Talk:Joe Biden

RfC: Section on gaffes

Under Biden's 2020 campaign, should there be a subsection regarding his gaffes and media speculation regarding mental fitness. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the current proposal, that has undergone some previous discussion:

Throughout Biden's political career, he has been prone to speech mistakes, commonly known as gaffes. In 2018, Biden described himself as a "gaffe machine". He has also stated that his speech mistakes should not be taken seriously and haven't been about a "substantive issue". Since his childhood, Biden has suffered from a speech impediment and stutter, which has been credit by some as the cause of his frequent speech mistakes.

Some of Bidens speech mistakes have been characterized as racially charged. Biden's speech mistakes have included inaccurate or fabricated historical events, including personal stories.

During his 2020 campaign, Biden's speech mistakes along with his advancing age led to unsubstantiated, politically motivated speculation of Biden's mental wellness.Biden has stated that he has not taken a cognitive test; however, a recent medical report stated that he is a "healthy, vigorous, 77-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency". (due to discussion and clear opposition, this is being removed from the proposal. It's only serving as a distraction from the heart of this discussion)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: it’s gotten so much media attention that it seems important enough SRD625 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, Biden's gaffes have been present throughout his career. They have been heavily covered in credible sources, more so than your average politician. Throughout his 2020 campaign (including the Democratic primaries and the general election), they were discussed. Additionally, this paragraph allows a natural place to mention his speech impediment, which I would say is notable since Biden has worked with speech impediment organizations. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Gaffes definitely. Mental health not based on the sources presented. The sourcing in the discussion is sufficient to support a section on gaffes. Furthermore, additional sourcing on the gaffes, particularly his claim that people who do not support him are not black, is easy to find. The dementia part, as presented below, is not sufficiently well supported. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: His gaffes were so numerous, and they are so extensively covered in (both pro-Democrat and pro-Republican) media, that it would be strange (and probably biased) if we ignore all that in this article. I think the proposed subsection is very well written. Felix558 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This effort to include dubious material about supposed gaffes and alleged mental decline is the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS. KidAd talk 01:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Supposed gaffes", I don't think his gaffes are speculation. I understand where you're coming from with the mental decline speculation, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per the previous, nearly exact same section above. Do sources exist that cover this "gaffes"? Sure. But it's not "extensively covered" by reliable sources, nor do they make the kinds of connections that are being hammered into the talk page. Unless a medical source gives a cause for a medical condition as explanation for something, or a reliable source makes it clear that something medical is happening, it is inappropriate per WP:BLP to make speculations in the article. There are more sources about Obama using the wrong kind of mustard or Trump's "man woman camera tv" nonsense, but there's no mention of those on those articles. - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as has been mentioned time and time again on this talk page, "media speculation regarding mental fitness" is a massive honking WP:BLP violation. If you want to talk about a section on gaffes, I would be open to consideration, but the RfC question says "gaffes and a huge BLP violation" so that's a no from me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. There does appear to be clear opposition to speculation of mental health. Should this proposal be modified by removing the paragraph regarding mental decline speculation, and focus exclusively on gaffes and speech impediment? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Yeah, I would support a section about his gaffes, but speculation about "mental decline" is entirely unencyclopedic. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the last paragraph is where you get into problematic territory. SecretName101 (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - He's commonly known for his gaffes and it's intertwined with his character, odd it isn't here but the sexual assault allegations are since that's more controversial in many ways. No comment on the mental acuity stuff, but it's been hinted at by Julian Castro during the Democratic debates so I think it at least warrants a mention. CaliIndie (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC) — CaliIndie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose Politicians have vocal blunders all the time, the coverage of Biden's slipups is not nearly at the level of, say, a Bushism yet. Including this now would be an undue focus on a triviality. ValarianB (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this has been going on for his whole life (he has acknowledged publicly) and was definitely a talking point during the election cycle, it's definitely more notable than other politicians. Remember that Bushism has it's own article, we are just proposing a subsection. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support- Biden has decades of gaffes that are well-documented and received plenty of coverage. We have an entire article about stupid things George Bush said so there is a precedent for this.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize Bushism as just covering "stupid" things he said. Objectively, it's about, "unconventional statements, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, and semantic or linguistic errors in the public speaking" of Bush. SecretName101 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd include that David Axelrod, a former Obama administration advisor, called Biden a "gaffe and embellishment machine"
• Support inclusion of gaffes but not mental health The latter seems like a possible BLP violation imo. ~ HAL333 21:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to gaffes but absolutely not mental health — that's speculation, and Trump's page doesn't include the "person, woman, man, camera... TV!" episode. Just one or two sentences on gaffes would be fine, though. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  On further thought, no gaffes, but maybe a sentence or two on his most famous ones. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per several cogent statements above. The RfC question is very broadly framed and only a narrow slice of what's being proposed is even remotely appropriate. Some sort of section on gaffes may be WP:DUE given enough press coverage, but armchair speculation about Biden's mental health is never going to be unencyclopedic. Generalrelative (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Inappropriate. Every politicians (and most humans) makes gaffes, should every politician have a section. I see no indication Biden makes more than the average president. The relevant gaffes, if they meet a notability criteria, can be inserted in the text there they belong. I agree it sounds like WP:TENDENTIOUS. It's this editor's second attempt at including material about Biden's gaffes and mental health, and they were shut down at the first attempt and now trying again.Eccekevin (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is confused (Here because invited by the bot to a different RFC here). The question is creation of a separate section. The discussion is mostly about a different question (inclusion/exclusion) which is not in the RFC and thus can't be considered a valid RFC exploration of the second topic. It's a slam dunk that the material should be included, and I'm neutral on whether or not it has a separate section. My argument for a separate section is that there is a substantial amount of wp:due material on it. My argument against a separate section is that I'm generally against separate sections defined by a negative aspect because they become invitations to overly expand on the negative aspect. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. (1) "Mental wellness" stuff is bullshit innuendo, and doesn't belong anywhere. (2) the stutter/speech impediment stuff is not a "gaffe" and is already appropriately covered in the early life section. (3) As to actual gaffes/campaign statements, they might merit a sentence or two in various campaign-related articles (e.g. Joe Biden 2008 presidential campaign), or even possibly in a short mention in a comprehensive article on Public image of Joe Biden (if we had one, which we do not), but they don't rise to the level of meriting inclusion in this top-line bio. Neutrality^talk 20:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Neutrality, really really isn't Wikipedia's business to make half assertions on peoples mental states, unless by a trained psychiatrist and diagnosis. Support "Some of Bidens speech mistakes have been characterized as racially charged.[3][4] Biden's speech mistakes have included inaccurate or fabricated historical events, including personal stories.[5][6]", excellent worded, sourced and should be included, mental condition I don't think so. Des Vallee (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Iamreallygoodatcheckers, provided that the paragraph about his mental health is excised. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support the first two paragraphs only, of course. These gaffes have gotten a significant amount of attention, and should be mentioned in some way. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include them in the context of other sections, where they're notable (i.e. widely covered) and neutrally sourced. But I don't see how a compendium of alleged gaffes doesn't devolve into a POV nightmare from Day 1. It also literally invites someone to run to the Trump page and start listing the times he walked up the Air Force One stairs with TP trailing on his shoe, or left his umbrella stranded; or when Obama wore "mom jeans"; or when Bush 2 tried to walk through a locked door, then awkwardly stood there for photos, etc. You're opening up a Pandora's box of petty partisanship that I don't see serves the project in any way. On the other hand, if someone started an article of Presidential Gaffes, then listed them by administration, that might be an excellent article. But to single out one president and not expect the same treatment of others? Not to mention the constant vandalism and edit-warring this section would have. It's just a POV rabbit hole that I don't think it serves us to go down. X4n6 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There is already an entire article on stuff like Bush failing to open a door, see Bushism. I don't think vandalism will be a problem with the protection this article has. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

My point exactly. So let there be one on Bushism and Trumpism, Obamaism, Clintonism, Carterism, Reganism, Bidenism et al. Or even all combined into one article, since some folks don't have one (yet.) So let them all go there. They don't need to be here. Unless you're prepared to have this dedicated section in every POTUS article? Is that what you're advocating? X4n6 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason Obama, Trump, and Clinton don't have articles of that nature is because they didn't receive substantial coverage over their gaffes. Bush and Biden, for the whatever reason it may be, have received substantial coverage for their gaffes. Our place is simply to report what reliable sources say and cover. Biden's gaffes as many arguments above have been widely covered for many years and were one of the main talking points of the 2020 election. The same can't be said for other presidents. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's gaffes have been just as widely reported throughout his public life and during his campaign and tenure. But Trumpism is about a political ideology. No article exists about his gaffes. Although there is an article, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump about his lies. But I also note that Donald Trump does not include a section about his gaffes. I have not tracked his page, but I'm guessing if someone tried to include a section like that, they were checked on either POV or UNDUE grounds. So, for consistency, I think we should follow that lead. X4n6 (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right that there is an article on Trump's lies. Why is there one on Trump's lies, but not Bush or Obama, all presidents lie, right? The reason is for the same reason that this section should be included, Trump's lies garnered more weight by RS than other presidents. We don't have an article on every presidents lies, not because other presidents don't lie, but because Trump lied on an unprecedented level that was substantially covered by the media. Same logic applies to Biden and his gaffes. Also, we are not are not asking for an article here, we are asking for a subsection under the 2020 campaign. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued response(s). I agree about Trump's lies and why they merit not just inclusion in his article, but their own. Sure there's tons of RS. But those lies aren't just a personal quirk. As you said, they "garnered more weight." That's because they affected policy; and as we've sadly just seen - they continue to affect lives. They are consequential, so impossible to ignore. But you didn't acknowledge that Trump is also a gaffe machine. But you wouldn't know that by any section in his article. Gerald Ford was also a gaffe machine, famously prone to trips and falls. They made Chevy Chase a star on SNL. They're in Ford's article, but don't merit a separate section. George H. W. Bush committed arguably the most famous gaffe of all time, when he vomited into Japanese prime minister, Kiichi Miyazawa's lap at a banquet held in Bush's honor in Japan. But there's no section about it in his article. You won't even find a word about it there. But George H. W. Bush vomiting incident exists. Bush 1's quirky aversion to broccoli isn't mentioned in his article, but George H. W. Bush broccoli comments exists. Despite Reagan's affinity for jellybeans, the word "jellybean" doesn't appear in his article. Obama's thing is basketball. He announced his March Madness brackets every year as president; and even adapted the WH tennis court for tennis and basketball. But "basketball" doesn't appear in his article. So there's evidence of an established pattern that personal quirks, which is all a gaffe is, don't merit sections in presidential articles. They may or may not be their own articles. But sections in president's articles seem to focus on areas of policy and consequence, and personal quirks are inconsequential. I think that precedent is well established and persuasive. We need to aim for consistency. So I'm sorry, because I appreciate your advocacy: but the more I looked the more it became very clear, at least to me, that there's no place for this section in this article. Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Biden's gaffes aren't a personal quirk/hobby or one-time incident, though, they're routine and have occurred numerous times throughout his political career. I don't think they're comparable to Bush's views on broccoli or Obama liking basketball. CaliIndie (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaffes are indeed nothing more than personal quirks. Can you give examples of where they've been elevated to the level of having policy consequences? And can you show any similarly dedicated sections in any other articles about presidents? X4n6 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

They may be nothing more than personal quirks in your eyes, but to others it's a defining characteristic and that seems to be the case with the number of RS having detailed it over the many years. I don't see how they need to hold policy leverage to see inclusion, that seems like an arbitrary barrier and articles on presidents aren't explicitly about their presidency, which is why they have separate articles for that, like this one for Biden. CaliIndie (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First, it's not just in my eyes: as noted by how interchangeably they're used here; as noted in this 2013 article from Australia; and even this one explaining Trump's unwavering support among some, despite his own history of gaffes and quirks. Your link to the Biden Administration misses the point. You still have not offered any examples of similar sections in other president's biographical articles, which are what I referenced in every example I provided. If/when you can provide any, we can discuss them. But until then, I have confidence in my rationale and am very comfortable with my vote. X4n6 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so you believe that Biden's gaffes shouldn't be included because they don't affect policy or are just simply not significant. His gaffes have had major effects for his career, Julian Castro targeted him because of it during the primary, of course Trump brought it up, and many RS have stated they hurt his chance with voters. One reference above stated he could lose support from the black community because of his comments that have been characterized as gaffes. They may not necessarily effect policy, but they effect Biden and his career. I don't think the same can be said about Obama being a basketball fan. Also, your belief that it has to effect policy really isn't a policy or guideline on Wikipedia. We are supposed to give due weight to a subject and right now, not mentioning arguably one of the biggest talking points of the election is not giving proper weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

While I enjoy a vigorous debate, I've already explained my reasoning, more thoroughly than anyone else. I oppose the section on multiple grounds. Notwithstanding Julian Castro and whatever effect some writers thought there may have been on African American voters, those concerns did not materialize. And in Biden's near half century public career, if the gaffes had significantly affected him performance, surely we'd have known it before his presidency. In the last election they provided some campaign election fodder: but so did Trump's small hands; Rubio questioning the size of Trump's other anatomy; Cruz's supposedly ugly wife, claims of his father's alleged link to the JFK assassination, and his disqualifying Canadian birth; Jeb's "please clap"; et al. Should there also be a section on "Trump's Campaign Taunts:" about "Sleepy Joe;" hiding in the basement; his huge mask; and Trump possibly having to leave the country if he lost to "this guy?" I still maintain his gaffes are quirks and even gave links that agreed. And I've pointed out we don't have similar sections in similar articles. That's a good safeguard against POV creep. You haven't addressed that concern, while arguing that mine don't comport with WP policy or guidelines, which WP:NPOV is. You also noted we're supposed to give due weight, but didn't mention WP:UNDUE - and perhaps more importantly, WP:PROPORTION. I've also said I was fine with a separate article. Maybe channel your energy there. But as I've explained, now ad nauseum, I oppose a separate section here. So I don't see a point to more debate. Since I haven't persuaded you to change your mind either. X4n6 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. (Summoned by bot) I endorse X4n6's logic that I think it's perfectly reasonable to include them in the context of other sections, where they're notable (i.e. widely covered) and neutrally sourced. It isn't clear that this Biden trait has acquired anything like the general coverage of Bush's verbal irregularities yet, nor what would be gained here by extrapolating a general principle from specific occurences. I also agree with North8000's comments about the general undesirability of a separate section on a perceived negative trait unless the trait acquires a much more substantive coverage than seems to be the case here. The (fairly tenuous IMO) justification for the Bushism article is that someone other than WP coined the term after noting the tendency and disecting it. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Very clearly WP:DUE weight given the number of RSs that have covered his plethora gaffes, lies, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This appears to be an excuse to insinuate Trump's campaign narratives about mental decline. Citing Julian Castro is preposterous. His attempt to push the senility button marked the end of his candidacy, possibly his political career. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Biden's bizarre statements are frequently reported. It's part of his political style which allows him to be excused for offensive statements and endears people to him. There's extensive coverage of Trump's misstatements which are similar although Trump is from the opposing political party. It's useful for readers who hear Biden say something stupid or offensive so they don't get alarmed. TFD (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, every politician makes gaffes, and Biden's during the 2020 campaign weren't more frequent or more significant. Second, his (perceived) tendency to put his foot in it is a major part of his public persona (he's even made fun of himself for it) and not a particular trait of the 2020 campaign. This is already mentioned throughout the article and also addressed directly in the article under "Reputation," which I think is sufficient. --Tserton (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support If this was Donald Trump, it would have been there, no questions asked. 12:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4100:820:2439:F1E3:CF8C:963A (talk)
• Support Joe Biden's gaffes have been covered a numerous amount of times and he has been mocked for it as well on television and by the press. Excluding its inclusion would not be fair and unbiased reporting for this article.2600:1700:BF40:A1E0:D932:3B0E:8590:DE08 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CSECTION. Any events that were covered enough should be included per their due weight, but mentioned in prose. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Are mother and child OK? EEng 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaff

Gaffe

EEng

Gaff

• Oppose So it appears that, no, we do not, in fact, have a similar section in our article about Donny, who was at least as notable for his gaffs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Slatersteven, That's because Trump doesn't nearly gaffe as much as Joe Biden, Not to the point where news sources are significantly talking his gaffes and it used by your opponent as a negative campaign strategy against them. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump doesn't gaffe? Trump was in the news almost every day for his gaffes. Trump's disinfectant gaffe was used as an attack by Biden in the debates. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump was (ir)responsible for a covfefe of gaffes on an almost daily basis. nagualdesign 03:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Says the candidate that literally gaffed one the most embarrassing statements during his 2020 campaign, and I quote "If you have a problem figuring whether for me or trump, then you ain't black" [1]. Biden also claimed that "we didn't have" the covid-19 vaccine before he took office [2]. And let's not remind people, he has whole 20 minute compilation of just his gaffes. [3], [4], [5]. And trump did dozen of youtube campaign ads, some of them ending up on television, of Trump emphasizing Biden's gaffes. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05, the point is, both gaffed just as much, or pretty much even. The most embarrassing statement comment, that's objective, and falls under WP:OR. If you'd like compare gaffes, Trump called Nazis "very fine people", gets "constant negative press covfefe", called Tim Cook "Tim Apple", likes to eat "hamberders", is President of "the United Shaysh", wants to find the "oranges of the investigation"... do you see where this is going? We can compare all day, and it'll get us nowhere. It would be appreciated if you found a source saying that Biden gaffed more than Trump. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support gaffe section, Biden is very notorious for his vary of gaffes he does. This is very sourced and covered information that Biden himself has even acknowledged. I think this should warrant some sort of mention in this article in a extremely neutral format to not be a BLP violation. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose agreeing with Tserton, whose points match what I think. Acalamari 13:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not extensively covered by reliable sources. Anything that's really newsworthy (such as accidentally launching nuclear missiles) could be mentioned in other coverage of the event or issue. And similar to a "Criticism" section (see WP:CRIT) such a section would be a crap magnet. Sundayclose (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Biden has been known for his gaffes.Sea Ane (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose If you do it here then you’ve got to do it for every politician. You see how pointless and tedious that becomes because someone mispronounced a name or forgot a word? Trillfendi (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly long term and extensive coverage of the topic. With the mental fitness stuff removed I don't see why there would be an issue. I don't buy the argument that if you do it here you have to do it everywhere. Biden is know for it, he is pretty prolific doing it, while others are not as known for it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Has there been any mention of possible invocation of Section 4 of the 25th amendment? GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not that I've heard of. There may be some speculation, but those are unsubstantiated and isn't of any notability. If you have a reliable source for it, then go ahead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We have an article on Trump, do we have a section on Gaffs?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven No, because Trump's gaffes haven't received wide spread coverage throughout his entire career, but don't worry we have sections on him lying, his "racial views", inciting violence, and all that sort of stuff that we would never add on another president or Biden's page because reliable sources have covered that for him. The same logic applies here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Really?, he had a career of 4 years, and yes it did get a lot of coverage [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And as does Biden. I don't think this argument should boil down to whataboutism involving Trump all the time. Biden is gaffe prone to the extreme and it plagued his campaign and destroyed the career of a former Obama official, Julian Castro, cause he tried tying it to his mental acuity. I think this warrants mention. CaliIndie (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a recent (February 2021) video on Bitchute with Biden apparently completely losing his memory and saying "What am I doing here?" 81.154.172.180 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Do any RS cover this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

References

New picture?

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

---

I'm thinking there should be a more up-to-date picture of Biden on his infobox, not only is the portait currently displayed from 2013, it's his VP portait.

Maybe at least a placeholder can be added until Biden gets an official presidential portrait? SpicyCheese (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should stay as is for now since it:: is the most recent official portraits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO it should be replaced. His VP picture is from 2013, and the Biden White House has already released an official professional picture of him on the White House website. Since it's a US federal government sanctioned picture it should update the 2013 one. If it matters, the Kamala Harris page has already updated her official picture for 2021, and if her posture is an issue, her posture is the same as Biden's. At least the new pic should be a placeholder until there is one facing straight. Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I get the feeling this might be the official presidential portrait - or at least what the White House intends to go with for the foreseeable future. Looking at Kamala Harris's most recent portrait, they seem to be taking a less traditional route with their portraits. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The Kamala one is an actual portrait picture from after the inauguration. The 2020 Biden pic is taken from a rally, is not a portrait and is before he was inagurated. They're clearly still working on an official one.Eccekevin (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally prefer the look of the old portrait - his expression in this one looks kinda uncomfortable, to me - but since the white house has published this as somewhat-official, I think we should go with it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I did not know about this picture, while not the usual posture, if the US government is using it then so be it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This was already discussed here. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep current and wait Until an official one is released. This was taken before his presidency, so it makes sense to wait fot he official presdientail portrait picture.Eccekevin (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The current photo is way better than File:Portrait_of_United_States_President_Joe_Biden.jpg. It still looks the way he looks now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The 2020 photo is awkward pose, lower quality, not official, and not a portrait. Eccekevin (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose — We can wait a couple more months to get the official portrait. Per Eccekevin, it's an awkward pose, low quality, and not an official portrait. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Eccekevin. As Thanoscar21 says, we can wait. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - there was a time I would've opposed, but it's getting too much now and we really, really need to update this portrait with at least an interim one if this isn't the "official" portrait. Looking through the logs we had updated Trump's with one which wasn't his official portrait but an interim one so-to-speak so he had a somewhat updated variant. At this point it's been 8 years between Biden in the photo and Biden now and I don't care if to some people he looks the same, we need to make the president look like he does now otherwise we're being deceptive to a certain extent. CaliIndie (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Is it really deceptive, though? For citizenship photos in the US, you go ten years without updating your passport picture. What's here on Wikipedia is less than that; by the end of this year, there will certainly be an official picture. Additionally, take a look at Jimmy Carter. His portrait was taken in 1977, and he's still alive. If we change this, then why not change that? The point is that official portraits are official, higher quality, and a pose for the camera. This proposed picture is grainy, his face isn't pointed at the camera, and he looks strained. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Carter is a false equivalency since most people going to his Wikipedia page will majorly be for there for Carter the president and not Carter the governor of Georiga or Carter the Habitats for Humanity worker, so to have his portrait be when he was the president makes perfect sense. Same as with Biden, most people are here for Biden the president, not Biden the vice president. In that way it's deceptive, even with the caption. CaliIndie (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, maybe the Carter thing was a bad analogy, but what I'm trying to say is that we can wait a few more months. This isn't urgent. And plus, by those same standards, this picture was taken in August, before he was president. This picture is lower quality as well. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There's really no urgency, and I don't see how this is at all deceptive. The goal of a Wikipedia picture is to identify a person, not to give the most recent possible picture.Eccekevin (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as he is not facing the camera. This is a candid shot, not a portrait, and I think a portrait is more appropriate. What's the rush? (*rhetorical question) nagualdesign 02:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - For all that his holy on Mount Rushmore, please wait until the White House releases Biden's presidential portrait. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Candid shot, not even facing the camera. ValarianB (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

How about this image?

I think we could use this image until Biden's portrait comes out. He is smiling and I think we could make use of it beforehand. Interstellarity (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - For reasons I supported the last proposal. CaliIndie (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is all pointless fiddling. There is no problem with the current picture and a new official picture should be available soon. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Honestly, what is the big emergency behind replacing the current image? Wait until the WH releases Biden's presidential portrait, complete with flag. There's no emergency here. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• You could play off the very real concern that the most powerful man on Earth is behind in his depiction on one of the most valuable sources of modern information by nearly a decade, but some of us would rather we keep up with the times. CaliIndie (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Very real concern"? So it's an old picture. So, what? How is that anything to be "concerned" about. It's not going to cause war, famine, plague, and death. It's not even going to cause the sporting event broadcast to start a bit late. And, if you can't recognize current-Biden from the picture here, the problem isn't with the picture. The problem lies in either your eyes or your brain. --Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• So am I the one acting out of sorts for wanting to just literally update a photo or are you as you compare that proposition to the four horsemen of the apocalypse and tell me I'm borderline invalid. Guess this is the gutter the talk page is residing in right now. CaliIndie (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I think we need to update the infobox image. The current one is to old. This is a good image, it will be a good place holder till his official portrait comes out. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  Too old? The only thing that's changed a bit from the old one is that his hair has thinned a bit. This picture is from an Instagram post. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I'm all for getting a new image in the infobox for politician especially if there's lots of images to choose from and the current one is 8 years old. We need to have a image that represent President Biden now. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  He looks exactly the same as he did eight years ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose — what's the hurry? Can't we wait a couple months for the official portrait? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We should use only official one not bad random pictures. Just wait longer. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. Just stick with the official 2013 image until/unless there's an official 2021 image. There is nothing wrong with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Most powerful oppose on Earth as, once again, this a candid shot not a portrait, and he is not facing the camera (well, his face is but his eyes aren't). And again, what's the rush? It should be clear already that the consensus is to wait for his official presidential portrait, which should be any time now. As long as the current caption states that it was taken in 2013 there's no issue. nagualdesign 03:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Stick to official portraits, not screengrabs from social media. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Much prefer an official portrait. ~ HAL333 22:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Thanoscar21 and HAL. Eccekevin (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Seems like we are not the only ones waiting Eccekevin (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

RfC: How about we add this political timeline template?

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

---

I have made a timeline highlighting the entire political career of Joe Biden. I think we can add this template in this Article as users will find this template easier to read and interpret, rather than going through a number of paragraphs. Use {{Timeline of Joe Biden's Political career}}. Thank you. CX Zoom (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Note: We can also make it collapsible, if it gains consensus. See User:CX Zoom/TestPage3, which is the one transcluded at the right of this discussion. Thank you.

Timeline of Joe Biden's political career

CX Zoom (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I think it's pretty nice. I don't really know where it could go; perhaps the President (2021 – present) section? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Could it be made collapsible as well? That way it could possibly fit in more places without taking up too much space. Connormah (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it is possible Connormah, you can see the same at User:CX Zoom/TestPage3, which is also present in this page, below the expanded version. I have not yet edited Template:Timeline of Joe Biden's Political career to avoid confusion between the expanded and collapsed versions. CX Zoom (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose it looks as confusing as hell, too many things in one table. This is not the kind of time line you can build down to X followed Y.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Slatersteven's sentiment. The text is also all messed up when I view it on a tablet. ~ HAL333 18:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems a bit off on my desktop PC, its like the font is too big for the rows or something. Too much in too little.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I had set the font size to be lesser wherever appropriate but User:Jonesey95 changed them all to the regular font size (see [7]). CX Zoom (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Which then might make it unreadable as the font will be too small, as I said "Too much in too little".Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually I had no idea of how this would look like in mobile view. I had a view of this in mobile view and its kinda very surprising to me because there are plenty of Scientific (geological, astronomical, biological) and historical timelines on Wikipedia, which all suffer from the same issues (see Timeline of the early universe and Timeline of human evolution among many others) CX Zoom (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so I've fixed the issue in mobile view as noted by HAL333 by using em units instead of default px units. CX Zoom (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this would be more suitable on one of his subarticles? ~ HAL333 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No, adds nothing of value to the reader. Biden's electoral history is displayed succinctly in Joe_Biden#Electoral_history, with more detail at Electoral history of Joe Biden. ValarianB (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per ValarianB Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I admire the work put into this graph here, but it's not nessecary at all and doesn't accomplice anything you can't get from the infobox alone. CaliIndie (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — I've commented out the uncollapsed one since the uncollapsed one is messing with the formatting of the rest of the page. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I do think it's a cool chart and I admire the work to create it. I would support it being at Electoral history of Joe Biden. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Pretty much as I said in my comments in the Pelosi RfC: While I appreciate that it must have taken a lot of work to create and refine, I have to say that it does not appeal to me. My first response is that it's an accessibility nightmare, although I think all timelines (e.g., for band line-up changes) are themselves inaccessible, so some users will always have to rely on the text being provided in the article.
  Even for me as a (mostly) sighted user, the effect is overcrowdedness. It looks a little broken, a bit misaligned, a little crammed, the fonts mismatched, etc., although I realize the weird capitalization could be fixed. The green- and especially orange-colored links are certainly unexpected, and not at all reassuring.
  I would certainly prefer not to see these added to bio pages, although Iamreallygoodatcheckers' comment just above makes me think about how suitable it might be at Electoral history of Joe Biden (or others' similar articles). Maybe it's just too new a form (and I'm too old?), but it takes time to parse, and seems not to add enough to my understanding. I am therefore not in favor. Sorry, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per what CaliIndie said. Eccekevin (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate the effort that you put into making the graph, but it is needless.Sea Ane (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support and it can be improved upon over time. I’m not coming across any Wikipedia policy against its inclusion and it appears to meet expectation for WP:Graph, which supports it. TruthGuardians (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be inclined to support—I like it, so long as it's collapsible. Go Phightins! 22:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Joe Biden IS the President of the United States of America

I liked how this article began as written on 20 January 2021. The way it reads now, "Serving as POTUS" sounds like something the Trump Supporters would push forward. Please change. For now, its not Neutral and its disrespectful in my opinion. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

TimeTravler777777, do you mean:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States.

Yeah, I agree the current lead has an odd flow to it ("retired attorney", ^{[n 2]}). but it's certainly not disrespectful in any way. I don't see any discussion to change it (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I've gone ahead and changed it back to how it was before. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There was such a discussion, with the consensus being to use "...served as...". GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, is there consensus for the ^{[n 2]} and the "retired attorney" wording? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Check the talkpage archives. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything, just a proposal to remove "American politician" from the lede that didn't seem to come to any consensus. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

My energy-level is quite low, these days. By all means, do here (and at Kamala Harris) what you think best. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think we should use "is" rather than "serving as". That's how it was for both Trump's page and Obama's. Eccekevin (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Retired attorney"?

I oppose "retired attorney". He has a law degree, so he is an attorney. And he doesn't actively practice law, but that doesn't make him "retired". But his career has been entirely as a politician, and that is his identity, and that's how we should identify him. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's the history. "Retired attorney" seems to have been aded March 2 by User:Thomascampbell123 with the edit summary "he was previously an attorney" (no mention of discussion or consensus). As far as I can tell that phrase was never in the article before, so it is new content. On March 7 User:Thanoscar21 removed it, saying "revert change to the lead, no discussion to change it". User:GoodDay immediately restored it, saying "There was such a discussion". Well, was there? I can find no such discussion on this current talk page (which is where it should be since it was only introduced to the article on March 2) or in the archives. And since it was newly introduced to the article a few days ago, it should be removed until this discussion reaches a consensus. I am going to remove it while we continue to discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Biden retired from practicing law in the early 1970s so that should be used in his description. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thomascampbell123, it shouldn't be in the lede. AFAIK, he's spent the last 51 years in politics, since winning the New Castle City Counsellorship, and history will certainly remember him as a POTUS, not as a lawyer. That info can be added in the body. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, he's already listed as a lawyer in the occupations section. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence ought to read, "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is the 46th president of the United States." Even the bit about being an American politician is moot, at least in the lead. nagualdesign 00:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

nagualdesign I don't think so, we want to state that he's an American politician, because he has served other positions too.

That's implicit in the phrase, "president of the United States". nagualdesign 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't really indicate that he served in prior political positions. Trump was POTUS but that was the only political office he held. Agree with removing retired attorney though, he isn't notable for that. WildComet (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It does indicate that at this very moment he's an American politician. And the phrase "is an American politician" does not indicate that he served in prior political positions. nagualdesign 11:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:nagualdesign, it should state: "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is the 46th president of the United States.". "American politician" is implied, and the facts that he is an attorney can be mentioned elsewhere in the lede. Eccekevin (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think we should use "is" rather than "serving as". That's how it was for both Trump's page and Obama's. Eccekevin (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Eccekevin, that was because Trump was a businessman/television guy. If you look at Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, they all have "American politician", because they all had previous political careers. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 16:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Thanoscar21 if I was unclear. I wasn't talking about "American politician", I am talking about "is" vs. "serving as".Eccekevin (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, understood. I don't really have a preference for either, though I think maybe "serving as" is more formal. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The page still uses "Serving as" instead of the more proper "is". Serving as indicates to those I have polled as being nothing more than Caretaker at best and Acting President at worse. I am now considering applying the banner "Neutrality in dispute" to the top of President Bidens page. I realise a lot of people accept what discredited Trump claims that he won, but reality overrules you all. Joe Biden IS the President of the United States. Sorry please get with reality. I do not consider "Serving as" to be anything but a slur against President Biden. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems that there are some opinions proposing 'is', and Thanoscar21 who is neutral. If no one objects, I'll make the switch, but I'll wait for more opinons. Eccekevin (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should have a formal RfC for that. Starting that below. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

Both the lead and the presidency section should include the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, described in RS as President Biden's first major legislative achievement. RedHotPear (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RedHotPear, agreed, reasonable coverage of it should also be included in the body of the article if it is not already. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes! It should go in the presidency section of the body as well as the lead. The presidency portions in both the lead and the body are currently out of balance, with several long sentences on executive orders but none on the American Rescue Plan Act. RedHotPear (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

RedHotPear, agreed again. I think that unless anyone raises any objections in say, the next 24 hours, you should be WP:BOLD and make the sensible changes you describe. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Support adding ARP to lede and the article. Would also support significantly condensing the "day one" executive orders list in the lede (perhaps eliminating it almost entirely) to ensure due weight. Go Phightins! 23:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose including the ARPA in the lede. The ARPA isn't a defining moment in his presidency; just because it's his first major bill is, IMO, not sufficient grounds to have it there. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• What do you think about the inclusion of what's there already about his presidency? Surely ARP is more significant than, say, reaffirming DACA protections (both generally and, more importantly, in how it is covered by reliable sources). From a reliable sources perspective, I do think ARP is being viewed as a potential landmark, potential recentism notwithstanding. Just as one example, NY Times columnists from the left and the right are referring to the bill as a paradigm-shifting moment that may well resemble the most important expansion of the social safety net in decades. Obviously, we'll know more in time, but given that this is the single legislative achievement to date, it is the cornerstone of the "first 100 days agenda" as priority one for his administration, and it is one of the largest appropriations in American history, it strikes me as worth mentioning. Go Phightins! 01:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • In the long term, DACA will matter to more people than a stimulus package for the short term (for example, who really cares about the CARES act now?). I think maybe we can come back and add things about his presidency in the lead after a couple months; by then, we'll probably have an idea of whether or not the ARPA will be remembered more than the CARES act, which was bigger. On a side note, the CARES act isn't in Trump's page, but that's just because he does so many... questionable things, as well as the page size (430 kB!). Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, strongly disagree re: your comparison about whether DACA matters more than a massive stimulus package including a child tax credit that will go to tens of millions of households, but that's really beside the point. It matters how reliable sources are framing them, and there is little question that, at this point, they are treating ARP as a hugely significant win for Biden with huge policy implications. Maybe that will change down the line, but when I read WP:LEDE, the direction to ensure "emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" points to a pretty clear taxonomy of what should and should not be included as of March 2021. Go Phightins! 23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Go Phightins! If his overseeing infrastructure spending as vice president for the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is leadworthy, then surely his proposal, advocacy, and ultimate signing of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 is as well. Also echoing that reliable sources have given the bill substantially above-the-norm weight and coverage. RedHotPear (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Go Phightins!, we should condense the "day one" stuff and include this bill, which is one of the largest bills in US spending history, and even if it just passed is obviously an important part of his presidency. Eccekevin (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Shorten paragraph dedicated to Vice-Presidency in lead

The lead for this article is in danger of becoming too long, and the problem will only grow worse as Biden's presidency continues. We should summarize or remove much of the paragraph dedicated to Biden's vice-presidency. For comparison, see George H.W. Bush or Richard Nixon - in both cases, basically only a single sentence is given to their Vice-Presidencies. Readers both today and in the future will be better served by greater emphasis on Biden's origins and Presidency than his work as Vice-President. Thoughts? Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I mentioned on an earlier version of this talk page that the George H.W. Bush lead is a good model to use for Biden as they both had fairly similar political resumes before being President. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. Perhaps the third paragraph could read something like: Biden was reelected to the Senate six times, and was the fourth-most senior senator when he resigned to serve as Barack Obama's vice president after they won the 2008 presidential election. During eight years as vice president, Biden frequently represented the administration in negotiations with Congress and advised the president on maters of foreign policy. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction, making him the first president to receive it before taking office. Go Phightins! 00:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Compared to previous Vice-Presidents, Biden did indeed do more than usual. It harkens back to the fact that when he first agreed to be VP, he did ask for certain areas in which he'd play a more active role - similarly, he mentioned he would want the same from his own VP. So I think it's fair to say that, especially when it comes to his work with Congress, he did most than your average VP, so the parallelism with George HW Bush does not work well. I would not remove from the lede some of the major legislation he played an important part in as VP. Eccekevin (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Go Phightins!, this looks pretty good to me (typo on "matters"). I'd be in favor of replacing the existing material in the lead with this. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch on the typo, Ganesha811. Eccekevin, I understand your point, but I think the concern is that there is going to continue to be a need for the lede to address aspects of his presidency such that something is going to have to give. The vice presidency is covered in detail in the article, and it strikes me that there is an opportunity to do a more parsimonious summary here without losing meaning. Honestly, it's not entirely clear to me that the specific episodes mentioned in the lede are the most consequential per reliable sources except for, perhaps, the debt ceiling and implementing stimulus. I'd be fine keeping those two particulars in if that might be a possible compromise here. Go Phightins! 16:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. It is true on the other hand that he's been president for not long yet, so there's no need to rush. The lede is also not particularly long, especially for such a high-profile figure, so I don't see the urge to cut. That said, I agree some cutting and synthesizing can be done in the VP paragraph, but I urge caution. I'd also ass that among the things I'd leave the Iraq part, as Biden has had quite a large role in those decisions, as Obama himself has said often. I think instead of cutting elements, we could cut the little explanations (such as "which resolved a taxation deadlock;" etc, since the reader can follow the link for the Legislation and find it for themselves). Eccekevin (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I took a gentle swing at trimming the paragraph just now. For one thing, I moved what was the lead sentence to the end of the prior paragraph since it dealt with his time in the Senate. More than happy to keep this conversation going and/or for anyone who's interested to take another swing. I agree with Eccekevin that there's no particular rush. My own concern is mainly about undue weight; length, at this point, is secondary. Go Phightins! 22:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I like what you did moving the election on the paragraph above and shortening it. Concerning the legislation that you cut, I think it's fine, but I re-added the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 because Biden was instrumental in its passing, since it was due to a deal between him and McConnnel. Again, I agree with you that it's about weight here since we have plenty of space. Eccekevin (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Go Phightins! 22:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Unless others have huge objections, I think we came to an agreement. Eccekevin (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this has been taken care of at this point? Go Phightins! 22:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Go Phightins!, further adjustments will be needed as Biden's presidency continues, but I agree we're at a good place for now. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, Yep. Concur. I think that's right. Go Phightins! 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: "serving as" vs. "is"

Should the lead be written as:

A:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.^{[n 1]} (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th president of the United States.

B:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.^{[n 1]} (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician serving as the 46th president of the United States.

I don't have any preference yet, I'll chime in once a few points are made. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the same points raised in the Donald Trump discussion on the same thing apply here. There are some trends on which presidents "who is" vs "serving as" (or the past tense of each) is used. There is no logical answer to this question that solely applies to Joe Biden or any single president. Accordingly, it should probably be discussed on a relevant WikiProject or MOS talk page as a general matter for presidents, or for office holders in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• While I concur that this is a question that should have a project-wide MOS-informed answer, I strongly prefer the "serving as" construction because it recognizes that President of the United States is an office one holds, not a person one becomes (i.e. a monarchy). This is informed more by democratic/linguistic values than any particular Wikipedia policy, though. Go Phightins! 01:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• "Is" is more appropriate, since "serving as" can suggest something akin an Acting President. "Is" is what was used for Donald Trump and previous presidents, so I do not see why it should not be used for Joe Biden. Serve is also clunkier and awkward. One does not say "Who served as President in 1895?", but "Who was President in 1895", for example. In the present tense, we wouldn't say "Who is serving ass the President of the United States", but we would say "Who is President of the United States?'. Eccekevin (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait.. who's serving ass?! nagualdesign 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Who Is" - I agree with @Eccekevin above--Steamboat2020 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is - per Eccekevin. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• is per Donald Trump as of 3/16/17 and Barack Obama as of 3/16/09. ValarianB (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is per Eccekevin – "serving as" seems clunky to me, and I don't feel any of the monarchistic allusions Go Phightins! is talking about. Actually, I think I prefer and the over either of the two. Volteer1 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• is. "serving as" sounds less definitive somehow. Perfectly standard English and nothing to do with "the person one becomes". nagualdesign 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I also don't see any of the monarchical allusions. We use "is" all the time to refer to politicians when refering to the position they hold, without any allusions to non-democratic systems.Eccekevin (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not just politicians; My Old Man's a Dustman, Pearl's a Singer and Jerry Was a Race Car Driver. nagualdesign 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• and like in our Trump article during his presidency (see ValarianB above). --Distelfinck (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we've pretty much reached a consensus here. Happy to withdraw my comment. It's a preference, and probably just an idiosyncratic one that struck me in the moment. No concern if someone wants to make the change. Go Phightins! 22:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is per EccekevinSea Ane (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Serving as - unless we're going to make a corresponding change in the Kamala Harris intro. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• "Who is" (Summoned by bot) - is plain, clear, concise English and normal phrasing. I'm not quite sure what 'serving as' is intended to convey, but it certainly implies some doubt about whether the person really is in that position for the foreseeable future, or is simply the 'stand-in'. I was puzzled when I first came across this usage on WP and still don't see why it is used or what precisely it hopes to convey. Pincrete (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2021

There should be a comma before Jr., as mentioned at the White House here and here. There's also a page here. 79.97.94.94 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia style prefers to omit the comma. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Generational_and_regnal_suffixes. RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Only admins should edit Joe Biden because other people could vandelize 2601:1C2:101:3480:6C4E:310B:BAB0:DE2A (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That can be said of any page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

When was the last time this page was vandalized? There's only about 1,000 administrators, and a fraction of those are active, and a fraction of those are interested in updating politics articles constantly. It just makes no sense to fully protect (protect so only admins can edit) this page when there's clearly no need. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 19:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the page is not fully protected. It's under extended-confirmed protection. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of those admins (like me) have this page watchlisted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)