive COVID diagnosis, the second debate would be held virtually" and "The Trump campaign called for the second debate to be held in person as originally scheduled, saying there was "no medical reason" for the debate to be shifted to a virtual setting, postponed, or otherwise changed 'in any way.' However, Fahrenkopf said that the commission would not reconsider its decision to make the event virtual so as to "protect the health and safety of all involved" provide sufficient explanation. Przemysl15 (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Continuity?

Why is the "Trump contracts COVID-19" section below the "Second presidential debate" section? Seems out of order.

I mean, it would make sense if it was its own section after all the debate sections, but the current order goes like this:

1. First presidential debate
2. Vice presidential debate
3. Second presidential debate
4. Trump contracts COVID-19
5. Third presidential debate

Which seems wrong, shouldn't it be listed underneath the "First presidential debate" section since that is the order it happened?

Scientificaldan (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree , but as long as it states it clearly when it happened chronologically I suppose its not too big of a deal.Eruditess (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Third debate - fracking

I have removed some text that contrasts Biden's debate statement on fracking with a statement from 2019. If we include this text, I think we would also have to include text from fact checks of Trump's statements from the very same segment of the debate—i.e., the false claims that wind turbines "kill all the bird" and give off more "fumes" than natural gas. (See AP Fact Check.) This material seems at least as salient (actually a lot more salient) that a stray comment from Biden in 2019. Neutrality^talk 16:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I would be in favor of either exclusion of both fact checking instances or inclusion of both, but am against inclusion of one or the other for the reasons stated above. Przemysl15 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me like all the fact checking being done (in the article at this point) is on Trump. If Biden's statements contradict earlier policy statements during his campaign (or in the near past)....it should be included.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Biden lies

Regarding this. Right now the section which covers the most recent debate has at least three instances of fact checking Trump and pointing out his falsehoods whereas Biden is fact checked zero times. How exactly is inserting one single fact-check "undue" but having zero Biden facts checks and three Trump fact checks perfectly neutral? The article should not whitewash the lies of one's preferred candidate or only fact check certain canditates.PailSimon (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a redundant talk page section, since you added "Whitewashing of Biden falsehoods" already. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok but that doesn't address anything PailSimon (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the duplicate section per WP:TPO "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are ... [r]emoving duplicate sections: Where an editor has inadvertently saved the same new section or comment twice. Przemysl15 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• I support the inclusion of Biden's false claim about fracking since it's relevant to the discussion but stating that it was whitewashing is tremendously wrong. You stated that there were "at least three instances of fact-checking Trump and pointing out his falsehoods whereas Biden is fact-checked zero times" and that's true, but it's mostly because Trump made false claims at least 21 times, while Biden did so at least 8 times. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I tell you one thing that is really missing: all the times Trump brought up Biden's time in DC. (I.e. Biden complaining about the tax code and so on and essentially being part of the problem or indifference to it.) I may add it myself. It came up a lot more times in the debate than a lot of other stuff that is mentioned.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Viral Moments in the first Presidential Debate

I believe that we should have a section regarding the viral moments during the first presidential debate. Most of these moments were widely talked about online, specifically the phrase "Will you shut up man?" from Joe Biden, which could go down as a all time famous Presidential Debate moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyboy1999 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)