Talk:Joe Biden

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 [1]). 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.

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)
• who is currently serving as the 46th president... – I think "46th and current" is a unnecessarily wordy in my opinion; I also think it sounds better (though I admit that's hard to substantiate). chri. (talk | contribs) 00:15, 22 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)

Border crisis

Over 100,000 people crossed into the US into the last month. There's literally boats crossing all day smuggling in people and crowds of people walking through Mexico. The Texas Guard has been deployed. Some towns in southern Texas have been experiencing problems with security from illegal immigrants. Why doesn't the article on Biden or the Presidency of Joe Biden even mention the border issue? Why are we censoring Wikipedia like the mainstream media? † Encyclopædius 17:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have any reliable secondary sources to back up what you're saying I suggest that you add this information to U.S.-Mexico border crisis. This article is about Joe Biden, and unless there has been significant coverage directly linking what you're saying to Joe Biden, as you seem to be asserting, this would not be an appropriate article to mention it. That has nothing to do with censorship. nagualdesign 22:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't have anything to do with censorship, but I think it does merit a sentence or two. Biden made his first address to the nation about the border issue, so it's not a small issue. Encyclopædius, you could add something through the BRD. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thanoscar21: - Biden's first address was actually on COVID. He had an interview where he addressed the border. starship.paint (exalt) 04:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The whole Presidency section is in a crappy state. Currently we're just mouthing-off the press releases of the Biden administration, direct quotes and nothing more. No mention of the well-reported drop of stimulus checks from 2k to 1.4k, nor the recent quotation of Biden calling Vladimir Putin a "killer" which resulted in the Russian ambassador to the U.S. being recalled for the first time in over 20 years. The border crisis is another aspect of this total absence of any substantive coverage of his presidency currently in the article. CaliIndie (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, agreed.† Encyclopædius 12:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Also the claim the parliamentarian was the reason the minimum wage increase was axed is a falsehood, the parliamentarian could've been overruled but the article implies the parliamentarian has final say. CaliIndie (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What drop in stimulus checks? There was initial talk of $2000 checks, then $600 checks were approved and sent out, then $1400 checks were approved and sent out. That's not a drop, that's a split. The discussion was always about getting the payouts back to the total of $2000 that had been initially proposed.--Khajidha (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Added In March 2021, amid a rise in migrant adults and unaccompanied migrant children entering the U.S. from Mexico, Biden told migrants: "Don't come over." Biden stated that the U.S. was arranging to create a scheme for migrants to "apply for asylum in place", without leaving their original locations. In the meantime, migrant adults "are being sent back", said Biden, in reference to the continuation of the Trump administration's Title 42 policy for quick deportations. That month, the Biden administration directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help manage unaccompanied migrant children. starship.paint (exalt) 04:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Starship. You know, you don't have to add the full, exact text to the article, and in your edit summary and on the talk page. The content belongs in the article (until somebody argues...); the WP:ES and talk entries can be summaries. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, John. starship.paint (exalt) 15:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does the source say " rise in migrant adults", I can see it talking about a rise among kids?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven original source said largest surge in migrant arrivals in 20 years. Another article: Last week, the DHS said more than 100,441 migrants attempted to cross the border in February alone, the highest since 2019. And 9,297 unaccompanied children were encountered at the US-Mexico border in February, according to official figures. [2]. But you’re right. It doesn’t say adults. It just says ‘migrants’. Would you like to add that back? starship.paint (exalt) 15:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

86 million dollars to put up illegal immigrants in hotel rooms. [3] † Encyclopædius 12:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? Hotels have been used by immigration officials before, including last year, when hundreds of migrants, including children, were held in major hotel chains before being deported under President Donald Trump's pandemic border ban. It seems much more humane than cages. And I'm sure the hotels can use the business. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Do not write "illegal immigrants" here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In all fairness, Obama built the cages. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Migrants and another source says its children. So no I am not going to add back a word that is not supported, not when other sources say children.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

It's more accurate to say that just under 100,000 migrants were detained at the border. While that is high, Trump's administration detained over 130,000 migrants in May 2019.[4] I suppose the estimate of successful migrants is based on the theory that for every migrant detained, at least one makes it through. But that's a big assumption. It's likely that more Mexicans tried to cross the border when Biden became president, mistakenly believing that would be less harsh on illegal immigration. In any case, it doesn't belong in the article until it receives more attention. TFD (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, we need something more substantial, e.g. an EO or passage of a bill regarding this incident. At present, this part is not due for this article. Normchou ^💬 00:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Many outlets have attributed this crisis to Biden directly. He doesn't need to have personally manned the border crossing himself to warrant responsibility. CaliIndie (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

[I]t doesn't belong in the article until it receives more attention. Surely you're joking or I must've misread your statement. This is literally the biggest event of Biden's presidency right now. A quick Google search would paint that picture and probably earn a spot at the Louvre.

Obviously the migrants crossed because Biden was inaugurated and they thought it'd be a free ticket, thanks in no small part because of Biden's own campaign rhetoric. Yes, a border surge happened in 2019, just like it did in 2014 before that, but the difference here is the mismanagement on clear display that even outlets not one to so easily peddle criticism of Biden are taking heed of. And not counting migrants who are merely contained, the number at the border is far exceeding a mere 100k but are estimated at 2 million. I'll say though, with the mounting coverage of this entire crisis, it deserves its own article. CaliIndie (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say that literally the biggest event of Biden's presidency is the coronavirus. Which is why we don't rely on our own personal opinions here. Also please keep WP:RECENTISM in mind. We are not a breaking news service. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm regurgitating the RS consensus and that wasn't even my main point, no opinions of mine were relayed, it's not as if I said something like: It seems much more humane than cages. And I'm sure the hotels can use the business. CaliIndie (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The U.S. government has been detaining illegal immigrants in hotels for decades.[5] It's cheaper than Guantanamo Bay. I agreed that immigration is not the major issue in most news sources, it's coronavirus. TFD (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You are providing sources, which is great, and I'm serious because we're used to getting yelled at and expletives in all caps. His administration is clearly focused primarily on the coronavirus, which is what the sources reflect. What they do on immigration is important and will be included, as appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Health Section?

With the recent stumbling on Air Force One and questions about his mental sharpness, I think it would be useful to address it. Avithemom (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

By all means, present reliable sources for discussion. ValarianB (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

I just request a template photo change. Radixsaurus (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: that's a pretty crummy photo, and quite low res. I don't see the problem with the current one Volteer1 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Radixsaurus can I suggest you undoing the many edits you made to various Wikipedias adding this photo? It's low-quality compared to the current ones in use. Thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"Scheme"

(Copied from User talk:nagualdesign)

In American English, the word "scheme" implies deceit and underhandedness. It is a POV word to use in the article for the President of the United States. It might be totally fine for the Prime Minister of the UK. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, there is no difference between British and American English with the word scheme. You're conflating it with the difference between the noun and the verb. In the article, it is (or was) used as a noun to mean a program enacted by the government, which is perfectly WP:NPOV. A plan can mean something you intend to do, whereas a scheme (or program, initiative or project if you prefer) is something that's implemented, so "arranging a plan" just sounded clunky to me, and your reasoning seemed a bit silly.

I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but we should really leave it to others to decide which wording to use, so in future please follow WP:BRD (ie, don't revert a revert, and post responses on the article talk page).

In case there's any confusion, we're discussing this edit: [6]

nagualdesign 15:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the word scheme here. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't get particularly nefarious vibes from the word "scheme", and I don't think your average American would bat an eye at the phrase emissions trading scheme for instance. In this case though, "plan" is fine and if anything probably better, may as well leave it as it is now. Volteer1 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I see a problem with it. Another editor did as well. This is the BLP of the POTUS, and we're saying that the word "scheme" introduces negative bias: isn't that enough? Isn't it also just as easy to use "plan" or another word with no negative connotations? Also, as evidenced by the redirect, nobody calls it an "emissions trading scheme", it's colloquially called "cap and trade". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said, "plan" is probably better, I don't think we have that substantive of a disagreement. Volteer1 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, I was replying to you and Elli at the same time there. Could've been more clear on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF

Hi ChipotleHater: For sections where WP:SPINOFF already applies, I think we should keep them brief and simple. Normchou ^💬 20:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Posted below, will repost here. @Normchou: I don't understand how WP:SPINOFF applies to the revert you made. No new information was added, no sub-articles were added, and nothing was fundamentally changed in the content. I was merely splitting up the section (as it will be done at some point) to make it both easier to read and follow the standards of other president articles.

I think for a brief summary of the subject, four subheadings are excessive. Normchou ^💬 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF only talks about subpages, not sections within an article. ChipotleHater (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The subject "Presidency (2021–present)" already has its subpages Presidency of Joe Biden and Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency, so per WP:SPINOFF, the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. Normchou ^💬 20:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC); edited 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Minimum wage

@Aoi: @Ganesha811: You two don't understand how the legislative process works, not much else I can say. The minimum wage increase would be included in the bill itself, if you understand, the minimum wage vote was for an amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders because it was left out of the bill by the parliamentarian. Would it have enough votes? I don't care, but to say the parliamentarian has final say, as the article as it stands implies, it "inaccurate as it is written". Biden vouched for a minimum wage, which is included, the parliamentarian could've been overruled if the advocation for a minimum wage held true and was concrete. CaliIndie (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The question still stands on the relevance that has to the article at hand. This article is not about the Minimum Wage, the Senate Parliamentarian, Kamala Harris, or the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, it's about Joe Biden. If you can explain how Kamala Harris not overriding the Senate parliamentarian is relevant to Joe Biden, I'm all ears. But perhaps this piece of information would be more relevant in one of the above-listed articles. ChipotleHater (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, you could make that point but if you do I suggest you remove the chunk pertaining to the parliamentarian cause it's a falsehood as it stands:

Biden also lobbied for an increase of the federal minimum wage, but this was not included in the final bill after the Senate parliamentarian said the provision violated strict rules.

So to any reader looking at this, they'll come away thinking Biden has his hands tied because of the parliamentarian and didn't have anything he could do to stop it. Well he didn't, because as pointed out with my edit:

The parliamentarian could've been overruled by Vice President Kamala Harris, however no action was taken to do so.

This is fair enough, and it was covered by RS at the time to boot. Now either we remove the aforementioned minimum wage advocacy which led to nothing, or we provide this explanation. That's my view. CaliIndie (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

With the Senate parliamentarians ruling, it meant that the amendment would've required 60 votes, not 50, essentially meaning it was all but dead. Sure, Kamala could've ruled over her, but I still don't see the relevance to the article. Biden isn't Kamala, and Kamala isn't Biden. She is her own person, and her not overruling the parliamentarian was her choice, not Biden's. If you can provide a RS that Biden consulted with Kamala to not overrule the parliamentarian, then I would be in favor of adding it. I would suggest adding it to American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 or Presidency of Joe Biden, as that is where you can go in-depth about the political process of the bill. This sentence is merely providing a broad summary of what happened.ChipotleHater (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, so I ask you why even bother providing Biden's lip service over this? Remove this altogether. CaliIndie (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I initially missed this but you wanted some refs for Biden advocating not to overrule so here you go. CaliIndie (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Because his opinion on increasing the minimum wage is relevant to his article. ChipotleHater (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)